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 amendment filed March 18th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-13 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated
by Jeroen Molema et al. (US 20160288348 A1 – hereinafter Molema).
Regarding claim 1, Molema teaches a mounting assembly for a hair cutting appliance,
the mounting assembly comprising: a head (Fig. 2, Head 18) configured to receive a cutting unit
(Fig. 2, Blade Set 20); a base (Fig. 2, Base 38), wherein the head is mounted to the base via a
pair of arms to form a linkage (Fig. 2, First Arm 42 and Second Arm 44), each arm being
coupled at a joint to a head coupling (Fig. 2, Film Hinges 52 and 54) on the head, and coupled at
a joint to a respective base coupling (Fig. 2, Film Hinges 48 and 50) on the base, the base
couplings spaced apart along a movement line (Fig. 3, movement line defined by the horizontal
direction in Fig. 3), and each joint configured to permit pivoting movement about parallel pivot
axes (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4); a stroke limiter (Fig. 2, Contact Tab 60) configured to obstruct pivoting
movement of the head relative to the base beyond a limit ([0070]); wherein at least one of the
base couplings is a flexible base coupling (Fig. 2, Film Hinges 48 and 50) which is elastically
mounted to a body of the base such that the respective flexible base coupling is moveable
relative to the body in a direction having a component which is parallel to the movement line and
away from the other base coupling, to permit pivoting movement of the head relative to the base
beyond the limit imposed by the stroke limiter (film hinges are known in the art to be elastic (and
are therefore elastically mounted), and subject to linear deformation due to stretching and
compressing during operation. This linear deformation would include a component which is
parallel to the movement line during normal operation in this device. Linear deformation such as
stretching and compressing would also allow pivot movement of the head relative to the base
beyond the limit imposed by the stroke limiter under an appropriate amount of force).
Regarding claim 2, Molema further teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 1,
wherein each arm (Fig. 2, First Arm 42 and Second Arm 44) is coupled to a different respective
head coupling (Fig. 2, Film Hinges 52 and 54) to permit pivoting movement about different
parallel pivot axes thereby forming a four-bar linkage (Fig. 5, linkage formed from 46, 42, 44,
and 38), such that the head is pivotably moveable relative to the base (Fig. 3 and Fig. 4);wherein
the stroke limiter (Fig. 5, Contact Tabs 60b and 60a) is configured to obstruct pivoting
movement of the four-bar linkage to thereby inhibit pivoting movement of the head relative to
the base beyond the limit ([0071]).
Regarding claim 3, Molema further teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 2,
wherein the stroke limiter comprises a tab (Fig. 5, Contact Tabs 60b and 60a) protruding from
the head, the tab being arranged to engage with at least one of the arms to obstruct movement of
the four-bar linkage within the movement plane (Fig. 5, 60b and 60a engage with 58a and 58b,
which are part of Arms 42 and 44, to obstruct movement of the linkage within the plane).
Regarding claim 5, Molema further teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 1,
wherein both base couplings on the handle are flexible base couplings (Fig. 2, Film Hinges 48
and 50).
Regarding clam 12, Molema already teaches a mounting assembly according to claim 1,
wherein each flexible base coupling is moveable relative to the body such that the base couplings
move only within a single plane (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 13, Molema further teaches a hair cutting appliance comprising a
mounting assembly according to any preceding claim 1 (Fig. 1, Cutting Appliance 10).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeroen Molema
et al. (US 20160288348 A1 – hereinafter Molema) as applied to claim 1 above, and further
in view of Albert Aitink et al. (US 9987759 B2 - hereinafter Aitink).
Regarding claim 4, Molema further teaches a mounting assembly according claim 2,
comprising a primary spring which is configured to engage with the arms to bias the four-bar
linkage.
Molema does not teach that the primary spring is configured to bias the four-bar linkage
to the limit.
However, Aitink teaches a mounting assembly with a four-bar linkage where a primary
biasing element (Fig. 13, Biasing Element 80) is used to bias the four-bar linkage to the limit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the mounting assembly of Molema such that the primary spring is
used to bias the four-bar linkage to the limit as taught by Aitink. Doing so is beneficial as it
creates a position of the mounting assembly which is beneficial for styling hair (Aitink; Col 19,
lines 49-67).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeroen Molema
et al. (US 20160288348 A1 – hereinafter Molema) as applied to claim 1 above, and further
in view of Ashok Patel et al. (EP 3546156 A1 – hereinafter Patel).
Regarding claim 6, Molema does not teach a mounting assembly according to claim 1,
wherein each flexible base coupling is mounted to the body of the base on a cantilevered elastic
beam which permits movement of the base coupling relative to the body in the direction having a
component which is parallel to the movement line and away from the other base coupling.
