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 1-2, 6-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (US 20200055205) in view of Zhejiang (CN 114012790).
Regarding claim 1, Werner discloses a magnetic blade assembly (blade assembly 304 with magnetic tension assembly 374; see paragraph [0085]), comprising: a stationary blade having teeth extending along a first blade edge (outer blade 314 is fixed and has teeth extending along a first blade edge; see paragraphs [0003, 0086] and fig. 14); a cutting blade having cutting teeth extending along a second blade edge (inner blade 312 has teeth extending along a second blade edge and oscillates or reciprocates relative to outer blade 314; see paragraphs [0003, 0086] and fig. 14) parallel to the first blade edge (inner blade 312 is parallel to outer blade 314; see paragraph [0003]), and supported relative to the stationary blade such that the cutting teeth are moveable over the stationary blade to cut hair (movement of inner blade 312 relative to outer blade 314 allows a user to cut hair; see paragraph [0083]), the cutting blade comprising a top surface and a bottom surface (top and bottom surfaces of inner blade 312, where bottom surface abuts outer blade 314; see figs. 15-16); a magnet holder coupled to the cutting blade (upper magnet holder 394 is positioned on the top surface of inner blade 312; see paragraph [0085] and figs. 15-16), the magnet holder comprising: an elongate portion (extensions 396a and 396b; see figs. 14-16) extending along the top surface of the cutting blade (extensions 376a and 376b extend along the top surface of inner blade 312; see figs. 14-16); and a magnet positioned within the magnet holder (upper magnet 376a is positioned on extensions 396a, 396b of upper magnet holder 394; see paragraph [0085] and figs. 15-16); wherein the magnet generates a tensioning force between the cutting blade and the stationary blade (upper and lower magnets 376a, 376b may have the same or opposite polarity such that a repulsive or attractive force is experienced by inner and outer blades 312, 314; see paragraph [0087]); wherein the elongate portion of the magnet holder extends along a width of the cutting blade (extensions 396a and 396b extend along the top surface of inner blade 312; see figs. 14-16).
Werner does not explicitly disclose a lower portion extending through the cutting blade.
Zhejiang discloses a lower portion extending through the cutting blade (magnetic groove 21 is provided on moving blade 2 and extends partway through moving blade 2; see paragraph [0035] and fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Werner in view of Zhejiang to include a lower portion extending through the cutting blade. Zhejiang discloses a lower portion (magnetic groove 21) of a magnet holder which extends at least partially through the cutting blade (moving blade 2). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the lower portion of the magnet holder being positioned through the cutting blade reduces the amount of space taken up by the magnetic assembly, as illustrated by Zhejiang in figures 1-2. Reducing the bulk of the assembly makes for a more user-friendly device and as such would be an obvious modification.
Werner as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the elongate portion of the magnet holder extends along greater than 70% of a width of the cutting blade.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Werner to make the elongate portion greater than 70% of a width of the cutting blade since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 2, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Werner as modified further discloses wherein an upper portion of the magnet extends past the top surface of the cutting blade (an upper portion of upper magnet 376a extends past the top surface of inner blade 312; see figs. 15-16).
Regarding claim 6, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Werner as modified further discloses wherein the stationary blade further comprises a recess extending in a parallel orientation to the first blade edge (outer blade 314 comprises a recess facing inner blade 312 which also extends parallel to the first blade edge; see figs. 15-16).
Regarding claim 7, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 6 as described in the rejection above.
Zhejiang further discloses wherein the magnet is positioned within the lower portion of the magnet holder (magnetic block 61 is positioned within magnetic groove 21; see paragraph [0035]), and wherein the magnet holder is positioned within the recess of the stationary blade when the magnetic blade assembly is assembled (as modified, the magnet holder is positioned within the recess of the stationary blade).
Regarding claim 8, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Werner as modified further discloses wherein a distance between the first blade edge and the second blade edge defines a blade gap (a gap exists between the edge of the inner blade relative to the edge of the outer blade, which affects the cut hair length; see paragraph [0040]).
