DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1-3 and 7 and the cancellation of claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Molema et al. (US 2016/0288348 A1), hereafter known as Molema.
Regarding claim 1, Molema discloses a mounting assembly (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 18) for a hair cutting appliance (Molema, Fig. 1, 10), the mounting assembly comprising:
a head (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 20) for receiving a cutting unit;
a base (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 38) and a mount, wherein the head is mounted to the base via the mount such that the head is pivotably moveable relative to the base about a primary axis (Molema, Fig. 9 and 11, p) and a secondary axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below), wherein the primary axis and the secondary axis are not parallel (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below); and
a first biasing element (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 80a) and a second biasing element (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 80b), wherein the first biasing element and the second biasing element act independently of one another, the biasing elements of Molema are capable of acting independent from each other,
wherein the first biasing element (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 86) and the second biasing element (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 88) are mounted at a fixed point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) and configured to act on the head or the mount at a respective first biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) and second biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) to bias the head during pivotal movement with respect to the base to a stable position, the biasing elements of Molema bias the mount or the head to be the in the stable position shown in Fig. 9 of Molema and would be capable of biasing the head during pivotal movement,
wherein the first biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) and the second biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) are located on the same side of a primary plane (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) which comprises a biasing axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below), parallel to the primary axis (Molema, Fig. 9 and 11, p), about which the first biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) and the second biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) are constrained to pivot relative to the fixed point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below), and a line parallel to a force direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) defined by a biasing force applied at one of the first biasing point or the second biasing point, to bias the head in one pivoting direction to the stable position with respect to the base about the primary axis (Molema, P. 0077), and
wherein the first biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) and the second biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) are located on opposing sides of a secondary plane (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) which comprises the secondary axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below) and a line parallel to the force direction (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) below), to balance the head in the stable position with respect to the base about the secondary axis.
PNG
media_image1.png
567
597
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Molema discloses a mounting assembly according to claim 1, wherein a moment arm of the first biasing point from the biasing axis and a moment arm of the second biasing point from the biasing axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above) are equal in length, as the first biasing point and second biasing point disclosed by Molema are equidistant from each of the biasing axis over the secondary plane the length of the moment arm between a biasing point and a biasing axis on the same side of the secondary plane will have the same or equal length to the corresponding moment arm on the other side of the secondary plane.
Regarding claim 3, Molema discloses a mounting assembly according to claim 1, wherein a moment arm of the first biasing point from the secondary axis is the same length as a moment arm of the second biasing point from the secondary axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above), as the first biasing point and second biasing point disclosed by Molema are equidistant from the secondary axis the length of the moment arm between a biasing point and the secondary axis will be equal.
Regarding claim 7, Molema discloses a mounting assembly according claim 1, comprising a stroke limiter (Molema, Fig. 9, 58 and 60) which is configured to obstruct pivoting movement of the head (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 20) relative to the base (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 38) beyond a limit (Molema, P. 0070).
Regarding claim 8, Molema discloses a mounting assembly according to claim 7, wherein the stroke limiter (Molema, Fig. 9, 58 and 60) is configured to obstruct pivoting movement of the four-bar linkage to thereby inhibit pivoting movement of the head (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 20) relative to the base (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 38) about the primary axis (Molema, Fig. 9 and 11, p) beyond the limit (Molema, P. 0036 and 0038), wherein the biasing force at the first biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above) and the second biasing point (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above) have the same moment direction about the biasing axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above), each of the arms disclosed by Molema have two biasing points where each of the biasing elements contacts the each arm, at these points on the same arm the moment direction will be the same as the biasing element applies the same biasing force against the arm.
Regarding claim 9, Molema discloses a mounting assembly according to claim 7, wherein the stable position is the limit (Molema, P. 0077).
Regarding claim 14, Molema discloses a hair cutting appliance (Molema, Fig. 1, 10) comprising a mounting assembly (Molema, Fig. 2-11, 18) according to claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molema (US 2016/0288348 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Molema teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 1, wherein the mount comprises two arms (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 42 and 44) disposed between the base (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 38) and the head (Molema, Fig. 9-10, 30) to form a linkage (Molema, P. 0067), each arm being coupled at the head, and coupled at a joint (Molema, Fig. 5, 48 and 50) to the base, each joint at each head coupling configured to permit pivoting movement about respective parallel head pivot axes, such that the head is pivotable relative to the base about one of the primary axis and the secondary axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above); wherein the joints at the base are configured to permit pivoting movement of the arms (16) about at least the other of the primary axis and the secondary axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above), although Molema does not disclose that the head pivoting about the secondary axis the head as shown by Molema would be capable of at least some pivotal movement about the secondary axis.
Molema does not teach joints with a respective head coupling on a head and other joints with respective base coupling on a base. While Molema does not teach these couplings it does teach the pivotal movement at each of the joint locations.
Molema further teaches in an embodiment of Fig. 11 a mounting assembly featuring head couplings on a head (Molema, Fig. 11, 52a and 54a) and base couplings on a base (Molema, Fig. 11, 48a and 50a). Such couplings allow for the head, arms and base to be distinct parts into of an integral structure as taught by other embodiments of Molema (Molema, P. 0083).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the joints of Molema with the couplings of the Fig. 11 embodiment of Molema to provide living joints as doing so allows for each of the arms, base and head to be distant components.
Regarding claim 5, Molema teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 4, wherein the joints at the base couplings further permit pivoting movement about respective base pivot axes which are parallel to the head pivot axes (Molema, Fig. 3-4), wherein each arm is coupled to a different respective head coupling (Molema, Fig. 11, 52a and 54a) to permit pivoting movement about different parallel head pivot axes (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above), thereby forming a four-bar linkage (Molema, P. 0083), by which the head is pivotably moveable relative to the base about a virtual pivot axis (Molema, Fig. 9 and 11, p) which is one of the primary axis (Molema, Fig. 9 and 11, p) or the secondary axis (see annotated image 1 of Fig. 9 (Molema) above).
