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
Applicant’s 4-20-2026 Amendment was received. Claims 1, 3, and 7 were amended. Claim 2 and 12-20 were cancelled. Claims 1 and 2-11 are pending and examined in this action.
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: means of transmission in Claim 5.
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
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, 3-4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2022161971 in view of US 2,183,442 to Blackwell.
In re Claim 1, JP 2022161971 teaches an electric nose hair suction clipper (see Figs. 59-64), comprising: a cutter head (see Fig. 62, #84) , comprising a cutter head housing (see Fig. 62, #8411), wherein each of two ends of the cutter head housing is provided with an through opening (see Fig. 62, each of the ends of #8411 has an opening), and a cavity is provided between the two through openings (see Fig. 62, #8411, in view of Figs. 59-64, has a cavity between the upper and lower openings);
a main housing (see Fig. 62, #10/81/811), wherein the cutter head is connected to the main housing (see Fig. 62, showing #8411 and #80 connected in an assembly), a top of the main housing is provided with an air inlet (see Fig. 62, hole in which filter #62 is located), and the cavity communicates with an interior of the main housing through the air inlet (see JP 2022161971, translation, which states: The cavity formed inside the filter 82 also constitutes a part of the air flow path 85 through which the air flow generated by the fan 87 passes); and
a shaft fan (see Fig. 62, fan #87), arranged inside the main housing (see Fig. 62, fan #87 is located within #80); wherein the shaft fan comprises a shaft (see Fig. 62, shaft #86), a lower end of the shaft is provided with a guide plate with an inward recessed bottom surface (see Fig. 62, #861), a plurality of flow guide ribs are fixedly arranged on an upper surface of the guide plate, and the plurality of flow guide ribs are arranged at intervals on the guide plate (the fan of JP 2022161971 includes guide ribs at intervals.
JP 2022161971 does not teach the fan having the guide ribs (blades) wherein each of the plurality of flow guide ribs comprises two opposing surfaces curved at the same direction with respect to a radius of the guide plate.
However, Blackwell teaches that it is known in the electrical motor hair trimming/cutting art to provide a fan wherein the plurality of flow guide ribs comprises two opposing surfaces curved at the same direction with respect to a radius of the guide plate (see Blackwell, Fig. 3, #12 and Pg. 1, Col. 2, ll. 20-40). In the same field of invention, electrical motors/fans for hair trimming/cutting tools, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to replace the flat blade structure of JP 2022161971 with the curved structure of Blackwell as a substitution of one known fan blade for another known fan blade in order to move air throughout the tool (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so is one embodiment of a fan that can move hair throughout the body of the tool (see Blackwell, Pg. 2, Col. 1, ll. 50-59)
In re Claim 3, modified JP 2022161971, in re Claim 2, teaches wherein an air outlet is provided on a side wall of the main housing (see JP 2022161971, Fig. 62, #8112), the air outlet is located in a position corresponding to an arrangement position of the plurality of flow guide ribs (see JP 2022161971, Fig. 62, illustrating air-port #8112 adjacent to the fan blades of fan #87), and the air outlet is in communication with the air inlet (in JP 2022161971 , air flow path #85 is in communication with air-port #8112).
In re Claim 4, modified JP 2022161971, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a blade cover is arranged at an upper opening of the cutter head housing (see JP 2022161971, Fig. 62, #8412), an inner cutting knife is arranged inside the blade cover (see JP 2022161971, Fig. 62, #8422a), and an upper part of the shaft passes through a top opening of the main housing to connect with the inner cutting knife (see JP 2022161971, Fig. 62, teaching 86 transmitting power from motor #15 to blade #8422).
In re Claim 6, modified JP 2022161971, in re Claim 2, teaches wherein a bottom end of the shaft is provided with a motor connection hole, and an output end of a motor is connected to the shaft with an interference through the motor connecting hole (see JP 2022161971, Fig. 62, teaching #867 which is part of the shaft assembly and receives drive shaft #16 of motor #15).
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2022161971 in view of US 2,183,442 to Blackwell, and further in view of US 2021/0237291 to Tran.
In re Claim 5, modified JP 2022161971, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein a cross-section of the shaft is non-circular, and a mounting hole is provided at a bottom of the inner cutting knife, a size and a cross-sectional shape of the mounting hole is consistent with those of the inner cutting knife, and the inner cutting knife is connected to the shaft by means of transmission.
However, Tran teaches that it is known to provide a drive shaft that is non-circular (see Tran, Fig. 2, #20) and a corresponding mounting hole (see Tran, Fig. 2, #10and Para. 0041).
In the same field of invention, nose hair trimmers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to make the drive shaft non-circular with a corresponding mounting hole, as taught by Tran. Doing so is the substation of one known connection style or type for another known connection style or type to achieve the results of transmitting rotation power. Doing so provides a significant enhancement of connection between blade and drive shaft (see Tran, Para. 0041).
Such a combination would read on a mounting hole is provided at a bottom of the inner cutting knife, a size and a cross-sectional shape of the mounting hole is consistent with those of the inner cutting knife, and the inner cutting knife is connected to the shaft by means of transmission.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2022161971 in view of US 2,183,442 to Blackwell, and further in view of DE 199 29 590 A1.
In re Claim 7, modified JP 2022161971, in re Claim 1, is silent as to wherein a bottom width of the guide plate is greater than a width of the motor, an upper end of the motor is configured to be accommodated in a recessed space formed in the bottom of the guide plate.
However, DE 199 29 590 A1 teaches that it is known in the of fans for electrical motors to provide a bottom with of the guide plate is greater than the width of the motor (see Fig. 4 of DE 199 29 590 A1, showing the bottom surface/closest to the motor of fan #34 is larger than the motor), an upper end of the motor is configured to be accommodated in a recessed space formed in the bottom of the guide plate (see Fig. 4, #34/38 in view of #36).
In the same field of invention, fans for electrical motors, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to extend the fan blades over the outer diameter of the motor, as taught by DE 199 29 590 A1. Doing so is the substitution of one known electrical motor fan for another known electrical motor fan to move air (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Such a fan increases air flow during operation (see DE 199 29 590 A1, translation, Pg. 3, ll. 23-25)
Claim 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2022161971 in view of US 2,183,442 to Blackwell, and further in view of US 2006/0230619 to Williams.
In re Claim 8, modified JP 2022161971, in re Claim 2, teaches wherein the main housing comprises a first housing and a second housing (see Fig. 59, #80/#11),
Modified JP 2022161971, in re Claim 1, does not teach the first housing is provided with at least two female buckles, the second housing is provided with at least two male buckles corresponding to and matching a position of the female buckles, the first housing and the second housing are detachably buckled and snapped through the male buckles and the female buckles. The Examiner notes that buckles were interpreted as snap-fit structure – see Applicant’s Para. 0022.
However, Williams teaches that it is known in the art of housings for hair trimmers to provide a housing with two female buckles (see Williams, Fig. 6, recesses #130 that receive the snap fit protrusions; see also Para. 0034), and a second housing with male buckles (see Williams, Fig. 6, snap fit protrusions that are inserted in to recesses #133; see also Para. 0034), the first housing and the second housing are detachably buckled and snapped through the male buckles and the female buckles (see Williams Fig. 6 and Para. 0034).
In the same field of invention, housings for hair trimmers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to make the housing out of two part with a snap fit arrangement in order to disassemble the assembly without tools. Doing so allows the user to clear the debris created by the use of the tool as well as replace individual parts thereby saving cost over a replacement housing assembly.
In re Claim 10, modified JP 2022161971, in re Claim 8, teaches wherein an end of a connected first housing and second housing are detachably connected to a fastener (see JP 2022161971, Fig. 62, #83), and a filter is arranged inside the fastener to reduce the possibility of hair debris entering the inside of the main housing (see JP 2022161971, Fig. 62, filter #82).
In re Claim 11, modified JP 2022161971, in re Claim 8, teaches wherein a through hole is defined in a center of a surface of the filter (see JP 2022161971, Fig. 62, filter #82 has a hole that #86 passes through), a size of the through hole is greater than an outer diameter of the shaft to allow the shaft to pass through the through hole (see JP 2022161971, Fig. 62, filter #82 has a hole that #86 passes through), and the filter does not follow the rotation of the shaft, in response to the rotation of the shaft (see JP 2022161971, Fig. 62, filter #82 has a hole that #86 passes through).
Claim 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2022161971 in view of US 2,183,442 to Blackwell, and further in view of US 2021/0237291 to Tran, and further in view of US 2021/0348630 to Bachu.
In re Claim 9, modified JP 2022161971 teaches wherein a circuit compartment is arranged inside the main housing (see JP 2022161971, #59-64 showing the switch on the housing – see e.g., Fig. 7 illustrating the switch and components – circuit on the inside of the main housing), and the motor and the circuit compartment are detachably snap-fitted and electrically connected.
However, Bachu teaches that it is known in the art of electrical connections to provide a snap fit connection for electrical connections (see Bachu, Fig. 5A, #570/440, see also Para. 0065). In the same field of invention, electrical connections, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize a snap fit connection to secure the electrical components, as taught by Bachu. Doing so ensures that the electrical component is secured in the correct position.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments re the drawing objection were persuasive. The drawing objection was withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have obviated the prior 35 USC 112(b) rejections.
Applicant argued that none of the previously cited prior art teaches a fan with flow guide ribs comprises two opposing surfaces curved at a same direction with respect to a radius of the guide plate. As noted above, US 2,183,442 to Blackwell teaches it is known to use such a fan with electrically powered hair cutting/trimming tools.
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 JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights