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)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 15, drawn to the motor, in [33]; 70, drawn to the fitting groove, in [45]. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "11" and "12" have both been used to designate the lower case 11 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. Additionally, reference characters "11" and "12" have both been used to designate the Upper Case 12 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“Cap 40” in [50] is incorrectly labelled, and should instead read “Cap 50”.
In [38], the wires are described to have a diameter of 0.05 m to 0.5 m. A wire diameter of this size could not feasibly be used in a mesh meant to fit inside of a nostril of an average human being. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm was the intended range.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, the wires are described to have a diameter of 0.05 m to 0.5 m. A wire diameter of this size could not feasibly be used in a mesh meant to fit inside of a nostril of an average human being. For purposes of examination, it is assumed that 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm was the intended range.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon Jung Yeol et al. (KR 101263248 B1 – hereinafter Yeol) in view of Thomas Schwerin (US 8838232 B1 – hereinafter Schwerin), Kim Yong Bum et al. (KR 101207843 B1 – hereinafter Bum), and Urushibara Wataru et al. (JP 3691004 B2 – hereinafter Wataru).
Regarding claim 1, Yeol teaches a nose hair trimmer, comprising: a case (Fig. 1, Case 10) having a battery (Fig. 2, Battery 13) and a motor (Fig. 2, Motor 15) accommodated therein and divided into a lower case (Fig. 2, Lower Case 11) and an upper case (Fig. 2, Upper Case 12) separably coupled to each other; an inner rotating blade unit (Fig. 2, Internal Rotary Blade Unit 40) separably fitted to a rotary shaft (Fig. 2, Rotary Shaft 16) of the motor; an outer fixed blade holder (Fig. 2, External Fixed Blade Holder 20) for covering an upper portion of the case in such a way as to hold the inner rotating blade unit therein; a dome-shaped outer fixed blade (Fig. 2, External Fixed Blade 30) located on top of the outer fixed bade holder and having through holes formed thereon to allow nose hairs to be introduced therethrough; and a cap (Fig. 2, Cap 50) for covering the outer fixed bade holder.
Yeol fails to teach wherein an antibacterial mesh is placed between top of the inside of the outer fixed blade and top of the inner rotating blade unit, and the antibacterial mesh is made by coating a mesh made of copper wires with 99.99% purity to a size of a diameter 0.05 m to 0.5 m with an antibacterial solvent comprising 0.5 to 5% by weight of titanium dioxide, 1 to 10% by weight of silicon dioxide, 0.2 to 3% by weight of nickel, 30 to 80% by weight of ethanol, and 5 to 30% by weight of water.
However, Schwerin teaches a hair trimmer with an antibacterial mesh (Fig. 1, Screens 22A, 22B, and 22C) on top of an inner blade unit, the antibacterial mesh being made of copper wires 99.99% purity (Col. 3, lines 36-43. Copper is naturally antibacterial. It is well known in the art that copper wire is routinely produced with purity values upwards of 99.9%). Schwerin does not expressly disclose the wire diameter in the mesh being 0.05 mm to 0.5 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 mesh of Schwerin to be composed of wire having a diameter between 0.05 mm and 0.5 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 Schwerin would not operate differently with the claimed diameter and since the mesh is intended to allow hair to pass through gaps, and a wire of this diameter is capable of creating a mesh for this purpose. Further, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. [15]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the invention of Yeol to include the features of claim 1 as taught by Schwerin. Doing so is beneficial as the screen provides a cover over the blades while still allowing hair to pass through and be cut (Schwerin; Col 1, lines 50-52).
Bum teaches a coating of an antibacterial solvent comprising 0.5 to 5% by weight of titanium dioxide, 1 to 10% by weight of silicon dioxide, 30 to 80% by weight of ethanol, and 5 to 30% by weight of water (Page 4 Para 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the mesh of the combination of Yeol and Schwerin to include the coating as taught by Bum. Doing so is beneficial as it creates a germicidal atmosphere on the surface of the mesh (Bum; Page 4 Para 2).
The combination of Yeol, Schwerin, and Bum fails to teach that the antibacterial solvent comprises 0.2 to 3% by weight of nickel.
However, Wataru teaches the use of nickel-based powder in a solvent, the solvent comprising 1% by mass to 10% by mass ([0048]). 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 percentage of nickel used in the solvent of Wataru 0.2 to 3% by weight 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 Wataru would not operate differently with the claimed diameter and since the nickel is intended to provide antibacterial properties, which this concentration of nickel allows for.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the coating of the combination of Yeol, Schwerin, and Bum to comprise 0.2 to 3% by weight of nickel as taught by Wataru. Doing so is beneficial as nickel provides antifungal properties (Wataru; [0048]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon Jung Yeol et al. (KR 101263248 B1 – hereinafter Yeol) in view of Thomas Schwerin (US 8838232 B1 – hereinafter Schwerin), Kim Yong Bum et al. (KR 101207843 B1 – hereinafter Bum), and Urushibara Wataru et al. (JP 3691004 B2 – hereinafter Wataru) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gao-yan Li (CN 106985171 A – hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 2, Yeol further teaches the nose hair trimmer according to claim 1, wherein on a portion where the lower case and the upper case are coupled to each other is located a first sealing ring (Fig. 2, Sealing Ring 14).
Yeol fails to teach that on a portion where the outer fixed blade holder and the upper case are coupled to each other is located a second sealing ring.
However, Li teaches a hair trimmer with a sealing ring (Fig. 2, Sealing Ring 17) between an outer fixed blade holder (Fig. 2, Upper Cover 1) and the case (Fig. 2, Housing 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the invention of the combination of Yeol, Schwerin, Bum, and Wataru to include the features of claim 2 as taught by Li. Doing so is beneficial as it improves the sealing effect between case and the outer fixed blade holder (Li; Page 2 Para 5).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon Jung Yeol et al. (KR 101263248 B1 – hereinafter Yeol) in view of Thomas Schwerin (US 8838232 B1 – hereinafter Schwerin), Kim Yong Bum et al. (KR 101207843 B1 – hereinafter Bum), and Urushibara Wataru et al. (JP 3691004 B2 – hereinafter Wataru) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thomas Mehl Sr. et al. (US 6090085 A – hereinafter Mehl).
Regarding claim 3, the existing combination of Yeol, Schwerin, Bum, and Wataru fails to teach the nose hair trimmer according to claim 1, wherein the case and the outer fixed blade have plated layers formed on the surfaces thereof, and each plated layer has an antibacterial layer coated on the surface thereof with an inorganic antibacterial material containing titanium dioxide performing antibacterial and deodorant functions and nano silver having an antibacterial function, while having photooxidation caused by ultraviolet rays.
However, Mehl teaches a skin care device having outer surfaces which have plated layers formed on the surfaces thereof (Col 7, lines 61-62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the invention of the combination of Yeol, Schwerin, Bum, and Wataru to include the features of claim 3 as taught by Mehl. It is well known in the art that electroless nickel plating is beneficial as it results in a durable and corrosion-resistant finish.
Bum further teaches the use of an antibacterial coating with an inorganic antibacterial material containing titanium dioxide performing antibacterial and deodorant functions and nano silver having an antibacterial function, while having photooxidation caused by ultraviolet rays (Page 4 Para 1; titanium dioxide is a photocatalyst).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time
of filing to modify the invention of the combination of Yeol, Schwerin, Bum, Wataru, and Mehl to include the features of claim 3 as taught by Bum. Doing so is beneficial as the coating is antimicrobial (Bum; Page 4 Para 2).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Yeol, Schwerin, Bum, Wataru, and Mehl already teaches the nose hair trimmer according to claim 3, wherein the inorganic antibacterial material coated on the surface of the plated layer comprises 100 to 700 PPM of nano silver contained in a solvent comprising 0.5 to 5% by weight of titanium dioxide, 1to 10% by weight of silicon dioxide, 0.2 to 3% by weight of aluminum oxide, 30 to 80% by weight of ethanol, and 5 to 30% by weight of water (Bum; Page 4 Para 1).
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, Adam Eiseman can be reached at 571-270-3818. 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
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3724