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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20100180448) in view of Park (KR 20160073463).
Regarding claim 1, Sato discloses an electric hair grooming appliance (electric shaver 1; see fig. 1a) comprising: a handle (main body 2 serves as a handle; see paragraph [0034] and fig. 1a); a hair grooming device (outer blades 3 and inner blades 7; see fig. 6); a pivot assembly pivotably attaching the hair grooming device to the handle (head portion 10 allows for outer blades 3 and inner blades 7 to be pivotally connected to main body 2; see paragraph [0041] and fig. 6).
Sato does not explicitly disclose a spherical housing.
Park discloses a spherical housing (first joint connecting part 160; see fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sato in view of Park to make the housing spherical since it has been held that matters relating to ornamentation only which have no mechanical function cannot be relied upon to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art (see In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431). In the instant case, it does not appear that modifying the housing of Sato (housing 12a) to have the recited configuration would impede the device of Sato from performing its intended function. In other words, as long as the housing is capable of movement without impacting the strap, the exact shape of the housing does not appear to be functionally significant. Therefore, such a modification would be obvious since it appears that the specific shape of the housing is mere design choice.
As modified to make the housing spherical, Sato further discloses wherein the hair grooming device and the spherical housing are pivotable relative to the handle (swing mechanism 13 is able to pivot housing 12a, which at least partially supports the blades, in two directions with respect to main body 2; see paragraph [0041]) about at least two pivot axes extending through the spherical housing (as modified, swing mechanism 13 allows for a pivoting motion in longitudinal direction X and anteroposterior direction Y; see paragraph [0041] and figs. 1b-1c); and a motor contained in the spherical housing (two linear motors 70 are contained within housing 12a of driving unit 12; see fig. 11), wherein the motor is configured to drive the hair grooming device (linear motors 70 are driven such that inner blades 7 reciprocate in longitudinal direction X; see paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 2, Sato as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Sato as modified further discloses wherein the hair grooming device comprises at least one blade configured to cut hair (the hair grooming device is made up of four inner blades 7 which reciprocate to cut hair; see paragraph [0044]).
Regarding claim 3, Sato as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Park further discloses wherein the spherical housing has a circumference (first joint connecting part 160 has a circumference; see fig. 2).
Sato as modified further discloses wherein the pivot assembly further comprises a strap (swing mechanism 13; see fig. 6) extending at least partly around the circumference of the spherical housing (as modified, swing mechanism 13 extends at least partially around the curved portion of housing 12a; see fig. 12) and pivotably supporting the spherical housing to the handle (swing mechanism 13 pivotally supports housing 12a; see paragraphs [0047-0048]).
Regarding claim 4, Sato as modified discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Sato as modified further discloses wherein the strap extends around the entire circumference of the spherical housing (as modified, swing mechanism 13 extends around the entirety of the curved portion of the spherical housing; see figs. 11-12).
Regarding claim 5, Sato as modified discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Sato as modified further discloses wherein the pivot assembly includes two pins (swing mechanism 13 includes two link mechanisms 8, which each form a first supporting member 14e; see paragraph [0048] and fig. 12) that attach the strap to the spherical housing (swing mechanism 13 is attached to housing 12a by first supporting members 14e, which connect to second supporting portions 12f of housing 12a; see paragraph [0048]).
Regarding claim 7, Sato as modified discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Sato as modified further discloses wherein the handle includes a bearing (head mounting unit 21; see fig. 12) disposed between the strap and the handle (head mounting unit 21 is located between swing mechanism 13 and main body 2; see figs. 8 and 12) to facilitate movement of the strap and the spherical housing relative to the handle (head mounting unit 21 has recess 21a, which is fixed to longitudinal swing base 15a. This connection allows swing mechanism 13 and housing 12a to move relative to main body 2; see paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sato to make the pivot assembly include a bearing since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167). Sato discloses a configuration in which the bearing (head mounting unit 21) is part of the handle (main body 2) rather than the pivot assembly (head portion 10). However, arranging the parts in the opposite configuration such that the bearing is part of the pivot assembly would not prevent the device from operating as intended. It is not explicitly disclosed how head mounting unit 21 is attached to main body 2, therefore it is understood that as long as the method of attachment between these two components does not prevent the pivoting motion of swing mechanism 13, such a modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Sato as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Sato as modified further discloses wherein the handle extends along a longitudinal axis (main body 2 extends along a longitudinal axis which is slightly offset from floating direction Z; see annotated portion of fig. 1a below), and wherein the at least two pivot axes are not parallel to the longitudinal axis (neither longitudinal direction X or anteroposterior direction Y are arranged parallel to the longitudinal axis of the handle; see figs. 1a-1c).
PNG
media_image1.png
429
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Sato as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Sato as modified further discloses wherein one of the at least two pivot axes is oblique to the longitudinal axis of the handle (at least anteroposterior direction Y is arranged obliquely to the longitudinal axis of the handle; see annotated portion of fig. 1a above).
Regarding claim 10, Sato as modified discloses the limitations of claim 8 as described in the rejection above.
Sato as modified further discloses wherein the motor includes a drive shaft (inner blade attaching bases 7a; see paragraph [0044] and fig. 11) extending through the spherical housing to attach to the hair grooming device (as modified, inner blade attaching bases 7a each extend through the housing to attach to inner blades 7; see paragraph [0044]), and wherein the drive shaft is not parallel to the longitudinal axis of the handle (inner blade attaching bases 7a extend parallel to the floating direction, which is slightly offset from the longitudinal axis of main body 2; see paragraph [0044] and annotated portion of fig. 1a above).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato (US 20100180448) in view of Park (KR 20160073463), and further in view of Ring (US 20110094107).
Regarding claim 6, Sato as modified discloses the limitations of claim 3 as described in the rejection above.
Sato as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the strap is metal.
Ring discloses wherein the strap is metal (retaining device 5 is made from metal; see paragraph [0053] and fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Sato in view of Ring to make the strap made from metal since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice (see In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of using metal to form the strap, since such a structure must have sufficient strength to resist deformation under pressure. Various forces will be applied to the strap when the device is in use, and thus it must be made from a material that is capable of withstanding these forces. Therefore, the selection of metal would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 HALEIGH N WATSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3818. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 530AM-330PM EST.
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.
/HALEIGH N WATSON/Examiner, Art Unit 3724 /BOYER D ASHLEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights