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
Applicant’s 4-2-2026 amendment was received. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, and 13 were amended. Claims 6 and 14-20 were canceled. Claims 1-5 and 6-13 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: fastener piece in Claim 10; a supporting piece in Claim 13.
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 § 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 10, 11 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 re Claim 10, “the filter” lacks antecedent basis. Claim 10 now depends from Claim 1. Claim 7 introduces a filter. Should Claim 10 depend from Claim 7? This is unclear. The claims were interpreted as Claim 10 depending from Claim 1 and “the filter” was interpreted as “a filter.”
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, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 103 15 430 B4 in view of CN 209158467U.
In re Claim 1, DE 103 15 430 B4 teaches a magnetic nose hair device (see Figs. 1-6), comprising a cutter head (see Figs. 1-4, #6) and a main body (see Fig. 3, #7), wherein the cutter head comprises a cutter head housing (see Fig. #1-2, #6, etc.), the cutter head (see Fig. 3, #6) is defined with a cavity (see Fig. 3, #6 defines a cavity) and an upper opening (see Fig. 3, opening #27) in communication with each other, a blade cover (see Fig. 2-4, showing a blade cover that covers the rotating blade) is arranged at the upper opening of the cutter head,
an inner cutting knife is arranged inside the blade cover (see Fig. 4, blade #3/34/33/32/34), the inner cutting knife comprises a receiving portion defining a receiving space therein (see Fig. 4, receiving portion in which #41 is located), a spring is arranged within the receiving space (see Fig. 5, showing spring #42 located in the receiving space); and
a rotating shaft (see Fig. 3, #5) extends out of a top of the main body and is configured to be abutted against the spring (see Fig. 3, spring #42) within the receiving space.
DE 103 15 430 B4 is silent as to a bottom of the cutter head housing is provided with a first magnetic piece, a top of the main body corresponding to the first magnetic piece is provided with a second magnetic piece, and the cutter head and the main body are magnetically and detachably connected together through the first magnetic piece and the second magnetic piece.
However, CN 209158467U teaches it is known in the nose hair trimmer art to provide a trimmer wherein a bottom of the cutter head housing is provided with a first magnetic piece (see Fig. 1, #11, “second magnet” of #3/30), a top of the main body corresponding to the first magnetic piece is provided with a second magnetic piece (see Fig. 1, #10, “first magnet”), and the cutter head and the main body are magnetically and detachably connected together through the first magnetic piece and the second magnetic piece (see CN 209158467U, translation, abstract and second full paragraph of Pg. 2 of the translation).
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 add the magnetic system of CN 209148467 U to the trimmer of DE 103 15 430 B4 in order to allow the user to attach additional trimmer heads to the body of the tool. This both saves costs, but also reduces the need to carry multiple different tools when traveling, thereby saving space in the user’s bag/suitcase.
In re Claim 3, modified DE 103 15 430 B4, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the first magnetic piece and the second magnetic piece are both magnets (in CN 209158467U, both #10 and #11 are magnets).
In re Claim 5, modified DE 103 15 430 B4, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a first magnetic piece mounting groove is provided at a bottom end of the cutter head housing (in CN 209158467U, the aperture in which #11 is secured in #30 is considered a groove in Fig. 1), and a top of the main body corresponding to the first magnetic piece mounting groove is provided with a second magnetic piece mounting groove (see CN 209158467U, annotated Fig. 2, below), and the second magnetic piece mounting groove is provided with the second magnetic piece (see annotated Fig. 2, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
682
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 103 15 430 B4 in view of CN 209158467U, and further in view of US 2013/0312265 to Wilson.
In re Claim 2, modified DE 103 15 430 B4, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein at least one of the first magnetic piece and the second magnetic piece is a magnet (CN 209148467 U teaching both first and second pieces are magnets). modified DE 103 15 430 B4, in re Claim 1, does not teach another one of the first magnetic piece and the second magnetic piece is a ferromagnetic metal.
However, Wilson teaches that it is known in the hair cutting art to provide a magnet on one side of the connection and a ferrous strip on the other side of the connection (see Figs. 3A-B, #105/107; see also Para. 0010, 0036). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add utilize the magnet/ferrous material connection taught by Wilson. Doing so provides an attractive force between the magnet and ferrous strip which is sufficient to draw the structures together yet is weak enough to allow the assembly to be easily removed (see Wilson, Para. 0036).
Claims 4-5, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 103 15 430 B4 in view of CN 209158467U, and further in view of US 9,579,809 to Hawes.
In re Claim 4, modified DE 103 15 430 B4, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a number of the first magnetic piece is two (see CN 209158467U, Figs. 1 and 2, showing two magnets in cutting head #3) and the two first magnetic pieces are arranged symmetrically at a bottom end of the cutter head housing along an axis of a bottom opening of the cutter head housing (see CN 209158467U, Fig. 1, showing the magnets #11, arranged symmetrically at the bottom of #3 along an axis of the opening of the head #3).
Modified DE 103 15 430 B4, in re Claim 1, teaches a single second magnet and therefore does not teach a number of the second magnetic piece is two. However, Hawes teaches that it is known in the art to use multiple magnets to secure two housings together (see Hawes, Fig. 2a, #50/60 and Fig. 4, #112/114/124/126). In the same field of invention, using magnets as fasteners, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the single second magnet of CN 209158467U two or three magnets. Doing so is a substation of own known arrangement with a single magnet for another known arrangement, using multiple magnets, to secure two housings together (see MPEP 2143, I, B).
If it is argued that the cutting head of CN 209158467 U does not teach a groove then Claim 5 is further rejected in view of Hawes.
In re Claim 5, CN 209158467U teaches wherein a top of the main body corresponding to the first magnetic piece mounting groove is provided with a second magnetic piece mounting groove (see annotated Fig. 2, above), and the second magnetic piece mounting groove is provided with a second magnetic piece (see annotated Fig. 2, above).
CC 209158467 U does not teach a first magnetic piece mounting groove is provided at a bottom end of the cutter head housing. However, Hawes teaches that it is known to provide a receptacle for receiving a magnet (see Howes, Fig. 2a, pocket #64 receives magnet #58). In the same field of invention, housings securing magnets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add pockets, which create grooves, in the housings of CN 209158467U to receive the magnets. Doing so would ensure that the magnets are located in the correct position.
In re Claim 9, modified DE 103 15 430 B4, in re Claim 5, teaches does not teach the first magnetic piece mounting groove is provided at an edge of an inner wall of the cutter head housing. In other words, CN 209158467U does not appear to teach the magnet in a receptacle creating a groove. However, Hawes teaches that it is known to provide a receptacle for receiving a magnet (see Howes, Fig. 2a, pocket#64 receives magnet #58). In the same field of invention, housings securing magnets, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add pockets, which create grooves, in the housings of CN 209158467U to receive the magnets. Doing so would ensure that the magnets are located in the correct position.
In re Claim 12, modified DE 103 15 430 B4, in re Claim 5, teaches a plurality of grooves are defined in the blade cover (see DE 103 15 430, Fig. 1, #24).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 103 15 430 B4 in view of CN 209158467U, and further in view of US 5,012,576 to Johannesson.
In re Claim 7, modified DE 103 15 430 B4, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein a filter is provided inside the main body, and a through hole for the rotating shaft to pass through is provided at a center of the filter.
However, Johannesson teaches that it is known in the art of personal hair trimmers, to provide a filter (see Johannesson, Fig. 3, #34 – see also Col. 2, ll. 25-36 and Col. 2, ll. 55-62) in personal hair trimmers, including nose trimmers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a filter to the device of modified DE 103 15 430 B4. Doing so traps hairs to prevent debris from extending into the housing (see Johannesson, Col. 1, ll. 40-60).
In re Claim 8, modified DE 103 15 430 B4, in re Claim 7, teaches wherein the filter is disposable (see Johannesson, Col. 2, ll. 25-36). The filter is capable of being thrown away after replacement.
Claims 10-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE 103 15 430 B4 in view of CN 209158467U in view of US 5,012,576 to Johannesson and JP 2007-44081 A.
In re Claim 10, modified DE 103 15 430 B4, in re Claim 1, does not teach a fastening piece is provided on a top of the main body, and a filter is arranged inside the fastening piece.
However, Johannesson teaches that it is known in the art of personal hair trimmers, to provide a filter (see Johannesson, Fig. 3, #34 – see also Col. 2, ll. 25-36 and Col. 2, ll. 55-62) in personal hair trimmers, including nose trimmers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add a filter to the device of modified DE 103 15 430 B4. Doing so traps hairs to prevent debris from extending into the housing (see Johannesson, Col. 1, ll. 40-60).
Additionally, JP 2007-44081A teaches that it is known to provide a fastening piece with a filter arranged in the fastening piece (see JP 2007-44081A, Figs. 5-6, fastening piece #3asub1 and filter #3d).
In the same field of invention, personal/nose hair trimmers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the filter and fastening piece of JP 2007-44081A to the trimmer of modified DE 103 15 430 B4. With the filter structure “ the nasal hair chips are prevented from being scattered outside the outer shell 32 by the above air flow, that is, into the nostrils, and the user's troublesome feeling due to the nasal hair chips remaining in the nostrils can be avoided” – see JP 2007-44081A translation, Pg.6, first full paragraph).
In re Claim 11, modified DE 103 15 430 B4, in re Claim 10, teaches wherein a rotating shaft through hole is provided in a center of the fastening piece (see JP 2007-44081A, Fig. 6, #29 is inserted into a through olé of #3asub1 and #3d), the rotating shaft passes through the rotating shaft through hole to allow the fastening piece and the main body to be detachably connected (see JP 2007-44081A, Fig. 6, showing the shaft passing through the hole to allow the fastening piece #3 to be attached to the body #4).
In re Claim 13, modified DE 103 15 430 B4, in re Claim 10, teaches a supporting piece is arranged between the fastening piece and the main body (see JP 2007-44081, 3asub2 is between 3asub1 and the main body #6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s drawing amendments have cured the prior Drawing Objections.
Applicant’s specification amendment have cured the prior Specification Objections.
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 the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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