However, Patel teaches a mounting assembly with a base coupling (Fig. 62, Connection
Member 170) that is mounted to the body of the base on a cantilevered elastic beam (Fig. 62,
Member 76) which permits movement of the base coupling relative to the body in the direction
having a component which is parallel to the movement line ([0019] ;76 is a flexible plastic tube,
and bendable in any direction which would include a direction having a component which is
parallel to the movement line).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the mounting assembly of Molema to include the limitations of
claim 6 as taught by Patel. Doing so is beneficial as it assists in providing restorative, biasing
torque to the head (Patel; [0042]). By combining Patel with Molema so that both base couplings
are mounted in this way, each base coupling would also be moveable away from the other base
coupling.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeroen
Molema et al. (US 20160288348 A1 – hereinafter Molema) in view of Ashok Patel et al.
(EP 3546156 A1 – hereinafter Patel) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of
David Coffin et al. (JP H119856 A – hereinafter Coffin).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Molema and Patel does not teach a mounting
assembly according to claim 6, wherein the body comprises a stop for each flexible base
coupling, wherein the stop is configured to abut the elastic beam to limit movement of the elastic
beam in a direction towards the other base coupling.
However, Coffin teaches a mounting assembly, wherein the body comprises a stop (Fig.
3, Contact Portion 77) for each base coupling (Fig. 3, Pins 12), and the stop is configured to abut
a beam (Fig. 2b, Engagement Arms 10) to limit movement of the beam in a direction towards the
other base coupling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the mounting assembly of Molema and Patel to include the
limitations of claim 7 as taught by Coffin. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for improved blade
and skin contact while reducing movement of the razor head (Coffin; Page 2 Para 6).
Regarding claim 8, the existing combination of Molema, Patel, and Coffin does not
teach a mounting assembly according to claim 7, wherein the base further comprises a pretension
spring which is configured to bias the elastic beam for each flexible base coupling towards the
stop.
However, Coffin further teaches that the base further comprises a pretension spring (Fig.
3, Torsion Bar 65) which is configured (Fig. 3, Torsion Bar 65 biases Side Wall 74, which biases
Engagement Arms 10 towards the stops) to bias the beam (Fig. 2b, Engagement Arms 10) for
each base coupling (Fig. 3, Pins 12) towards the stop (Fig. 3, Contact Portion 77).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the mounting assembly of Molema, Patel, and Coffin to include
the limitations of claim 8 as taught by Coffin. Doing so is beneficial as it provides a biasing force
to return the engagement arm to a desired position (Coffin; Page 4 Para 4).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Molema, Patel, and Coffin already teaches a
mounting assembly according to claim 8, wherein the pretension spring is configured to bias the
flexible base coupling to abut the stop (Fig. 3 of Coffin).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Molema, Patel, and Coffin already teaches a
mounting assembly according to claim 8, wherein the stiffness of the pretension spring is higher
than the stiffness of the elastic beam in the movement plane (Fig. 3 of Coffin, when the razor is
not under any additional outside forces, the pretension spring pushes the beam to its limit .
Therefore, in the movement plane, the pretension spring has a higher stiffness).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeroen Molema
et al. (US 20160288348 A1 – hereinafter Molema) as applied to claim 1 above, and further
in view of Robert Johnson (US 20160121496 A1 – hereinafter Johnson).
Regarding claim 11, Molema does not teach a mounting assembly according to claim 1,
wherein each base coupling is a ball bearing configured to cooperate with a corresponding ball
socket on the respective arm.
However, Johnson teaches a mounting assembly, wherein each base coupling is a ball
bearing (Fig. 3, Handle Elements 22 and 24) configured to cooperate with a corresponding ball
socket on the respective arm (Fig. 3, Arms 50 and 52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the mounting assembly of Molema to include the elements of
claim 11 above as taught by Johnson. It is well known in the art that it is beneficial to use a ball
bearing and socket joint as it allows rotation in multiple directions.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeroen Molema
et al. (US 20160288348 A1 – hereinafter Molema) as applied to claim 1 above, and further
in view of David Coffin et al. (JP H119856 A – hereinafter Coffin).
Regarding claim 12, Molema does not teach a mounting assembly according to any
preceding claim 1, wherein each flexible base coupling is moveable relative to the body such that
the base couplings move only within a single plane.
