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 . 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 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/14/2024 and 09/19/2024 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/27/2026.
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 1-10 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
-Regarding claim 1 the phrase “the nozzle structure connected to the clipper attachment and extending distally to an end, the end being located no more than about ten millimeters proximal of a plane defined by the guide surface” is unclear. Examiner notes the nozzle structure has two ends, and it is unclear as to which “end” is being claimed. Examiner suggest language such as the nozzle end configured to be in contact with the skin area, or capable of contact with the skin area.
-Claim 9 recites the limitation "the hair conditioning projections". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 10 recites the limitation "the plurality of hair conditioning projections". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 dependent from claim 1, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are rejected as being dependent from a rejected parent claim.
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, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landrie (U.S. Patent No. 8,561,303).
Regarding claim 1, Landrie teaches a method of using a surgical hair clipper with a suction attachment (Figure 2; Abstract), the method comprising:
attaching a clipper attachment (12) about a clipper body of the surgical hair clipper (18) such that a nozzle structure (20,22) of the suction attachment is located adjacent a blade assembly (14) of the surgical hair clipper, the blade assembly comprises a blade housing having a guide surface (16) that faces the skin area during a hair removal process, wherein the suction attachment comprises (Figures 2-3):
the clipper attachment connected to the clipper body; the nozzle structure connected to the clipper attachment and extending distally to an end, the end being located
Regarding claim 1: Landrie discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. Landrie further discloses, the end being located proximal of a plane defined by the guide surface.
However, Landrie does not expressly disclose, the end being located no more than about ten millimeters proximal of a plane defined by the guide surface
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Landrie to have , the end being located no more than about ten millimeters proximal of a plane defined by the guide surface 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 Landrie would not operate differently with the claimed distance and since the end of the nozzle is proximal of a plane defined by the guide surface, the device would function appropriately having the distance. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. 0024 and 0028).
Regarding claim 2, Landrie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a leading side of the nozzle structure is longer than a trailing side of the nozzle structure (Figure 7; Noting the leading side 22 to be longer than the trailing side 20).
Regarding claim 3, Landrie teaches he method of claim 1, but does not provide wherein the end is located no more than about two millimeters proximal of the plane defined by the guide surface.
Regarding claim 3: Landrie discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above. Landrie further discloses, the end being located no more than about ten millimeters proximal of a plane defined by the guide surface.
However, Landrie does not expressly disclose, the end being located no more than about two millimeters proximal of a plane defined by the guide surface
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Landrie to have , the end being located no more than about two millimeters proximal of a plane defined by the guide surface 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 Landrie would not operate differently with the claimed distance and since the end of the nozzle is proximal of a plane defined by the guide surface, the device would function appropriately having the claimed distance. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the diameter “may” be within the claimed ranges (specification pp. 0024 and 0028).
Regarding claim 7, Landrie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the blade housing houses a moveable blade (Abstract, Col. 3, Lines 14-37).
Regarding claim 8, Landrie teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the end lies in a plane that is located distal of the moveable blade (Figures 3 and 10A).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landrie (U.S. Patent No. 8,561,303). in view of Grohoski (U.S. Patent No. 4,573,267).
Regarding claim 4, Landrie does not provide wherein the nozzle structure comprises a roller located at the end that contacts the skin area during use.
Grohoski teaches it is known in the art of hair cutting devices to incorporate a nozzle structure (10) with a roller (40) located at an end that contacts the skin area during use (Figure 1; Col. 1, Lines 9-16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Landrie to incorporate the teachings of Grohski to provide a roller support capable of contacting a user during use. Doing so allows the roller to engage a user receiving a haircut in order to enable movement of the vacuum device in any direction.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landrie (U.S. Patent No. 8,561,303) in view of Dennis (U.S. Patent No. 4,619,044).
Regarding claim 5, Van Landrie does not provide wherein the nozzle structure comprises air vents.
Dennis teaches it is known in the art of hair cutting accessories to incorporate a nozzle structure (10) with vents (27)(Figures 4 and 5; Col. 2, Lines 53-64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Landrie to incorporate the teachings of Dennis to provide the nozzle structure with air vents. In doing so, the vents allow for a secondary air inlet to increastion suction of a workpiece.
Claims 6, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Landrie (U.S. Patent No. 8,561,303) in view of Laube (U.S. Patent No. 8,555,463).
Regarding claim 6, Landrie teaches the method of claim 1, but does not provide wherein the suction attachment comprises a plurality of hair conditioning projections that extend outward from the clipper attachment over the guide surface and toward the moveable blade.
Laube teaches it is known in the art of suction attachments for hair removal to provide a suction apparatus (10) with a nozzle structure (16,20,22) with a removable grooming device (44), including a plurality of hair conditioning projections (64) that extend outward (Figure 1; Col. 2, Lines 45-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Landrie to incorporate the teachings of Laube to provide a plurality of hair conditioning projections that extend outward from the nozzle structure. In doing so, it allows for a removable grooming device to be attached to the nozzle structure as desired by the user.
Thus, the modified device of Landrie in view of Laube provides wherein the suction attachment (Landrie Figure 2) comprises a plurality of hair conditioning projections (44,64)(Laube Figure 1) that extend outward from the clipper attachment over the guide surface and toward the moveable blade (Landrie Figures 2, 3, 9A and 10A and Laube Figure 1).
Regarding claim 9, Landrie teaches the method of claim 7, but does not provide wherein the hair conditioning projections extend beyond the moveable blade and over the nozzle structure.
Laube teaches it is known in the art of suction attachments for hair removal to provide a suction apparatus (10) with a nozzle structure (16,20,22) with a removable grooming device (44), including a plurality of hair conditioning projections (64) that extend outward (Figure 1; Col. 2, Lines 45-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Landrie to incorporate the teachings of Laube to provide a plurality of hair conditioning projections that extend outward from the nozzle structure. In doing so, it allows for a removable grooming device to be attached to the nozzle structure as desired by the user.
Thus, the modified device of Landrie in view of Laube provides a plurality of hair conditioning projections (44,64)(Laube Figure 1) that extend outward from the clipper attachment over the guide surface and toward the moveable blade (Landrie Figures 2, 3, 9A and 10A and Laube Figure 1).
Regarding claim 10, Landrie teaches the method of claim 7, and wherein a trailing edge of the end of the nozzle structure is located in front of a leading edge of the moveable blade with the guide surface configured to be in contact with the skin area (Figure 10A; noting the trailing (right edge of end 22 to be in front of element 12 including blade member 14). However Landrie does not provide the plurality of hair conditioning projections extending toward the trailing edge of the end of the nozzle structure.
Laube teaches it is known in the art of suction attachments for hair removal to provide a suction apparatus (10) with a nozzle structure (16,20,22) with a removable grooming device (44), including a plurality of hair conditioning projections (64) that extend outward (Figure 1; Col. 2, Lines 45-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Landrie to incorporate the teachings of Laube to provide a plurality of hair conditioning projections that extend outward from the nozzle structure. In doing so, it allows for a removable grooming device to be attached to the nozzle structure as desired by the user.
Thus, the modified device of Landrie in view of Laube provides a plurality of hair conditioning projections (44,64)(Laube Figure 1) extending toward the trailing edge of the end of the nozzle structure (Landrie Figures 2, 3, 9A and 10A and Laube Figure 1).
Related Prior Art
Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used
- "892 cited references A-F, on page 1 establish the state of the art with a variety of shaver and with different cutting elements/blades using a variety of suction attachments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00.
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 on 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.
/RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 03/11/2026Examiner, Art Unit 3724