Regarding claim 9, Werner discloses a hair cutter (cutter 100; see fig. 1) comprising: a housing (body 102 is formed by upper housing 108 and lower housing 110; see paragraph [0045] and fig. 1); a motor positioned within the housing (motor 120; see paragraph [0046] and fig. 1); an electrical storage device to store electric energy, the electrical storage device configured to selectively distribute electrical energy to the motor (motor 120 is configured to operate on battery power; see paragraph [0046]); a drive assembly coupled to the motor (drive assembly 106 couples the blade assembly to motor 120; see paragraph [0046]), the drive assembly comprising a finger (eccentric shaft 126; see paragraph [0047] and fig. 1); a magnetic blade assembly (blade assembly 304 with magnetic tension assembly 374; see paragraph [0085]), comprising: a first blade having teeth extending along a first blade edge (outer blade 314 is fixed and has teeth extending along a first blade edge; see paragraphs [0003, 0086] and fig. 14); a second blade having teeth extending along a second blade edge (inner blade 312 has teeth extending along a second blade edge and oscillates or reciprocates relative to outer blade 314; see paragraphs [0003, 0086] and fig. 14) parallel to the first blade edge (inner blade 312 is parallel to outer blade 314; see paragraph [0003]) and supported relative to the first blade (inner blade 312 is supported relative to outer blade 314; see figs. 15-16), the second blade comprising a recess configured to engage the finger of the drive assembly (eccentric shaft 126 is coupled to the inner blade via yoke 128; see paragraph [0050]); a magnet holder coupled to the second blade (upper magnet holder 394 is positioned on the top surface of inner blade 312; see paragraph [0085] and figs. 15-16), the magnet holder comprising an elongate portion (extensions 396a and 396b; see figs. 14-16) extending along a top surface of the second blade (extensions 376a and 376b extend along the top surface of inner blade 312; see figs. 14-16); a magnet supported by the magnet holder (upper magnet 376a is positioned on extensions 396a, 396b of upper magnet holder 394; see paragraph [0085] and figs. 15-16), wherein the magnet generates a tensioning force between the second blade and the first blade (upper and lower magnets 376a, 376b may have the same or opposite polarity such that a repulsive or attractive force is experienced by inner and outer blades 312, 314; see paragraph [0087]).
Examiner notes that citations related to the yoke and eccentric shaft refer to a different embodiment than that which is relied upon. However, these elements have substantially the same structure and thus are only described in detail in relation to the first embodiment (see paragraph [0083]).
Werner does not explicitly disclose a lower portion connected to the elongate portion and extending downward from the elongate portion, the lower portion extending through the second blade; the magnet extending through the second blade.
Zhejiang discloses a lower portion (magnetic groove 21; see fig. 9) connected to the elongate portion (as modified, magnetic groove 21 is connected to the elongate portion) and extending downward from the elongate portion, the lower portion extending through the second blade (magnetic groove 21 is provided on moving blade 2 and extends partway through moving blade 2; see paragraph [0035] and fig. 9); the magnet extending through the second blade (magnetic block 61 is situated within magnetic groove 21 which extends at least partway through moving blade 2; see paragraph [0035] and fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Werner in view of Zhejiang to make the magnet extend through the second blade. Zhejiang discloses a lower portion (magnetic groove 21) of a magnet holder which extends at least partially through the second blade (moving blade 2). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the magnet holder being positioned through the second blade, and thereby allowing the magnet to likewise extend through the second blade, reduces the amount of space taken up by the magnetic assembly, as illustrated by Zhejiang in figures 1-2. Reducing the bulk of the assembly makes for a more user-friendly device and as such would be an obvious modification.
Regarding claim 12, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Werner as modified further discloses wherein the elongate portion (extensions 396a and 396b; see figs. 14-16) extending along a top surface of the second blade (extensions 376a and 376b extend along the top surface of inner blade 312; see figs. 14-16), the top surface facing away from the second blade (the top surface faces out from inner blade 312; see figs. 15-16).
Regarding claim 13, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Zhejiang further discloses wherein the lower portion of the magnet holder defines a cavity, the cavity sized to receive the magnet (magnetic groove 21 has a cavity which supports magnetic block 61; see paragraph [0035]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (US 20200055205) in view of Zhejiang (CN 114012790), and further in view of Kim (KR 20090013085) as evidenced by Jacobowitz (US 20190321994).
