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 (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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 08/22/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the angle α (para. [0114]), the straight longitudinal axis cf (para. [0115]), and the spring 40 (para. [0119]) as described in the specification (see the U.S. Publication). Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
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 slide guide contours of the cutter unit and the cutter head in claim 19 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 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 19 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.
It is unclear what the slide guide contours of the cutter unit and the cutter head are and how they are movable freely relatively to each other in a plane containing the diving axis and perpendicular to the tilt axis so the cutter unit is held against movements along the driving axis only by the leaf spring.
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claims 1, 5, 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20, the term “and/or” is indefinite
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, 6, 14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke (5,185,926).
Regarding claim 1, Locke teaches a hair cutter such as electric shaver and/or electric trimmer substantially as claimed except for the limitations in the bolded texts, comprising a handle 27 and a cutter head 28 attached to said handle, and at least one cutter unit 21 including a pair of drivable 31 and stationary 22 cutter elements cooperating with each other, said cutter unit being adjustably supported by means of a support structure including a spring mechanism 70 to allow for elastic self-adaption of the cutter unit to the skin contour in terms of diving along a diving axis extending perpendicular to a skin contact surface of the cutter unit and/or tilting of the cutter unit relative to a cutter head frame about a tilt axis extending perpendicular to said dive axis, said spring mechanism including at least one elongated leaf spring, characterized in that said leaf spring is made from plastic material.
See Figs. 2 and 9.
Locke does not teach the material of the spring being plastic.
To select a well-known material such as plastic for the leaf spring 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.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to make the leaf spring in Locke from plastic since selecting a desire material for a part is a matter of design choice. Furthermore, the plastic leaf spring help preventing the corrosion of the leaf spring.
Regarding claim 3, the leaf spring 70 having varying heights is best seen in Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 6, the cutting unit is capable of moving in a vertical direction without pivoting.
Regarding claim 14, the structure of the cutter unit is best seen in Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 16, one leaf spring for one cutter unit is best seen in Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 18, a transmission train 40 is best seen in Fig. 9.
Regarding claim 19, as best understood by the Examiner the opening of the cutter head 28 and the cutter units 21 having complementary contours to help the cutter units 21 moving within the boundary of the cutter head 28.
Regarding claim 20, the cutter head 21 being self-adjusting is best seen in Fig. 12.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Locke (5,185,926) in view of Eichhorn et al. (9,770,835), hereinafter Eichhorn.
Regarding claims 2 and 17, Locke teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for the hair cutter having coil spring for biasing the drivable cutter elements against the stationary cutter elements.
Eichhorn teaches a hair cutter having a coil spring (16, 17) for biasing a drivable cutter element 15 against a stationary cutter element 14 for maintaining close contact between the drivable cutter element and the stationary cutter element for smooth shaving. See Fig. 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed inventio to provide the hair cutter in Locke a coil spring as taught by Eichhorn for biasing the drivable cutter elements against the stationary cutter elements for maintaining close contact between the drivable cutter element and the stationary cutter element for smooth shaving.
Regarding claim 17, Locke teaches the hair cutter including a drivetrain having a transmitter joint for driving the cutter elements. However, Locke does not teach a further spring for biasing the drivable cutter elements against the stationary cutter elements.
Eichhorn teaches a hair cutter having a coil spring (16, 17) for biasing a drivable cutter element 15 against a stationary cutter element 14 for maintaining close contact between the drivable cutter element and the stationary cutter element for smooth shaving. See Fig. 7.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed inventio to provide the hair cutter in Locke a coil spring as taught by Eichhorn for biasing the drivable cutter elements against the stationary cutter elements for maintaining close contact between the drivable cutter element and the stationary cutter element for smooth shaving.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 7-13, and 15 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 4, 5, 7-13, and 15 are allowable for setting forth the detail structure of the leaf spring and its functionality.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hair cutters 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/Examiner, Art Unit 3724