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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/21/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner, except where the lined through because Applicant does not provide the foreign patent documents.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-17 of this pending application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims of U.S. Patent No. 12142983, hereinafter the US patent in view of Todd (US 10137582).
Although the claims language at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all structures of Claims of this pending application are found in Claims of U.S. Patent No. 12142983.
For example, Claim 1, the U.S. Patent teaches a hair clipper (the claim 1 preamble of the US patent), comprising:
a hair clipper housing (see claim 1, line 2 of the US patent);
a hair clipper bladeset operatively associated with said housing and including a stationary blade and a moving blade configured for lateral reciprocation relative to said stationary blade (see claim 1, lines 4-7 of the US patent);
a pivot motor mounted in said hair clipper and electrically connected to a power source within said hair clipper housing (see claim 1, lines 8-10 of the US patent), wherein said pivot motor includes:
a stator with a plurality of laminations;
a bobbin located in operational relation to said stator and having a coil of wire wound around said bobbin; an armature being configured for driving said moving blade at a first end, and having at least one magnet at a second end, said armature having a pivot point and a seat on each side of said armature;
a support plate to which said stator is connected, said support plate including a pair of vertically projecting brackets on opposite sides of said support plate, each said seat facing a corresponding one of said pair of vertically projecting brackets (see Todd’s frame 42 below, in order to allow the armature to be securely mounted in the housing);
at least one compression spring disposed between each said seat and said corresponding one of said pair of vertically projecting brackets (see Todd’s springs 48, 50 below, in order to aid the armature flexible); and said motor being configured for operation between 2.5 and 4.2 Volts (see claim 1, the last line of the US patent).
Regarding claims 2-17, it is well-known features which can be found either in claims 1-15 of the U.S. Patent or in the art in the rejections below.
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 1-17 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.
Claim 1, line 6 “a pivot motor mounted in said hair clipper” is unclear since the hair clipper is inherently having a motor in there already. As it is written, it appears to have another pivot motor in the hair clipper. Is the pivot motor mounted in said hair clipper housing, right?
Claim 1, lines 12-14 “an armature being configured for driving said moving blade at a first end, and having at least one magnet at a second end, said armature having a pivot point and a seat on each side of said armature” is unclear whether the “first end” refers back to an end of said moving blade or the armature. Similarly, it is unclear whether the “second end” refers back to an end of said at least one magnet or the armature.
Claim 1, start line 16 “ a pair of vertically projecting brackets” are unclear. The language “vertical or vertically” used in the claim is unclear because this invention is a portable device capable of achieving an infinite number of orientations including orientations where the “vertical or vertically” would not be the “vertical or vertically”. It is recommended that terms be utilized that are true regardless of orientation. Claim 16 has the same issue.
Claim 5 recites “an end of said armature engaging said clipper moving blade .an end accommodating said at least one magnet” that is unclear since claim 1 recites “a first end…a second end” of said armature. Are the ends of said armature respectively the same first and second ends in claim 1?
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
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, 3-6, 10, 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd (US 10137582) in view of Hu (US 2018/0361601).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Todd shows a hair clipper (Figure 1), comprising:
a hair clipper housing (14);
a hair clipper bladeset operatively associated with said housing and including a stationary blade (12) and a moving blade (18, Figure 1) configured for lateral reciprocation relative to said stationary blade;
a pivot motor (28, Figures 1-2) mounted in said hair clipper housing and electrically connected to a power source (see the power cord 31, Figure 1)
a stator (30) with a plurality of laminations (52, Figure 3);
a bobbin (a case for coil 62) located in operational relation to said stator and having a coil (62) of wire wound around said bobbin;
an armature (33, Figure 1) being configured for driving said moving blade at a first end of the armature, and having at least one magnet (66, 68, Figure 2) at a second end of the armature, said armature having a pivot point (64) and a seat (one of openings 39, Figure 3 for receiving springs 48, 50 as discussed in Col. 2, line 67) on each side of said armature;
a support plate (42, Figure 2) to which said stator is connected, said support plate including a pair of “vertically” projecting brackets (46, 44, Figures 2-3) on opposite sides of said support plate, each said seat facing a corresponding one of said pair of “vertically” projecting brackets (Figure 2);
at least one compression spring (48, 50, Figure 2) disposed between each said seat and said corresponding one of said pair of “vertically” projecting brackets. and said motor being configured for operation between 2.5 and 4.2 Volts.
However, Todd fails to discuss that said motor is configured for operation between 2.5 and 4.2 Volts.