Regarding claim 4, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Werner as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the cutting blade is formed from a ceramic material.
Kim discloses wherein the cutting blade is formed from a ceramic material (movable blade 120 is formed from a ceramic material; see pg. 7, lines 8-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Werner in view of Kim to form the cutting blade from a ceramic material. As evidenced by Jacobowitz, ceramic is known to be advantageous for use in clipper blades in order to achieve a cutting blade with high wear resistance, good insulation properties, and lack of corrosion (see paragraph [0031]). Further, 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). Thus, further modifying Werner to have a ceramic cutting blade would be an obvious modification.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (US 20200055205) in view of Zhejiang (CN 114012790), and further in view of House (WO 2005049288).
Regarding claim 5, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Werner as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the magnet is a permanent magnet formed from a rare earth magnet.
House discloses wherein the magnet is a permanent magnet formed from a rare earth magnet (magnet 28 is a rare earth magnet; see pg. 5, lines 3-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Werner in view of House to make the magnet a rare earth magnet. House discloses that the magnet must be made from a material that has suitable strength to securely hold a shearing attachment to a shearing hand piece (see pg. 5, lines 3-6). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that although the magnet as disclosed by House is used for a different purpose, it can be similarly used in the modified device of Werner to ensure sufficient strength for adjusting the blades.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (US 20200055205) in view of Zhejiang (CN 114012790), and further in view of Kim (KR 20090013085).
Regarding claim 10, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Werner as modified does not explicitly disclose a bearing system, the bearing system comprising: a frame positioned between the first blade and the second blade; and a bearing positioned between the frame and the second blade.
Kim discloses a bearing system, the bearing system comprising: a frame positioned between the first blade and the second blade (guide groove 30 is formed between fixed blade 10 and movable blade 20; see pg. 2, lines 16-21 and figs. 4-5); and a bearing positioned between the frame and the second blade (ball 45 is positioned between guide groove 30 and the bottom surface of engineering plastic 25; see figs. 4-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Werner in view of Kim to include a bearing system. Kim discloses that contact of the bearing (ball 45) and the second blade (movable blade 20) allows the second blade to move left and right (see pg. 2, lines 19-21). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand, based on figs. 4-5, that including a bearing system of this configuration guides smooth movement of the second blade relative to the first blade and as a result, ensures a higher quality shave.
Regarding claim 11, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 10 as described in the rejection above.
Werner as modified further discloses wherein the first blade further comprises a recess extending in a parallel orientation to the first blade edge (outer blade 314 comprises a recess facing inner blade 312 which also extends parallel to the first blade edge; see figs. 15-16), and wherein the frame is positioned within the recess of the first blade (as modified, the frame is located within the recess of outer blade 314; see figs. 15-16).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (US 20200055205) in view of Zhejiang (CN 114012790), and further in view of Zhou (CN 201432312).
Regarding claim 14, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 9 as described in the rejection above.
Werner as modified does not explicitly disclose a bracket coupled to the first blade, wherein the bracket removably couples the magnetic blade assembly to the housing.
Zhou discloses a bracket coupled to the first blade (plastic bracket 19 is coupled to fixed blade 1; see fig. 6), wherein the bracket removably couples the magnetic blade assembly to the housing (plastic bracket 19 attaches the blade assembly to lower casing 14 of the machine body; see paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Werner to include a bracket coupled to the first blade. Zhou discloses a known technique (coupling a blade assembly to a handle using a bracket) on the same type of device. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit of further modifying Werner to include a bracket so that the blade assembly is detachable from the machine body.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (US 20200055205) in view of Phoon (US 20210094195).
Regarding claim 15, Werner discloses a magnetic blade assembly for a yokeless hair cutter, comprising: a first blade having teeth extending along a first blade edge (outer blade 314 is fixed and has teeth extending along a first blade edge; see paragraphs [0003, 0086] and fig. 14); a second blade having teeth extending along a second blade edge (inner blade 312 has teeth extending along a second blade edge and oscillates or reciprocates relative to outer blade 314; see paragraphs [0003, 0086] and fig. 14) parallel to the first blade edge (inner blade 312 is parallel to outer blade 314; see paragraph [0003]), the second blade comprising a bottom surface facing the first blade (inner blade 312 has a bottom surface which faces outer blade 314; see figs. 15-16), the second blade supported relative to the first blade (inner blade 312 is supported relative to outer blade 314; see figs. 15-16); a magnet holder engaged with the second blade (upper magnet holder 394 is positioned on the top surface of inner blade 312; see paragraph [0085] and figs. 15-16); a magnet supported by the magnet holder (upper magnet 376a is positioned on extensions 396a, 396b of upper magnet holder 394; see paragraph [0085] and figs. 15-16), wherein the magnet generates a tensioning force between the second blade and the first blade that maintains a cutting force across the second blade edge (upper and lower magnets 376a, 376b may have the same or opposite polarity such that a repulsive or attractive force is experienced by inner and outer blades 312, 314; see paragraph [0087]).
Examiner notes that the recitation “…for a yokeless hair cutter” is interpreted as the intended use of the magnetic blade assembly structure. Although the cited reference of Werner appears to have a yoke, the cited structural elements do not appear to require that structure and can operate without it. Further, it appears as though the claim does not explicitly require a yokeless hair clipper, only that the magnetic blade assembly as recited is capable of being used in one. As a result, the magnetic blade assembly as described meets the limitations of the claim as currently recited.
The present embodiment of Werner does not explicitly disclose wherein at least a portion of the magnet extends through a bore defined within the second blade. However, a different embodiment of Werner discloses wherein at least a portion of the magnet extends through a bore defined within the second blade (electromagnet 776 comprises first end 755 and second end 777 which extend through inner blade 712 to contact outer blade 714; see paragraph [0107] and fig. 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Werner to make at least a portion of the magnet extend through a bore defined within the second blade. Werner discloses another embodiment where a portion of the magnet (electromagnet 776) extends through the second blade (inner blade 712) such that it contacts the first blade (outer blade 714). Arranging the magnet in this way results in the need for only a single magnet, since Werner also discloses that the magnetic assembly is located on at least one of the yoke, inner blade, outer blade, T-guide, or blade guide assembly, and/or any combination thereof (see paragraph [0106]). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that reducing the number of parts makes manufacturing and assembly easier and more efficient. As a result, reducing the number of magnets and arranging them in this configuration would be an obvious modification.
Werner as modified does not explicitly disclose a bearing system mounted in the first and positioned entirely between the bottom surface of the second blade and the first blade.
Phoon discloses a bearing system mounted in the first blade (the bearing system comprises guide surfaces 172, guide protrusion 186, and rolling elements 178, 180; see paragraphs [0106-0112] and figs. 6, 9) and positioned entirely between the bottom surface of the second blade and the first blade (the bearing system is positioned entirely between the bottom surface of movable blade 152 and stationary blade 134; see figs. 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Werner in view of Phoon to include a bearing system positioned entirely between the bottom surface of the second blade and the first blade. Phoon discloses that the bearing system allows for rolling contact between the stationary and movable blades, which can reduce friction, heat generation, and wear (see paragraph [0108]). Therefore, in order to reduce friction, heat generation, and wear in the device of Werner, such a modification would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 16, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above.
Werner as modified further discloses that the magnet further comprising an upper surface extending beyond a top surface of the second blade (an upper portion of upper magnet 376a extends past the top surface of inner blade 312; see figs. 15-16).
Regarding claim 17, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above.
Phoon further discloses wherein the bearing system comprises: a frame positioned between the first blade and the second blade (guide surfaces 172 are positioned between stationary blade 134 and movable blade 152; see fig. 6); a bearing holder engaged with the frame (guide protrusion 186 (which is defined by guide bars 188, 190) engages with guide surfaces 172; see paragraphs [0112] and figs. 6, 9); and a bearing positioned between the frame and the bearing holder (rolling elements 178, 180, which may be formed as bearing balls, are positioned between guide surfaces 172 and guide protrusions 186; see paragraphs [0107-0111] and figs. 6-9), and wherein the bearing system acts as a guide for movement of the second blade (rolling elements 178, 180 allow for rolling contact between movable blade 152 and stationary blade 134; see paragraphs [0106-0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Werner in view of Phoon to include a bearing system with a frame, bearing holder, and bearing. Phoon discloses that the bearing system allows for rolling contact between the stationary and movable blades, which can reduce friction, heat generation, and wear (see paragraph [0108]). Therefore, in order to reduce friction, heat generation, and wear in the device of Werner, such a modification would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 18, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above.
