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 Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 15: at lines 13-14, “the upper surface of the first blade” should be amended to read “an upper surface of the first blade”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 5-8 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 House (WO 2005049288).
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 extending along the top surface of the cutting blade (extensions 396a and 396b 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), the magnet comprising: an upper surface (top surface of upper magnet 376a which is positioned against extensions 396a, 396b; see figs. 15-16); and an opposing lower surface (bottom surface of upper magnet 376a; see figs. 15-16), wherein the upper surface of the magnet extends past the top surface of the cutting blade (the top surface of upper magnet 376a extends above the top surface of inner blade 312; see figs. 15-16) and 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 (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; and the lower surface of the magnet extends past the bottom surface of the cutting blade; wherein the magnet is a permanent magnet; wherein the elongate portion of the magnet holder extends along greater than 70% of a width of the cutting blade.
Zhejiang discloses a lower portion extending through the cutting blade (magnetic groove 21 is provided on moving blade 2 and extends at least partway through moving blade 2; see paragraph [0035] and fig. 9); and the lower surface of the magnet extends past the bottom surface of the cutting blade (magnetic block 61 has a lower surface facing magnetic block 62, and the lower surface extends past the bottom of moving blade 2; see fig. 2).
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 of the magnet holder and a lower surface of the magnet 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). Further, the magnet (magnetic block 61) is positioned within magnetic groove 21 such that a lower surface extends past the bottom of moving blade 2. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the lower portion of the magnet holder and the lower surface of the magnet 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.
House discloses wherein the magnet is a permanent 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 permanent 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.
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)). In the instant case, changing the structure of the elongate portion to extend greater than 70% of the width of the cutting blade would not impede operation of the device. In other words, extensions 396a, 396b would still be capable of supporting upper magnet 376a if they extended more than 70% of the width of inner blade 312.
Regarding claim 5, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
House further discloses wherein the permanent magnet is a rare earth magnet (magnet 28 is a rare earth magnet; see pg. 5, lines 3-4).
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 (magnetic groove 21 is positioned at least partially within a recess of stationary blade 1; see fig. 2).
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]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (US 20200055205) in view of Zhejiang (CN 114012790), further in view of House (WO 2005049288), 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.
Claims 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (US 20200055205) in view of Zhejiang (CN 114012790).
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 and supported relative to the first blade (inner blade 312 is parallel to and supported relative to outer blade 314; see paragraph [0003] and 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 – Examiner interprets that yoke 328 is configured in the same manner; 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 extending along a top surface of the second blade (extensions 396a, 396b 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), the magnet comprising: an upper surface extending beyond the top surface of the second blade (the top surface of upper magnet 376a, which is positioned against extensions 396a, 396b, extends above the top surface of inner blade 312; see 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 and a lower portion connected to the elongate portion and extending downward from the elongate portion, the lower portion extending through a bottom surface of the second blade; the magnet extending through the second blade, and a lower surface that opposes the upper surface and extends beyond the bottom surface of the second blade, wherein a space is defined between the lower surface of the magnet and an upper surface of the first blade.
Zhejiang discloses and 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 such that the magnet holder is one integral piece) and extending downward from the elongate portion, the lower portion extending through a bottom surface of the second blade (magnetic groove 21 is provided on moving blade 2 and extends at least partway through moving blade 2; see paragraph [0035] and fig. 9); the magnet extending through the second blade (magnetic block 61 has a lower surface facing magnetic block 62, and the lower surface extends past the bottom of moving blade 2; see fig. 2), and a lower surface that opposes the upper surface and extends beyond the bottom surface of the second blade (magnetic block 61 has a lower surface facing magnetic block 62, and the lower surface extends past the bottom of moving blade 2; see fig. 2), wherein a space is defined between the lower surface of the magnet and an upper surface of the first blade (a gap is present between the lower surface of magnetic block 61 and an upper surface of stationary blade 1; see fig. 2).