Regarding claim 6, Molema teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 5, wherein the virtual pivot axis is the primary axis (Molema, Fig. 9 and 11, p, P. 0022).
Claims 10 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Molema (US 2016/0288348 A1) in view of Beugels et al. (US 2012/0060382 A1), hereafter known as Beugels.
Regarding claim 10, Molema teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 1.
Molema does not teach wherein each biasing element is a leaf spring.
Beugels teaches a mounting assembly (Beugels, Fig. 5a-5c and 6), wherein the biasing element (Beugels, Fig. 5a-5c and 6, 26 and 32) is a leaf spring (Beugels, P. 0047 and 0050). As the leaf springs of Beugels are a well-known alternative to the torsion springs taught by Molema (Beugels, P. 0015) it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the biasing elements of Molema to be leaf springs as taught by Beugels..
Regarding claim 12, Molema teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 1.
Molema does not teach comprising a stop for each biasing element which is configured to abut the respective biasing element to limit movement of the biasing element to thereby pretension the biasing element.
Beugels teaches a stop (Beugels, Fig. 5a-5c and 6, 23a, 26a, 33a and 33b) for each biasing element (Beugels, Fig. 5a-5c and 6, 26 and 32) which is configured to abut the respective biasing element to limit movement of the biasing element to thereby pretension the biasing element (Beugels, P. 0047 and 0050). This arrangement allows for the spring to be preloaded to provide addition force when pivoting (Beugels, P. 0047 and 0050).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify mounting assembly taught by Molema to comprise a stop for each of the biasing element which is configured to abut the respective biasing element to limit movement of the biasing element to thereby pretension the biasing element as taught by Beugels as doing so allows for the spring to be preloaded to provide additional force when pivoting.
Regarding claim 13, Molema in view of Beugels teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 12, wherein the stop (Beugels, Fig. 5a-5c and 6, 26 and 32) is separate with the biasing element.
Molema in view of Beugels does not teach wherein the stop is integral with the biasing element.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention to modify the stop taught by Molema in view of Beugels to be integral with the biasing element
In the same field of hair cutting appliances, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the stop by forming the stop taught by Molema in view of Beugels to be integral with the biasing element, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to make a component integral if it would be considered desirable for any reason to form the components as a single piece construction. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) and MPEP 2144.04 V(B) "Making Integral". Larson states "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." Since the stop and biasing element taught by Beugels are formed separately a worker in the art could reasonably modify the two components to be formed integral without compromising their functions, thus making a component integral does nothing to enhance the patentability of a design.
Response to Arguments
The applicant asserts that the stable position is shown by the drawings and traverses the drawing objection of record. Based on the applicant’s evidence the Examiner agrees that the stable position is shown by the instant drawings and withdraws the objection of record.
The applicant asserts that claims 1-2 have been amended such that the amended claims overcome the claim objections of record. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the claim objections of record.
The applicant asserts that the “fixed point” of claim 1 is supported by the written description. The Examiner accepts the applicant’s evidence regarding the fixed point and withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) written description rejection of record and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejection of record for claim 1.
The applicant asserts that the “limit” of claim 7 is supported by the claim. The Examiner accepts the applicant’s evidence regarding the limit and withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejection of record for claim 7.
The applicant asserts that the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) indefiniteness rejection of record for claim 11 regarding the “single integral biasing unit” is moot in view of the cancellation of claim 11. The Examiner agrees withdraws the indefiniteness rejection of record.
The applicant asserts that claims 2-3 have been amended such that the amended claims overcome the antecedent basis issue of record. The Examiner agrees and withdraws the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of record for claims 2-3.
The applicant asserts that the prior art of Molema does not disclose each and every limitation arranged as claimed, specifically, the claimed “secondary axis”, the claimed “biasing-point and plane geometry” . The Examiner disagrees. However, first, the Examiner does apologize that the annotated image of Fig. 9 from Molema was not included in the non-final rejection of record. It is supplied above and includes all the features previously refereed to. Turning to the applicant’s assertions, regarding the secondary axis, while Molema does not specifically teach a secondary axis like the instant secondary axis due to the construction of Molema the head would be pivotable about the secondary axis shown in the annotated image to a limited degree. As the limitation only requires that the head pivot with respect to the base about the secondary axis and that the axis not be parallel with the primary axis this limited pivotal movement of the head of Molema sufficiently discloses the claimed limitation. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Second, regarding the biasing-point and plane geometry, the applicant asserts that Molema does not teach the specific structure of the instant invention, specifically unclaimed respective inner protrusions. The Examiner agrees that Molema does not teach inner protrusions and instead teaches outer protrusions, however, these inner protrusions are unclaimed and this appears to be an attempt to import an unclaimed limitation from the specification which would be improper to import into the claims without properly amending the claims and as such the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
The applicant asserts that the “neutral position” disclosed by Molema is not the claimed “stable position” and instead the “start position” disclosed by Molema would be the stable position of Molema. The Examiner disagrees, it should be appreciated by the applicant that Molema when referring to both the neutral position and start position includes the term “may” which indicates that the positions are not limited specifically to one position or another. In P. 0077 it states “the biasing elements 80a may ensure that the four-bar linkage mechanism 32 returns to the start position illustrated in FIG. 8 after being pivoted when in operation” this indicates that the inventor considered other positions than just the start position, the neutral position being another position the inventor discloses. As such, the applicant’s assertion is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert D Cornett whose telephone number is (571) 270-0182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am-5:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT D CORNETT/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights