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 February 12th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application. Examiner withdraws the objections to the claims previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed November 20th, 2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
Roman Röder et al. (EP 3907045 A1 – hereinafter Röder).
Regarding claim 1, Röder teaches a beard trimmer (Fig. 1, Trimmer 1) with cutting head
damping, the beard trimmer comprising: - a handle (Fig. 2, Handle 100) comprising a motor
(Fig. 2, Motor 103); - a cutting head (Fig. 2, Cutter Head 2) comprising a fixed blade (Fig. 5,
Cutting Element 4) and a movable blade (Fig. 5, Cutting Element 5);- and a cutting head
damping system (Fig. 10, system shown); the damping system comprising: - a movable fixed-
blade support (Fig. 10, support comprising Inner Frame 11, Outer Frame 12, Pivot Axis 21, and
Biasing Device 22) connecting the fixed blade of the cutting head to the handle and comprising a
proximal portion (Fig. 10, bottom half of the fixed-blade support closest to the handle) on a side
of the handle of the trimmer and a distal portion (Fig. 10, top half of the fixed-blade support
closest to the handle) on a side of the cutting head, the movable fixed-blade support being
pivotably mounted on the handle (Fig. 6); - a spring (Fig. 10, Biasing Device 22) configured to
create a return force allowing the movable fixed-blade support to return to a rest position and to
dampen the pressure of the cutting head on a user's skin ([0103]); wherein the handle comprises
a hollow space (Fig. 10, space between Frame Portions 42) configured to receive the proximal
portion of the movable support, the proximal portion of the movable support being integrally
retractable into said hollow space (Fig. 2; [0103]- examiner interprets that returning the rest
position upon the influence of Biasing Device 22 includes the proximal portion at least partially
moving, or retracting, into the hollow space) of the handle when the spring is in the rest position.
Regarding claim 3, Röder further teaches the beard trimmer according to claim 1,
wherein the movable support pivots about an axis of rotation perpendicular to a longitudinal axis
of the trimmer (Fig. 6, pivoting of the support occurs around Pivot Axis 21, which is
perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the trimmer, represented by Axis of Reciprocation 10 in
Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 4, Röder further teaches the beard trimmer according claim 1, wherein
the cutting head is offset from an outlet (Fig. 2, top of Motor 103) of the motor by a transmission
system (Fig. 2, Drive Train 109).
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 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Roman Röder et al. (EP 3907045 A1 – hereinafter Röder) as applied to claim 1 above, and
further in view of Vito Carlucci et al. (US 20080295340 A1 – hereinafter Carlucci).
Regarding claim 2, Röder fails to teach the beard trimmer according to claim 1, wherein
the hollow space has substantially the same shape as said proximal portion of the movable
support.
However, Carlucci teaches a beard trimmer (Fig. 1, Device 1) with a hollow space (Fig. 5
and Fig. 6, space in handle that Knob 15 fits into) that has substantially the same shape as a
proximal portion (Fig. 5 and Fig. 6, Knob 15) of a movable support.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the hollow space of Röder to have substantially the same shape as
the proximal portion as a matter of design choice. 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.
Regarding claim 10, Röder fails to teach the beard trimmer according to claim 1,
wherein the fixed blade is configured to be selectively locked in one of a plurality of fixed
positions.
However, Carlucci teaches a beard trimmer, wherein the fixed blade (Fig. 2, the Cutting
Plate 11 which is fixed) is configured to be selectively locked in one of a plurality of fixed
positions ([0035]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Röder to include the limitations of claim 10 above
as taught by Carlucci. Doing so is beneficial as it can prevent the cutting head from pivoting
when desired (Carlucci; [0005]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman Röder et
al. (EP 3907045 A1 – hereinafter Röder) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of
Hans Moll (EP 2332699 A1– hereinafter Moll).
Regarding claim 5, Röder fails to teach the beard trimmer according to claim 4, wherein
a distance between the cutting head and the outlet of the motor is comprised between 40 and 70
mm.
However, Moll teaches a beard trimmer, wherein a distance between the cutting head and
the outlet of the motor is comprised between 8mm and 24 mm (Fig. 5, Connecting Member 31;
[0006] and [0007] - Connecting Member 31 runs between the shaft of the motor and the cutting
head, and therefore the length of this member also defines a distance between the outlet of the
motor and the cutting head). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before
the effective filing date to modify the length of the connecting member such that the distance
between the cutting head and the outlet of the motor is comprised between 40 mm and 70 mm as
a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a
claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable
ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA
1955). The length of the connecting member is disclosed to be a result effective variable by Moll
as it needs to be optimized to improve the engagement of the movable and stationary blade
through the magnitude of the force component acting upon them ([0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Röder to include the limitations of claim 5 above
as taught by Moll. Doing so is beneficial as it influences the force component which promotes
the engagement of the moveable and stationary blades (Moll; [0027]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman
Röder et al. (EP 3907045 A1 – hereinafter Röder) as applied to claim 4 above, and further
in view of Marcus Eijkelkamp et al. (WO 2017109143 A1 – hereinafter Eijkelkamp) and
Frank Noonan (US 1302836 A – hereinafter Noonan).
Regarding claim 6, Röder fails to teach the beard trimmer according to claim 4, wherein
the transmission system comprises: - a first ball joint socket located at the outlet of the motor,
wherein the first ball joint socket is configured to be rotated by the motor;- a telescopic
transmission shaft comprising two parts, one of which slides into the other, first and second ends
of said telescopic transmission shaft being in the form of ball joints, the first end being clipped
into the first ball joint socket and the second end being clipped into a second ball joint socket;- a
crank fastened to the second ball joint socket; such that, in use, a rotational movement of the first
ball joint socket is transmitted to the telescopic transmission shaft and then to the crank via the
second ball joint socket, the crank converting the rotational movement transmitted by the second
ball joint socket into a translational movement to the movable blade.
However, Eijkelkamp teaches a beard trimmer, wherein the transmission system
comprises: - a first ball joint (Fig. 3, Male Connector 58) located at the outlet of the motor (Fig.
3, Driving Shaft 34 is the outlet of Motor 30), wherein the first ball joint is configured to be
rotated by the motor;- a transmission shaft (Fig. 3, Transmission Shaft 36), a first end of the
transmission shaft being in the form of a first ball joint socket (Fig. 3, Female Connector 60), and
a second end of said transmission shaft being in the form of a ball joint (Fig. 3, Male Connector
80), the first ball joint being clipped into the first ball joint socket and the second end being
clipped into a second ball joint socket (Fig. 3, Female Connector 82);- a crank (Fig. 5, Eccentric
Driver 40) fastened to the second ball joint socket; such that, in use, a rotational movement of the
first ball joint is transmitted to the transmission shaft and then to the crank via the second ball
joint socket, the crank converting the rotational movement transmitted by the second ball joint
socket into a translational movement to the movable blade (Page 15, Para 4). It would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Eijkelkamp
such that the first end of the shaft is in the form of a ball joint, and there is a first ball joint socket
located at the outlet of the motor by switching the locations of the existing first ball joint and first
ball joint socket 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).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify Röder to include the elements of claim 6 above as taught by
Eijkelkamp. Doing so is beneficial as the transmission of force from the motor through to the
cutting head is enabled regardless of any angular offset of the transmission shaft with other drive
system components (Eijkelkamp; Page 4 Para 2).
Additionally, Noonan teaches a beard trimmer (Fig. 1, trimmer shown) which has a
telescopic transmission shaft (Fig. 3 and Fig. 5, shaft comprised of Part 27 and Part 50/51)
comprising two parts, one of which slides into the other.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the combination of Röder and Eijkelkamp to include the
limitations of claim 6 above as taught by Noonan. Doing so is beneficial as it allows transmit
power from the motor into reciprocation of the moveable cutter with minimal frictional
resistance (Noonan; Page 2, lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 7, the existing combination of Röder, Eijkelkamp, and Noonan already
teaches the beard trimmer according to claim 6, wherein the first and second ends of the
transmission shaft each comprise two nipples (Eijkelkamp; Fig. 3, triangular corners of 80 and
58) coinciding with two slots (Eijkelkamp; Fig. 3, slots on the inside of 60 and 82) located in the
first ball joint socket and the second ball joint socket, respectively, to prevent the vertical
movement of the first and second ends of the transmission shaft (Eijkelkamp; Fig. 5, it can be
seen that 80 and 58 are situated in a way which prevents them from vertically detaching from 82
and 60).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman
Röder et al. (EP 3907045 A1 – hereinafter Röder) as applied to claim 1 above, and further
in view of Makoto Nakakura et al. (JP 2004216067 A – hereinafter Nakakura).
Regarding claim 8, Röder fails to teach the beard trimmer according claim 1, wherein
the movable fixed-blade support comprises a stop element configured to retain said movable
fixed-blade support in the handle such that the fixed-blade support does not exceed a
predetermined angle of rotation with respect to the handle of the trimmer.
However, Nakakura teaches a beard trimmer, wherein a movable fixed-blade support
comprises a stop element (Fig. 7a and Fig. 7c, bottom outer left and right edges of Head Portion
2) configured to retain said movable fixed-blade support on the handle such that the fixed-blade
support does not exceed a predetermined angle of rotation with respect to the handle of the
trimmer (Fig. 7a and Fig. 7c, the outer edges of head portion 2 can be seen to halt the movement
of the head in both directions once the angle between the head and the handle reaches a certain
point). If employed in Röder, the stop element of Nakakura would function to keep the cutting
head within the Frame Portions 42 of the handle of Röder.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Röder to include the limitations of claim 8 above
as taught by Nakakura. It is well known in the art that it is beneficial to have a hard stop such as
the stop element to prevent the system from operating outside of its ideal boundary.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Röder and Nakakura already teaches the beard
trimmer according to claim 8, wherein the stop element is an annular segment (Nakakura; Fig.
7a-c, the outer edges of head portion 2 exist on the curved edge of the head), coinciding with a
ledge formed inside the handle (Nakakura; Fig. 7a-c, raised left and right outer edges of Handle
1, which if f employed in Röder would exist within the Frame Portions 42 of the handle of
Röder).
Claims 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Roman Röder et al. (EP 3907045 A1 – hereinafter Röder) as applied to claim 1 above, and
further in view of Jeroen Molema et al. (EP 2875915 A1 – hereinafter Molema).
Regarding claim 11, Röder fails to teach the beard trimmer according to claim 1,
wherein the spring comprises a torsion spring.
However, Molema teaches a beard trimmer which employs a torsion spring (Fig. 9,
Torsion Bar Springs 80a and 80b) to control the pivot of the cutter head.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Röder to include the limitations of claim 11 above
as taught by Molema. It is well known in the art that torsion springs are better in terms of
durability and lifespan than extension springs.
Regarding claim 14, Röder fails to teach the beard trimmer according to claim 1, further
comprising a flexible configured to dampen, in use, the movement of the movable support by the
flexible blade contacting the stop element of the movable support.
However, Molema teaches a beard trimmer which further comprising a flexible blade
(Fig. 9, First Arm 42) configured to dampen, in use, the movement of the movable support (Fig.
9, Connecting Bar 46) by the flexible blade contacting the stop element (Fig. 9, Contact Tab 60)
of the movable support.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Röder to include the limitations of claim 14 above
as taught by Molema. Doing so is beneficial as it prevents excessive strain in pivot points due to
excessive motion (Molema; [0052]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman Röder
et al. (EP 3907045 A1 – hereinafter Röder).
Regarding claim 12, Röder does not teach the beard trimmer according to claim 1,
wherein the damping force of the spring is variable between 120 g and 500 g. However, it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the
damping force of the spring of Röder to be between 120 g and 500 g 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 Röder would
not operate differently with the damping force. Further, it appears that applicant places no
criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed
ranges (Specification of the claimed invention; [0033]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman Röder
et al. (EP 3907045 A1 – hereinafter Röder) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view
of Tae-Jun Ho (KR 200426275 Y1– hereinafter Ho).
Regarding claim 13, Röder fails to teach the beard trimmer according to claim 1,
wherein the cutting head is removable for cleaning.
However, Ho teaches a cutting head (Fig. 8, Trimmer Head 400”) which is removable
(Page 4 Para 1). Examiner interprets that cleaning the cutting head is intended use, and the
cutting head is capable of being cleaned in a removed state.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date to modify the invention of Röder to include the limitations of claim 13
above. Doing so is beneficial as it allows the cutting head to be switched out for another cutting
head (Ho, Page 4 Para 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Röder does not teach the limitation of a handle comprising a motor and a hollow space configured to receive the proximal portion of the movable support, the moveable support being integrally retractable into said hollow space of the handle when the spring is in a rest position. Applicant believes that the hollow space described by the examiner in the Non-Final Office Action belongs to a part which is not the handle, namely elements 42 are part of 41, which Applicant finds is exclusive from Handle 100. However, Merriam-Webster defines a handle as “a part that is designed especially to be grasped by the hand”. This definition does not exclude the handle being in multiple different pieces. Common examples of handles include multiple pieces such as a plastic body with a rubber gripping portion which may need to be assembled. While elements 42 are described as being part of item 41 which is attached to Handle 100, it would still be reasonable to describe 41/42 as being part of the handle as it is shown in Fig. 10 to naturally extend as part of the handle, and is never shown separated from the handle such as other distinguished elements of the Head 2.
Applicant also contends that Röder does not teach the proximal portion of the movable support being integrally retractable into the hollow space when the spring is in a rest position since the Moveable Support 12 of Röder is not completely retracted into the space between frame portions 42 when the spring device is at rest position 47 shown in Fig. 6. Examiner points to the bottom half of the fixed-blade support closest to the handle as shown in claim 10 as the proximal portion, where the fixed-blade support is the support comprising Inner Frame 11, Outer Frame 12, Pivot Axis 21, and Biasing Device 22. The plain meaning of the claim language requires that this proximal portion is integrally retractable into the hollow space when the spring is at a rest position. It can be seen in Fig. 6 that when the proximal portion moves from 46 to 47, it retracts into the space between both of 42 such that as an end result, at least some of the proximal portion is located in the space between both of 42. The plain meaning of the claim language does not require that this proximal portion is completely retracted, and additionally the claim does not require that some of the proximal portion cannot protrude from this space. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the aforementioned limitations) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 2, Applicant argues that the Knob 15 of Carlucci does not qualify as a movable fixed-blade support. However, examiner finds that the Knob 15 of Carlucci is movable and supports the fixed blade by preventing it from pivoting under biasing effect of a spring (Carlucci; [0034]), and therefore it qualifies as a movable fixed-blade support by way of comparison to the plain meaning of a movable fixed-blade support. Carlucci has not been brought in to teach any of the limitations of claim 1.
Applicant additionally argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Röder in view of Carlucci as it applies to claims 2 and 10. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the rejection of claim 2 above shows that the change of form/shape shown by Carlucci is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art (In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47), and the rejection of claim 10 above shows that there is a taught benefit of preventing the cutting head from pivoting when desired (Carlucci; [0005]).
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