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 of the magnet holder and a lower surface of the magnet extending 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). Further, the magnet (magnetic block 61) is positioned within magnetic groove 21 such that a lower surface extends past the bottom of moving blade 2. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the lower portion of the magnet holder and the lower surface of the magnet being positioned 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 extends along the top surface of the second blade (extensions 396a, 396b 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]).
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 that a bracket is an alternative method for attaching the blade assembly to the hair cutter housing. Therefore, one could affix the blade assembly to the hair cutter housing using a bracket instead of fasteners (as disclosed by Werner), with the same expected result of coupling the two structures together. Such a modification would be obvious as a simple substitution of known elements.
Claims 15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (US 20200055205) in view of Phoon (US 20210094195), and further in view of Zhejiang (CN 114012790).
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), the magnet comprising: an upper surface extending beyond a top surface of the second blade (the top surface of upper magnet 376a, which is positioned against extensions 396a, 396b, extends above the top surface of inner blade 312; see figs. 15-16); and 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]).
Werner does not explicitly disclose a bearing system mounted in the first blade and positioned entirely between the bottom surface of the second blade and the first blade; and a lower surface that extends beyond the bottom surface of the second blade, wherein a gap is defined between the lower surface of the magnet and the upper surface of the first blade; wherein at least a portion of the magnet extends through a bore defined within the second 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 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.
Zhejiang discloses and a lower surface that extends beyond the bottom surface of the second blade (magnetic block 61 has a lower surface facing magnetic block 62, and the lower surface extends past the bottom of moving blade 2; see fig. 2), 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 the lower surface of magnetic block 61 and an upper surface of stationary blade 1; see fig. 2); wherein at least a portion of the magnet extends through a bore defined within the second blade (the lower surface of magnetic block 61 extends at least partway through magnetic block 61; see paragraph [0035] and fig. 2).
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 Zhejiang to make at least a portion of the magnet extend through a bore within the second blade. Zhejiang discloses a bore (magnetic groove 21) within the second blade (moving blade 2). A magnet (magnetic block 61) is positioned within magnetic groove 21 such that it extends at least partially through the second blade (see fig. 2). A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that positioning the magnet through a bore in 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 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]).
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 a width of the second blade (extensions 396a, 396b extend along the top surface of inner blade 312; see figs. 14-16).
Werner as modified does not explicitly disclose wherein an elongate portion of the magnet holder extends 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 second 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)). In the instant case, changing the structure of the elongate portion to extend between 70% and 80% of a width of the second blade would not impede operation of the device. In other words, extensions 396a, 396b would still be capable of supporting upper magnet 376a if they extended between 70% and 80% of a width of the width of inner blade 312.
Regarding claim 20, Werner as modified discloses the limitations of claim 15 as described in the rejection above.
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)). In the instant case, the device of Werner as modified would not perform differently if the length of the gap between the magnet and the first blade was within the recited range. That is, the magnet would still provide a tensioning force as discussed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that Werner and Zhejiang together do not disclose wherein the upper surface of the magnet extends past the top surface of the cutting blade and the lower surface of the magnet extends past the bottom surface of the cutting blade, Examiner respectfully disagrees. While Werner discloses an upper surface of the magnet extending past the top surface of the cutting blade as shown in figs. 15-16, a lower surface of the magnet is not shown extending past the bottom surface of the cutting blade. However, Zhejiang discloses an arrangement where the magnet is positioned within a groove of the cutting blade such that the lower surface of the magnet is positioned below the bottom surface of the cutting blade, as shown in fig. 2. As discussed above, the magnet arrangement of Zhejiang provides a more condensed configuration that reduces the bulk of the blade assembly. Combining the teachings of these references yields a magnet that is positioned within a groove of the cutting blade such that an upper surface of the magnet is positioned above the top surface of the cutting blade and the lower surface of the magnet is positioned below the bottom surface of the cutting blade. Therefore, it is Examiner’s interpretation that Werner as modified above discloses the limitations of the claims as currently recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 20090199413 to Tautscher, drawn to a cutting device and hair-cutting apparatus.
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