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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 5-10) in the reply filed on 4/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the guide rail (see at least claim 6) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
• “holding mechanism” as recited in at least claim 1 (first, “mechanism” is a generic placeholder for “means”; second, the generic placeholder is modified by the functional language “holding”; third, the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the claimed function – e.g., the term “holding” preceding the generic placeholder describes the function, not the structure, of the mechanism)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andis (US 20070044604).
Regarding claim 1, Andis discloses a hair trimming system (clipper 10; see fig. 1) comprising a handle (housing 12; see fig. 1) and a head (blade assembly 14; see fig. 2), the head comprising a cutting unit for cutting hairs (inner blade 110 is configured to reciprocate along outer blade 114 for cutting hair; see paragraph [0020]), and the head being moveable relative to the handle (release assembly 16 has a hold state and a release state, such that blade assembly 14 can pivot; see paragraph [0025]), wherein: the head comprises a base configured to be received in the handle (blade frame 40 is configured to be received in the handle; see figs. 4 and 5), wherein the base comprises a connecting portion configured to cooperate with the handle to connect the handle and the head (blade assembly 14 includes tongue receiving member 130, which engages with tongue 126 of housing 12 in order to couple blade assembly 14 to housing 12; see paragraphs [0028-0029] and figs. 5-6), and to permit pivoting movement of the head with respect to the handle about the connecting portion (blade assembly 14 is capable of pivoting about tongue receiving member 130 when ridge 94 has been disengaged with hooks 74; see paragraph [0027] and figs. 5-6), and the base comprises a main indentation (cutout of ridge 94 which engages with top edge 142 of hooks 74; see figs. 5 and 6) the handle comprises a holding mechanism comprising a moveable stop (button 66 comprises hooks 74 which are configured to move in response to actuation of button 66; see paragraph [0025] and figs. 5-6) configured to be received in the main indentation (see fig. 5) to restrict pivoting movement of the head relative to the handle about the connecting portion so as to secure the head to the handle (blade frame 40 comprises ridge 94 which engages with hooks 74 of the handle to facilitate connection of blade assembly 14 to housing 12; see paragraph [0025] and fig. 5), wherein the stop is biased to a locked position relative to the handle (see fig. 5), wherein in the locked position, the stop is received in one of the main indentation and the intermediate indentation, to secure the head to the handle (in the locked position, ridge 94 engages hooks 74 to secure blade assembly 14 to housing 12; see fig. 5), wherein when the stop is received in the main indentation, the base of the head is received within the handle in an operational configuration (blade frame 40 is at least partially received within housing 12 during an operational configuration; see fig. 5).
Andis does not explicitly disclose an intermediate indentation; the handle comprises a holding mechanism comprising a moveable stop configured to be received in the intermediate indentation, and when the stop is received in the intermediate indentation, the head is pivoted away from the handle relative to the operational configuration, in an open configuration.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Andis to include an intermediate indentation since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8). Andis discloses a main indentation which helps secure blade assembly 14 to housing 12 in an operational position. Including an intermediate indentation would allow for the head to be partially opened, which could facilitate cleaning and removal of the head. If only one indentation is provided, even though the head is secured to the handle via the connecting portion (tongue 126, tongue receiving member 130), the head may still be damaged during release since the head is allowed to pivot to such an extent. Thus, it would be advantageous to provide an additional indentation for this purpose as well.
As modified to include an intermediate indentation, Andis further discloses an intermediate indentation (as modified, a second indentation is provided as part of blade frame 40); the handle comprises a holding mechanism comprising a moveable stop configured to be received in the intermediate indentation (as modified, hooks 74 would be received by the intermediate indentation in the same manner as ridge 94; see fig. 5), and when the stop is received in the intermediate indentation, the head is pivoted away from the handle relative to the operational configuration, in an open configuration (as modified to include an intermediate indentation, blade assembly 14 would be pivoted away from housing 12, as in fig. 6).
Regarding claim 5, Andis as modified discloses the limitations of claim 1 as described in the rejection above.
Andis as modified further discloses a release button disposed on the handle (button 66 is positioned on housing 12; see fig. 1), and moveable with respect to the handle from a neutral position to a release position (a downward force F may be applied to button 66; see paragraph [0027] and figs. 5-6), wherein the release button is configured to abut the head when moved towards the release position, to push the head away from the handle (hooks 74 of button 66 abut blade assembly 14 as force F is applied, such that blade assembly 14 is disengaged from housing 12; see paragraph [0027] and fig. 6), to pivot the head about the connecting portion relative to the handle (blade assembly 14 is capable of pivoting about tongue receiving member 130 when ridge 94 has been disengaged with hooks 74; see paragraph [0027] and figs. 5-6).
Regarding claim 6, Andis as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Andis as modified further discloses wherein the release button is disposed on a guide rail describing an arcuate path (the edges of upper housing 22 on either side of button 66; see figs. 5 and 6), such that the release button is configured to move between the neutral position and the release position along the arcuate path (button 66 can be pivoted, moved horizontally, or moved vertically to move from a hold state to a release state; see paragraph [0025]).
Regarding claim 7, Andis as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Andis as modified further discloses wherein the handle comprises a release block configured to block movement of the release button beyond the release position (extension portion 50 prevents button 66 from moving further than a release position; see fig. 6), wherein when the release button abuts the head at the release position, the stop is received in the intermediate indentation (as modified to include an intermediate indentation, hooks 74 would engage with the intermediate indentation at a release position).
Regarding claim 8, Andis as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Andis as modified further discloses wherein the main indentation and the intermediate indentation define a peak therebetween (as modified to include an intermediate indentation, a peak is positioned between the main and intermediate indentations; see annotated portion of fig. 5 below), wherein the intermediate indentation comprises a continuous surface from the peak to a trough of the intermediate indentation (as modified, the intermediate indentation includes a surface similar to that of ridge 94, such that a trough is positioned between the main and intermediate indentations).
PNG
media_image1.png
390
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Andis as modified discloses the limitations of claim 7 as described in the rejection above.
Andis as modified further discloses wherein when the release button abuts the head at the release position, the stop is received on the continuous surface between the peak and the trough of the intermediate indentation (as modified, when button 66 is in a release position, hooks 74 will be received at the continuous surface of the intermediate indentation – when button 66 is released, hooks 74 will engage the intermediate indentation to hold blade assembly 14 in a release position), such that a biasing force on the stop to the locked position causes the stop to propel the head away from the handle until the stop is received in the trough of the intermediate indentation (due to the shape of ridge 94, hooks 74 will push ridge 94 away from housing 12 while it is between the main and intermediate indentations; see figs. 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 10, Andis as modified discloses the limitations of claim 5 as described in the rejection above.
Andis as modified further discloses wherein the release button comprises a protrusion configured to interact with the stop (button 66 has extensions connecting it to hooks 74; see annotated portion of fig. 5 above), to push or pull the stop away from the locked position when the release button is moved towards the release position (the extensions linking button 66 and hooks 74 control movement of hooks 74 as button 66 is actuated; see figs. 5 and 6).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: DE 102010011783 to Hauser, drawn to a clipper assembly for a hair clipper; US 4694575 to Boerger, drawn to a clipper attachment device; US 3222781 to Luther, drawn to a hair clipper; and US 2542378 to Armbruster, drawn to an electric hair clipper.
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