Werner as modified further discloses wherein an elongate portion of the magnet holder extends along (extensions 396a and 396b extend along the top surface of inner blade 312; see figs. 14-16).
Werner as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein the elongate portion extends along between 70% and 80% of a width of the second blade.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Werner to make the elongate portion extend between 70% and 80% of a width of the cutting blade since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Regarding claim 19, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above.
Werner as modified further discloses wherein the magnet includes a lower surface that faces an upper surface of the first blade (upper magnet 376a has a lower surface that faces the top surface of inner blade 312; see figs. 15-16) and wherein a gap is defined between the lower surface of the magnet and the upper surface of the first blade (a gap is present between upper magnet 376a and the top surface of inner blade 312; see figs. 15-16).
Regarding claim 20, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 19 as described in the rejection above.
Werner as modified discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. However, Werner as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein a length of the gap is between .005 and .02 inches.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Werner to make the length of the gap between .005 and .02 inches since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (see In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding the arguments to claim 1, Examiner notes that paragraph [0042] of the instant specification appears to suggest that sufficient tensioning is achieved via the positioning and shape/dimensions of the magnets rather than the magnet holder itself. While paragraph [0075] of the instant specification states that the position of the magnet holder allows for more even distribution of magnetic force, the cited art of Werner is not negatively impacted by the size of the elongate portion of the magnet holder due to the configuration of the magnet. Werner discloses that the magnet itself extends the majority of the width of the cutting blade (see upper magnet 376a in fig. 14). As such, making the elongate portion (extensions 396a, 396b) extend in the same way is unnecessary for the purpose of even distribution of magnetic force. Since the magnet itself is already centered and extends along the majority of the width of the cutting blade, the elongate portion can be modified to extend along greater than 70% of the width of the cutting blade without impacting the magnetic tensioning performance of the device.
Regarding the arguments to claim 9, Zhejiang discloses a lower portion (magnetic groove 21) of a magnet holder. Specifically, magnetic groove 21 is configured to support magnetic block 61, and is thus understood to be part of a magnet holder (see paragraph [0035] of previously attached machine translation). Further, Zhejiang discloses, as shown in fig. 2, that at least a portion of the magnet holder extends through the second blade – therefore, as modified, the lower portion of Zhejiang would connect to the elongate portion of Werner to further secure the magnet holder to the second blade. As a result, the combination of references as presently interpreted discloses a lower portion connected to the elongate portion and extending downward from the elongate portion. Regarding Applicant’s assertion that the proposed modification is unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, Examiner notes that both the devices of Werner and Zhejiang disclose a similar configuration where the upper and lower magnets repel one another. Werner discloses that magnets 376a, 376b push apart or repel (see paragraph [0087]) and Zhejiang discloses that a repulsive force is generated by the same poles of magnetic blocks 6 (see paragraph [0034]). Werner also discloses that inner blade 312, outer blade 314, yoke 328, blade guide assembly 386, and/or any combination thereof are magnetized, and therefore create a magnetic field to adjust or control a tensile force (attractive or repulsive) between inner and outer blades 312 and 314 (see paragraph [0083]). As modified to have the upper magnet extend through the second blade, so long as the poles of the magnets are opposing and a repulsive force is generated, proper magnetic tensioning can still be achieved since the above-mentioned elements are configured to be made from magnetic materials. Further, there is no recitation requiring that the magnet extend all the way through the second blade – that is, the magnet could extend only partway through the bottom surface of the blade. Therefore, it is understood that further modifying Werner to have magnet 376a extend through inner blade 312 would not decrease or limit the ability to maintain desired tensioning. Additionally, Examiner notes that fig. 17 of Werner appears to show lower magnet 376b partially extending through the second blade (inner blade 312).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 15-20 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