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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear how a hair trimmer receives power from a phone to run the motor.
Regarding claim 2, it is unclear how a hair trimmer receives power from a phone wirelessly to run the motor. It is unclear how a “cordless operation” occurs when there is a physical and electrical attachment to the hair trimmer.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 which claim 2 depends on sets for a physical contact between a mobile phone and a hair trimmer. Therefore, claim 2 should further limits the physical contact between the mobile phone and the hair trimmer instead of getting rid of the physical contact and replacing with a wireless contact. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan (3,284,894) in view of Deng et al. (2018/0033402), hereinafter Deng.
Regarding claims 1 and 3, Ryan teaches portable electric battery-less hair trimmer, with no independent internal power source, substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, comprising a body 10 and a power connector 20 integrated with the body, wherein the power connector is configured to physically and electrically attach the body directly to a mobile phone to draw power therefrom.
See Fig. 2.
Ryan does not teach wherein the power connector is configured to physically and electrically attach the body directly to a mobile phone to draw power therefrom.
Deng teaches an electric device 100 having a power connector 200 and a body, wherein the power connector is configured to physically and electrically attach the body directly to a mobile phone 300 to draw power therefrom. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the hair trimmer in Ryan being powered by a mobile phone as taught by Deng so that a user could power the hair trimmer whether there is no electrical outlet or no power converting device.
Regarding claim 4, a blade assembly 30 and a safety feature 14 are best seen in Fig. 2.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan (3,284,894) in view of Deng et al. (2018/0033402), hereinafter Deng, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liu (2024/0275207).
Ryan teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the hair trimmer receiving power wirelessly from a mobile phone.
Liu teaches wirelessly transferring power between two devices. See Fig. 2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the power to the hair trimmer of Ryan wirelessly as taught by Liu to reduce bulkiness of an electric cable.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryan (3,284,894) in view of Deng et al. (2018/0033402), hereinafter Deng.
Regarding claim 5, Ryan discloses the claimed invention except for the hair trimmer having a length of 2.5 inches. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the hair trimmer of Ryan having a length of 2.5 inches, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/05/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to 35 USC 112 Rejections, the disclosure just provides statements. It does not teach in detail how the power could be drawn out from a mobile phone so that one skilled in the art could make use of the invention.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to 35 USC 102 Rejection, Deng reference is introduced to show the use of a mobile phone to provide power to an electric device being known in the art.
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 PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3724