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 May 20th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-15 remain pending in
the application. Newly added claims 16-20 are also pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the objections to the claims, drawing objection, and112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 20th, 2025.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 16-17 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus, such as a different sleeve.
Newly submitted claims 18-20 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the inventions as claimed as mutually exclusive (patterned region vs surface region), the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants, and the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16-20 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ya-hua Fan et al. (CN 113478527 A – hereinafter Fan) in view of Is It Worth It?; GoPro HERO9 Black Accessories Kit Review! Worth it? [online]; February 6, 2021 [retrieved 11/14/2025]; Retrieved from Internet:<<u>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 8w9STADHFNQ</u>> (Year: 2021); hereinafter Worth-It and Angel Rodriguez (US 20200316795 A1 – hereinafter Rodriguez).
Regarding claim 1, Fan teaches a trimmer handle sleeve (Fig. 2, Handle Shell 473) comprising: a hollow sleeve having an open end (Fig. 2, leftmost open end of Handle Shell 473) to receive an electric trimmer (Fig. 2, Cutter Assembly 10), the sleeve comprising a material that conforms to a shape of a handle body of the electric trimmer (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, sleeve is shown to share an inner shape which mirrors the outer shape of the handle which comprises Upper Cover 471 and Lower Cover 472, and is shown to fit snugly over the handle in Fig. 1), the handle body having a length that is more than a width of the handle body (Fig. 2), and a trimmer blade assembly (Fig. 1, Tool Bit Assembly 10) of the electric trimmer extends from the open end; a region of the hollow sleeve corresponding to a trimmer switch on the handle body (Fig. 1, there is a cut-out on the top of Handle Shell 471 which corresponds to Switch 451), the trimmer switch when actuated electrically operating the trimmer blade assembly of the electric trimmer. Fan does not teach wherein the width varies over a sleeve length of the hollow sleeve, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the shape of the handle body such that the width varies over a sleeve length of the hollow sleeve as it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47.
Fan does not teach that the sleeve comprises a liquid impermeable flexible material, that the region of the sleeve corresponding to a trimmer switch is a patterned region wherein manual actuation of the patterned region actuates the trimmer switch; and a connector portion at a proximal end of the hollow sleeve.
However, Worth-It teaches a hollow sleeve (2:22 of video and Fig. 1 of attached PDF; black sleeve shown) which comprises a flexible material (5:15 of video; material stretches easily), a patterned region (2:25 of video and Fig. 2 of attached PDF, mode button in image shows patterned portion of case aligned with button on the GoPro Hero 9 or 10) of the sleeve corresponding to a switch (Mode button of a GoPro Hero 9 or 10) on the body inside the sleeve wherein manual activation of the patterned region actuates the switch (Examiner interprets that pressing the thin patterned layer of silicon positioned directly above the GoPro Hero 9 or 10 button would result in the actuation of that button when the sleeve is installed on the GoPro Hero 9 or 10); and a connector portion (2:51 of video and Fig. 3 of attached PDF; shows a connector comprises a hole for attaching a lanyard on a closed end of the sleeve) at a proximal end (2:51 of video and Fig. 3 of attached PDF; proximal end of the sleeve which comprises the connector with the lanyard hole) of the hollow sleeve.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the sleeve of Fan to include the features of claim 1 above as taught by Worth-It. Doing so is beneficial as the flexible material allows for easy insertion of the device (Worth-It; (5:15 of video), and the connector portion allows for attachment of a lanyard to prevent loss (Worth-It; (2:51 of video). Additionally, it is well known in the art that covering switches such as the trimmer activation switch with a patterned region is beneficial as it prevents clogging the switch with dust and debris from operation while still allowing for full use of the switch.
Additionally, Rodriguez teaches a sleeve for a trimmer which is comprised of silicone (Fig. 2, Covering 150; [0040] – Silicone is a liquid impermeable material).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fan and Worth-It to comprises a liquid impermeable shell as taught by Rodriguez. It is well known in the art that silicone is a beneficial material to use due to its temperature resistance and durability.
Regarding claim 2, Fan further teaches the sleeve of claim 1 further comprising an outer contoured surface (Fig. 2, outer surface of Handle Shell 473) of the hollow sleeve to be grasped by a user for operation of the trimmer (Page 10 Para 6).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez already teaches the sleeve of claim 1 wherein the hollow sleeve comprises an elastic material that at least partially expands to conform to the handle body during insertion into the hollow sleeve (Rejection of claim 1 above – the hollow sleeve is comprised of an easily stretchable material. The limitation that the material “at least partially expands to conform to the handle body during insertion into the hollow sleeve” is considered by the examiner to be a recitation of intended use, and the material of the hollow sleeve is entirely capable of expending to conform to a handle body upon its insertion into the hollow sleeve).
Regarding claim 4, the existing combination of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez already teaches the sleeve of claim 1 wherein the hollow sleeve comprises a liquid impermeable shell (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 5, the existing combination of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez already teaches the sleeve of claim 1 wherein the hollow sleeve comprises a silicone material (See the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez already teaches wherein a flexible band is attachable to the connector portion of the sleeve (Rejection of claim 1 above - Lanyard).
Regarding claim 7, the existing combination of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez does not teach a graphic region on the outer contoured surface. However, the limitation of a region comprising graphics is an aesthetic design change related only to ornamentation, and since this limit imparts no mechanical function, it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Regarding claim 8, the existing combination of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez does not teach the sleeve of claim 7 wherein the graphic region is on a first side of the hollow sleeve. However, the limitation of a region comprising graphics is an aesthetic design change related only to ornamentation, and since this limit imparts no mechanical function, it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Regarding claim 9, the existing combination of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez does not teach the sleeve of claim 8 further comprising a second graphic region on a second side of the hollow sleeve. However, the limitation of a region comprising graphics is an aesthetic design change related only to ornamentation, and since this limit imparts no mechanical function, it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Regarding claim 10, Fan further teaches the sleeve of claim 1 wherein the hollow sleeve has a thickness between an outer surface an inner surface (Fig. 2, Handle Shell 473 – Handle Shell 473 is a 3-dimensional object, and as such, inherently comprises a thickness between its outer surface and inner surface). The existing combination of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez already teaches that the hollow sleeve is comprised of a compressible material (Rejection of claim 1 above – flexible material).
Regarding claim 11, Fan further teaches a battery charging coupling that extends through a portion of the sleeve (Fig. 2; Page 10 Para 7 - charging hole near Charging Interface 453). The existing combination of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez does not teach that the coupling extends through the connector portion of the sleeve, however it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the invention of the combination of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez such that the battery charging coupling extends through the connector portion as it has been held that the position of a feature may be in a different location as an obvious matter of design choice as long as it does not modify the operation of the device In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding claim 12, Fan further teaches the sleeve of claim 11 wherein the battery charging coupling can be positioned within a docking unit for battery charging, or an opening in the sleeve for connecting a charging cable to the trimmer handle, or for wireless charging (Fig. 2, Charging Interface 453 – 453 would inherently charge the Battery 460 of trimmer via one of a docket unit, a charging cable, or wireless charger).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez does not teach the sleeve of claim 1 wherein the sleeve has a varying width between 40-50 mm and a length between 100-125 mm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez to have a varying width between 40-50 mm and a length between 100-125 mm 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Fan and Worth-It would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the sleeve “can” be within the claimed ranges (Specification of the claimed invention; [0037]).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez already teaches the sleeve of claim 1 wherein a trimmer activation region on the sleeve is aligned with a trimmer activation switch on a trimmer handle (Rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ya-hua Fan et al. (CN 113478527 A – hereinafter Fan) in view of Is It Worth It?; GoPro HERO9 Black Accessories Kit Review! Worth it? [online]; February 6, 2021 [retrieved 11/14/2025]; Retrieved from Internet:<<u>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w9STADHFNQ</u>> (Year: 2021); hereinafter Worth-It and Angel Rodriguez (US 20200316795 A1 – hereinafter Rodriguez) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Khadijah Tilgner (US 20110061779 A1 – hereinafter Tilgner) and Huizhou Yirun Silicone Co., Ltd (See attached webpage – hereinafter Huizhou) as evidenced by Joe Shairs et al. (See attached webpage – hereinafter Shairs).
Regarding claim 13, the existing combination of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez does not teach the sleeve of claim 1 wherein the sleeve has a thickness in a range of 1-3 mm and has an outer surface comprising a solidified oil layer configured for printing of images, symbols and/or lettering. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez to have a thickness in a range of 1-3 mm 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez would not operate differently with the claimed dimensions. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the sleeve may be within the claimed ranges (Specification of the claimed invention; [0037]).
Tilgner teaches a sleeve with outer surfaces configured for printing of images, symbols and/or lettering ([0056]; Fig. 7, LOGO).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fan, Worth-It, and Rodriguez such that the outer surface is configured for printing of images and other items as taught by Tilgner as the inclusion of printed images is an aesthetic design change related only to ornamentation, and since this limit imparts no mechanical function, it does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art In re Seid, 161 F.2d 229, 73 USPQ 431 (CCPA 1947).
Additionally, Huizhou teaches the use of oil as a binder in silicone ink (Page 1). Further, Shairs teaches that silicone ink is heat cured to a solid state when used to print designs on silicone (“SILICONE INK FOR PAD PRINTING ON SILICONE”), and therefore the oil of Huizhou used on the surface of the hollow sleeve would be a solidified oil.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Fan, Worth-It, Rodriguez, and Tilgner such that the sleeve comprises a solidified oil layer configured for printing of images, symbols and/or lettering. Doing so is beneficial as oil works as a binder to improve viscosity, neutrality, acid value, and printing performance in silicone ink (Huizhou; Page 1), and the silicon ink must be hardened (in other words, solidified) in order to properly bond and create an image on the silicone to which it is applied (Shairs; (“SILICONE INK FOR PAD PRINTING ON SILICONE”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Worth-It cannot be used to teach a flexible material for a sleeve since Worth-It teaches a sleeve of a different shape for a different item than the sleeve of Fan. In response to applicant's argument that Worth-It is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Worth-It is reasonably pertinent to the problem of protecting sensitive electrical equipment with a sleeve.
Applicant additionally contends that Fan and Worth-It do not teach a certain shape of a handle body. However, it has been held that a change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the shape of the handle body to reflect the claim language.
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