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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “120” in Fig. 11 has been used to designate both graphic windows ([0043] – Specification of the claimed invention) and smaller holes ([0042] – Specification of the claimed invention). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 10 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 appears to be missing the word “sleeve” after the word “hollow” in line 1.
Claim 13 appears to be missing the word “layer” after the word “oil” in 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 12, there is no positive antecedent basis for “the coupling portion”.
In claim 13, there is not positive antecedent basis for “the outer surface”.
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.
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), a region of the handle 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).
Fan does not teach that the sleeve comprises a 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 at a closed 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 (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 closed end (2:51 of video and Fig. 3 of attached PDF; closed 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 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.
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 and Worth-It 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 6, the combination of Fan and Worth-It already teaches wherein a flexible band is attachable to the connector (Rejection of claim 1 above - Lanyard).
Regarding claim 7, the existing combination of Fan and Worth-It 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 and Worth-It 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 and Worth-It 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 and Worth-It 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 through a portion of the sleeve (Fig. 2; Page 10 Para 7 - charging hole near Charging Interface 453).
Regarding claim 12, Fan further teaches the sleeve of claim 11 wherein the coupling portion 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 and Worth-It 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 and Worth-It 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 and Worth-It 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).
Claims 4 and 5 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 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Angel Rodriguez (US 20200316795 A1 – hereinafter Rodriguez).
Regarding claim 4, the existing combination of Fan and Worth-It does not teach the sleeve of claim 1 wherein the hollow sleeve comprises a liquid impermeable shell.
However, 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 5, the existing combination of Fan and Worth-It does not teach the sleeve of claim 1 wherein the hollow sleeve comprises a silicone material.
However, Rodriguez teaches a sleeve for a trimmer which is comprised of silicone (Fig. 2, Covering 150; [0040]).
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.
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 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 and Worth-It does not teach the sleeve of claim 1 wherein the sleeve has a thickness in a range of 1-3 mm and the outer surface comprises 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 and Worth-It 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 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 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 and Worth-It 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, 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”).
Conclusion
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