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.
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, 18, and 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 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 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 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, wherein said leaf spring is made from plastic material, said leaf spring is provided with varying cross sections, and said hair cutter is an electric shaver or an electric trimmer.
See Figs. 2 and 9.
Regarding the limitation “said leaf spring is provided with varying cross sections”, the Examiner takes the cross-section where the cut plane extends perpendicularly to a paper plane of Fig. 12. The portions of the leaf spring 70 near element 41 have a sharp incline and thus have a smaller cross-section, and the portions of the leaf spring 70 away from element 41 and before the leaf spring ends have a smaller incline and thus have a large cross-section. Therefore, Locke reads on “said leaf spring is provided with varying cross sections”.
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 20, the cutter head 21 being self-adjusting is best seen in Fig. 12.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neumann et al. (3,396,463), hereinafter Neumann.
Regarding claim 22, Neumann teaches a hair cutter substantially as claimed except for the limitation in the bolded texts, comprising a handle (not shown) and a cutter head attached to said handle, and at least one cutter unit including a pair of drivable 7 and stationary cutter (3, 4) elements cooperating with each other, said cutter unit being adjustably supported by a support structure including a spring mechanism 8 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 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, wherein said leaf spring is made from plastic material, wherein said leaf spring is attached to the stationary cutter element, and wherein said hair cutter is an electric shaver or an electric trimmer.
See Figs. 2 and 9.
Neumann 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 Neumann 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 the limitations of “wherein said leaf spring is attached to the stationary cutter element”, since the connection between the stationary blade and the leaf spring, and their structures are not clearly defined, element 4 is considered a part of the stationary blade. The leaf spring 8 is connected to element 4. Therefore, Neumann reads on the claim language.
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.
Claim 21 is allowed.
Claim 21 is allowable for setting forth the detail of the support structure having a leaf spring and the support structure forming an eccentric, cantilever-type suspension holding the cutter unit elastically with regard to the diving or tilting self-adaption movements of the cutter unit and rigidly holding said cutter unit with regard to driving movements of the drivable and stationary cutter elements of the cutter unit relative to each other.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument with respect to the limitation of the leaf spring having varying cross sections, the direction of the cross-section is not defined. The Examiner takes the cross-section where the cut plane extends perpendicularly to the paper plane of Fig. 12. The portions of the leaf spring 70 near element 41 have a sharp incline and thus have a smaller cross-section, and the portions of the leaf spring 70 away from element 41 and before the leaf spring ends have a smaller incline and thus have a large cross-section. Therefore, Locke teaches the leaf spring having varying cross sections.
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 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
Prosecution Insights