However, Coffin teaches a mounting assembly, wherein each base coupling (Fig. 3, Pins
12) is moveable relative to the body such that the base couplings move only within a single plane
(Fig. 4 and Fig. 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the mounting assembly of Molema to include the limitations of claim 12 as taught by Coffin. Doing so is beneficial as it allows for improved blade and skin contact while reducing movement of the razor head (Page 2 Para 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Molema does not teach “at least one of the base couplings is a flexible base coupling which is elastically mounted to a body of the base such that the respective flexible base coupling is moveable relative to the body in a direction having a component which is parallel to the movement line and away from the other base coupling, to permit pivoting movement of the head relative to the base beyond the limit imposed by the stroke limiter” and instead only teaches Molema’s film hinges are known to be elastic and would follow certain movements if undergoing some unspecified loading condition, which is insufficient for anticipation. The recitation in claim 1 that the base coupling is moveable with the aforementioned limitations is a recitation of intended use. In response to applicant's argument that this intended use is not taught, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The rejection of claim 1 above cites all relevant structure in Molema which adequately teaches the structure of claim 1, and it is further shown that the invention of Molema is capable of the intended use described in claim 1, even if the specific loading conditions are or are not mentioned in Molema.
Applicant also argues that Molema does not teach the flexible base coupling configured to move relative to the base body so as to permit pivoting beyond the limit imposed by the stroke limiter since Molema is also used to teach later on the use of contact tabs (equivalent to the stroke limiter of the claim) that obstruct movement of the linkage to prevent pivoting beyond the limit. The use of Molema to teach that the linkage cannot pivot past the limit while the head can does not disqualify Molema from teaching the limitations of claim 1. By that logic, the claimed invention itself could not teach both claim 1 and claim 2, since applicant argues that because Molema teaches the features of claim 2, Molema could not possibly teach the features of claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Aitink is not used to teach any limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Patel is not used to teach any limitations of claim 1. Applicant argues that Patel only teaches general bendability, and not movement of the flexible base coupling relative to the body in the claimed direction with the claimed permitted pivoting. However, the claim recites that this kind of movement must be permitted by the cantilever beam, and is therefore a recitation of intended use. In response to applicant's argument that this intended use is not taught, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The rejection of claim 6 above cites all relevant structure in Patel which adequately teaches the structure of claim 6, and it is further shown that the invention of Patel when combined with Molema is capable of the intended use described in claim 6, even if the act of the movement itself is or is not mentioned in Molema or Patel.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references of Molema and Patel for the rejection of claim 6, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Patel is shown to teach that adding the limitations of Patel assists in providing restorative, biasing torque to the head (Patel; [0042]). This is clearly beneficial and motivational as it is well known providing additional means of restoring the head to a rest position can reduce stress among the existing means of restoring the head to a rest position.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Coffin is not used to teach any limitations of claim 1. Applicant argues that because the rejection of claim 9 refers to Patel to teach the limitation that the pretension spring biases the base coupling to abut the stop rather than Coffin, which had also been used to discuss aspects of the pretension spring, the rejection of claim 9 is not clearly explained or supported. Examiner has reviewed the rejection of claim 9 and the claims on which claim 9 depends and determined that a typographical error was made in the previous direction, where Fig. 3 of Patel was referred to instead of Fig. 3 of Coffin. The rejection of claim 9 has been updated to fix this typographical error. The rejection of claim 8 (on which claim 9 depends) discusses an extension of the base coupling (the beams, taught by Engagement Arms 10 of Coffin) moving towards the stop, citing Fig. 3 in the rejection, which additionally shows this extension of the base coupling contacting and resting against the stop, and thereby abutting against the stop. Therefore, Coffin in combination with Molema and Patel has already taught the limitations of claim 9.
Applicant argues that claim 10 is similarly unsupported and not taught since the spring of Patel biasing a member to a rest position does not establish the comparative stiffness relationship recited in claim 10. Examiner appears to have made a similar typographical error in referring to Patel instead of Coffin. The rejection of claim 10 has been updated to cite Coffin rather than Patel.
Regarding claim 11, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references of Molema and Johnson, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, there is knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that it is beneficial to use a ball bearing and socket joint as it allows rotation in multiple directions. This is clearly a benefit when it comes to an invention such as a hair cutting appliance as increased range of mobility is critical when adapting to shaving a complex surface such as the human body.
Regarding claim 12, Coffin is not used to teach any of the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant argues that the 102 rejection of claim 12 is inadequate since the rejection of claim 12 only teaches that the deformation occurs in the claimed direction, and not that movement only occurs within a single plane. Hinges 48 and 50 of Molema are used to teach the base couplings of claims 1 and 12. It can be seen in Molema in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 (which were cited in the rejection of claim 1) that movement occurs in the claimed direction in addition to the movement only occurring within the plane as shown.
Applicant argues that the 103 rejection of claim 12 is inconsistent as the concluding rationale references Patel. Examiner has reviewed the 103 rejection of claim 12 and found that a typographical error was made, and Patel should not have been referenced in this rejection. Reference to Patel has been removed for clarity. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Coffin teaches the benefit of allowing for improved blade and skin contact while reducing movement of the razor head (Page 2 Para 2).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ELLA LORRAINE KEENA whose telephone number is (571)272-1806. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am - 5:00 pm ET.
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.
/ELLA L KEENA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights