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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 calls for the mounting bracket between the magnet and the blade bracket. However, as best understanding from Fig. 5, the blade bracket 140 is between the mounting bracket 134 and the magnets 148. Claim 12 will be examined as best understood from the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werner (2023/0120824) in view of Tautscher et al. (2009/0199413), hereinafter Tautscher.
Regarding claim 1, Werner teaches a blade assembly substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the folded texts, comprising:
an outer blade 114 comprising outer blade teeth;
an inner blade 112 supported relative to the outer blade, the inner blade comprising inner blade teeth having a parallel orientation to the outer blade teeth such that the inner blade teeth are moveable over the outer blade to cut hair;
a yoke 128 coupled to the inner blade, the yoke configured to move the inner blade relative to the outer blade;
a mounting bracket 134 configured to guide the yoke;
a blade bracket 152 extending around the mounting bracket; and
a magnet coupled to the mounting bracket;
wherein the magnet generates an attractive force between the mounting bracket and the blade bracket.
See Fig. 4.
Werner does not teach a magnet coupled to the mounting bracket, and
wherein the magnet generates an attractive force between the mounting bracket and the blade bracket.
Tautscher teaches a blade assembly having a magnet 207 coupled to a mounting bracket 205 positioned between a first blade 203 and a second blade 201 for generating a magnetic force between the two blades for maintaining tension between two blades without using a biasing spring which simplifies the structure of the blade assembly. See Fig. 2A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the blade assembly in Werner a magnet coupled to the mounting bracket as taught by Tautscher for generating a magnetic force between the two blades for maintaining tension between two blades without using a biasing spring which simplifies the structure of the blade assembly.
Regarding claim 2, the modified magnet is positioned in the cavity 158 of the mounting bracket as taught by Tautscher.
Regarding claim 3, Tautscher teaches an air gap 208 between a lower surface of the magnet and an upper surface of the blade bracket. See Figs. 2A and 3.
Regarding claim 4, Tautscher teaches the claimed invention except for the height of the gap between 0.01-0.03 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the gap having a height between 0.01-0.03 inches for providing a proper tensions between the two blades, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Tautscher teach the invention substantially as claimed except for the material of the magnet. To select a well-known material such as Neodymium magnet due to customer’s demand or its availability on the market would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 7, Werner teach the invention substantially as claimed except for the material of the mounting bracket. To select a well-known material such as plastic for the mounting bracket due to its light weight would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 8, Werner teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the material of the blade bracket. To select a well-known material such as metal for the blade bracket due to its durability or customer’s demand would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 9, Werner teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the blade bracket made from a stamping process. As set forth in MEPE 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Thus, even though Werner is silent as to the process of making the intermediate layer, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a stamping process for making the blade bracket since it is a common processing method for shaping metal pieces.
Regarding claim 10, Werner teaches a magnetic mounting assembly substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, comprising:
an outer blade 114 comprising outer blade teeth;
an inner blade 112 supported relative to the outer blade, the inner blade comprising inner blade teeth having a parallel orientation to the outer blade teeth such that the inner blade teeth are moveable over the outer blade to cut hair;
a yoke 128 coupled to the inner blade;
a mounting bracket 134 configured to engage the yoke;
a blade bracket 152 extending around the mounting bracket, the blade bracket coupled to the outer blade;
a magnet coupled to the mounting bracket; and
a lever 144 coupled to the mounting bracket and the blade bracket, the lever pivotable such that a distance between the inner blade teeth and the outer blade teeth is adjustable;
wherein the magnet generates a force between the mounting bracket and the blade bracket.
See Fig. 4.
Werner does not teach a magnet coupled to the mounting bracket, and
wherein the magnet generates an attractive force between the mounting bracket and the blade bracket.
Tautscher teaches a blade assembly having a magnet 207 coupled to a mounting bracket 205 positioned between a first blade 203 and a second blade 201 for generating a magnetic force between the two blades for maintaining tension between two blades without using a biasing spring which simplifies the structure of the blade assembly. See Fig. 2A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the blade assembly in Werner a magnet coupled to the mounting bracket as taught by Tautscher for generating a magnetic force between the two blades for maintaining tension between two blades without using a biasing spring which simplifies the structure of the blade assembly.
Regarding claim 11, the modified magnet is positioned in the cavity 158 of the mounting bracket as taught by Tautscher. Werner teach the invention substantially as claimed except for the material of the mounting bracket. To select a well-known material such as plastic for the mounting bracket due to its light weight would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 calls for the mounting bracket between the magnet and the blade bracket. However, as best understanding from Fig. 5, the blade bracket 140 is between the mounting bracket 134 and the magnets 148. When the modified magnets are provided to the blade assembly, the blade bracket is between the mounting bracket and the magnets.
Regarding claim 13, Werner teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the blade bracket made from a stamping process. As set forth in MEPE 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to the Applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113.
Thus, even though Werner is silent as to the process of making the intermediate layer, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a stamping process for making the blade bracket since it is a common processing method for shaping metal pieces.
Regarding claim 14, Tautscher teaches the claimed invention except for the height of the gap between 0.01-0.03 inches. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the gap having a height between 0.01-0.03 inches for providing a proper tensions between the two blades, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 15, Werner teaches a blade assembly substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, comprising:
an outer blade 114 comprising outer blade teeth;
an inner blade 112 supported relative to the outer blade, the inner blade comprising inner blade teeth having a parallel orientation to the outer blade teeth such that the inner blade teeth are moveable over the outer blade to cut hair;
a yoke 128 coupled to the inner blade;
a mounting bracket 134 configured to engage the yoke;
a bracket 152 coupled to the mounting bracket;
a magnet positioned within at least one of the bracket and the mounting bracket and located above the outer blade; and
a lever 144 coupled to the mounting bracket, the lever pivotable such that a distance between the inner blade teeth and the outer blade teeth is adjustable.
See Fig. 4.
Werner does not teach a magnet coupled to the mounting bracket, and
wherein the magnet generates an attractive force between the mounting bracket and the blade bracket.
Tautscher teaches a blade assembly having a magnet 207 coupled to a mounting bracket 205 positioned between a first blade 203 and a second blade 201 for generating a magnetic force between the two blades for maintaining tension between two blades without using a biasing spring which simplify the structure of the blade assembly. See Fig. 2A.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the blade assembly in Werner a magnet coupled to the mounting bracket as taught by Tautscher for generating a magnetic force between the two blades for maintaining tension between two blades without using a biasing spring which simplify the structure of the blade assembly.
Regarding claim 19, since the magnet is a position around the inner blade, there are some positions of the backet between the inner blade and the upper surface of the mounting bracket.
Regarding claim 20, Tautscher teaches the magnet generate a force between the outer blade and the bracket.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 16 and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5 and 16 are allowable for setting for a blade magnet coupled to the yoke and extending through the inner blade.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hair clippers of general interest are cited in form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4510. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5.
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.
/PHONG H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724