Hu discusses electric clippers (abstract) and a pivoting motor or an oscillating motor (Figure 1) and a rechargeable battery (310, Figure 1, it is inherently within the clippers housing) for powering the motor, wherein the motor is configured for operation between 2.5 and 4.2 Volts (see Para. 27 recites “the present application adopt the above-mentioned oscillating motor, and only need a low-voltage direct current (such as 3.7V)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the input power of Todd to have a rechargeable battery for providing a low-voltage direct current of 3.7V to power the motor, as taught by Hu, in order to allow the hair clipper to be able to operate in low voltages and it can be charged by lithium battery, and there is no large current when starting and stalling, and the battery life is longer, so this design is energy-saving and environment-friendly (Para. 27 of Hu).
Regarding claim 3, the modified hair clippers of Todd shows that said power source within said hair clipper housing is a rechargeable battery (see the modification above that has a rechargeable battery (310, Figure 1 of Hu, it is inherently within the clippers housing).
Regarding claim 4, the modified hair clippers of Todd shows that said armature is constructed and arranged so that said at least one magnet has a plurality of surfaces (see magnets 66, 68, Figure 4B of Todd, having top, inner and rear surfaces), and is encapsulated on all but one surface by said armature (see Figure 4B of Todd, there is only one front surface of the magnet “where the references 66 or 68” is not).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified hair clippers of Todd shows that said pivot point of said armature is located closer to an end (the first end) of said armature engaging said clipper moving blade than to an end (the second end) accommodating said at least one magnet (see Todd’s figure 2, the pivot point 64 to the arm end 38 is slightly shorter than the pivot point 64 to the armature end where the reference “43” in Figure 43).
Regarding claim 6, the modified hair clippers of Todd shows a ratio of a distance of said pivot point to the second end of said armature accommodating said at least one magnet (66, 68) and to a distance from said pivot point to the first end of said armature is slightly greater than 1, however, it is not clear 2.1:1 or not.
Hu shows a ratio of a distance of said pivot point (410) to a second end of said armature accommodating said at least one magnet (610-640, Figures 10-11) and a distance from said pivot point to a first end of an arm (430) of said armature is about 2.5:1.
Since Applicant had not pointed out or demonstrated the criticality of a specific limitation such as the size of the armature including the ratio of a distance of said pivot point to an end of said armature accommodating said at least one magnet and to a distance from said pivot point to an end of said armature engaging said clipper moving blade is exactly 2.1:1, as set in the claim, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the armature including the ratio, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) for properly transmitting force to a reciprocate blade of a hair clipper and the ratio of the length of the inner arm (420) to that of the outer arm (430) can also be designed according to the demand for the amplitude of the swing (Hu’s Para. 60).
Regarding claim 10, the modified hair clippers of Todd shows that said support plate (42) includes a mounting point for said armature (Col. 3, lines 31-32 of Todd “The armature is rotatably secured to the frame 42 by a pin 64”).
Regarding claim 13, the modified hair clippers of Todd shows that each said seat forms an acute angle with a longitudinal axis of said housing (as this is written, it is unclear when it is occurred, therefore, during the motor 28 is operating, the armature is pivoted that causes the longitudinal axis of the seats or openings, for receiving the springs 48, 50, to be an acute angle with a longitudinal axis of said housing).
Regarding claim 14, the modified hair clippers of Todd shows that said armature includes at least two magnets at said second end (66, 68, Todd’s Figure 4B), such that each said seat forms an acute angle with a nearest one of said at least two magnets (see both magnets 66, 68 is positioned an acute angle relative to a longitudinal axis of the seat 39 as seen in Todd’s figures 2, 4A, 4B).
Regarding claim 15, the modified hair clippers of Todd shows that each of said seats includes a protrusion (see Todd’s Figure 4A below) for retaining an end of said at least one compression spring.
PNG
media_image1.png
368
386
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 16, the modified hair clippers of Todd shows that said at least one compression spring includes two compression springs 948, 50, Todd’s 2) disposed between each said seat and said corresponding one of said pair of “vertically” projecting brackets.
Regarding claim 17, the modified hair clippers of Todd shows that said support plate (42 of Todd’s Figure 3) includes an elongate, centrally located strengthening channel (where the reference “42” is in Figure 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd (US 10137582) in view of Hu (US 2018/0361601) and Gassner (US 4392092) .
Regarding claim 2, the modified hair clipper of Todd shows all of the limitations as stated above that at least one of: said stator has an axial length in the range of 23-27 mm; and said stator has a width in the range of 28-35 mm.
Gassner’s Figures 4a-4c shows three different sizes of stators (57) for three different power of clippers (see Gassner’s Figures 4a-4c and Col. 6, lines 50-68 continue to Col. 7, lines 1-17).
Based on the teachings above, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had a length and a width of the stator of any reasonable range including the claimed ranges (a length of 23-27 mm and a width of 28-35 mm, as set forth in claim 2), since it has been held that where the general conditions of claims 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. Please notes that from physics: Power = current x voltage and Power = torque x RPM. Therefore, any size or range size or length of a stator would have been obvious because it discovers the optimum range size and length for coil turns in the stator to produce power to a proper hair clipper as discussed in Col. 6, lines 50-68 continue to Col. 7, lines 1-17 of Gassner.
Moreover, the claimed range would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp. These are known discovering the optimum or workable ranges, depending on the size, shape, gauge of coil, and a number of turns of coil in stator to produce power requirements to hair clippers to be manufactured. See the discussion of Gassner’s three different sizes of stators for three different sizes of clippers. The large motor/stator will provide more power force to a blade of a large hair clipper and the small motor/stator will provide less power force to a blade of a small hair clipper. This proves that the size or length of stator range is a known results-effective variable, and one of ordinary skill can change that size or length of the stator to affect the desired outcome (see Gassner’s Figures 4a-4c and Col. 6, lines 50-68 continue to Col. 7, lines 1-17).
Claims 7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd in view of Hu, Anton (EP0076438 and Translation).
Regarding claim 7, the modified clipper of Todd shows all of the limitations as stated above except a sensor operationally associated with said motor, constructed and arranged for measuring an operational stroke of said armature, and configured for being electrically connected to a controller of said motor for adjusting motor voltage as a function of said sensed armature stroke using Pulse Width Modulation.
Anton discusses a sensor (a pressure transducer 6, Figures 1-2) operationally associated with said motor, constructed and arranged for measuring an operational stroke of said armature, and configured for being electrically connected to a controller of said motor for adjusting motor voltage as a function of said sensed armature stroke using Pulse Width Modulation.
See page 3 of the translation, the middle paragraph recites “a pressure transducer, one terminal of which is connected to ground potential and the other terminal of which is connected to the input of the impedance converter and amplifier stage. However, other actual value transmitters are also possible, provided they meet the requirement that they emit a voltage corresponding to the prevailing pressure, the dependence of the emitted voltage on the prevailing pressure being arbitrary, but a corresponding adjustment can be made by means of the electronic control circuit ”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the input power of Todd to have a sensor, as taught by Anton, in order to allow sensing the rotational velocity of the armature and for generating a signal proportional to the sensed velocity, a variable duty cycle pulse generator for generating a stream of triggering pulses, the duty cycle of the triggering pulses being dependent upon the sensor signal, and an electronic switch for controlling the current flow from the voltage source through the exciter coil in response to the triggering pulses (Abstract of Anton).
Regarding claim 9, the modified clippers of Todd shows that said controller is configured so that as said sensed armature stroke decreases, said motor voltage increases (See page 3 of the translation, the middle paragraph of Anton:
“the duty cycle of the switching transistor is shortened and thus a further increase in amplitude is prevented from a certain amplitude of the oscillating armature. However, the control device according to the invention also counteracts a decrease in amplitude when the load increases, since then the excitation coils due to the extension of the duty cycle of the switching transistor are placed on a larger voltage-time area, so that on average there is a longer flooding of the excitation coils.”
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Todd in view of Hu, Hayden (US 7123821) and Maslov (US 2005/0127856).
Regarding claims 11-12, the modified clipper of Todd shows all of the limitations as stated above except that said bobbin is provided with a coil of 26 Gauge wire with said coil that includes 75 turns of wire.
With regards to a number of turns and a gauge of coil wire, see Hayden’s reference that shows a DC motor (10) that has approximately 1600 turns of 20-gauge copper wire as discussed in Col. 4, lines 30-34.
Maslov shows a low-voltage electric motor (title) and Maslov’s para. 44 also discusses “Motor designers are familiar with the disadvantages of using high currents in a motor. The number of turns in a motor's windings is critical to the amount of torque produced. With high current, large gauge wires are required to avoid melting the wires. Making a motor that requires a large number of turns of large gauge wire can be a nightmare”.
Based on Maslov, Hayden and physics: Power = current (I) x voltage (V) and Power (P)=IV=I2R=V2/R. R is a resistance in ohms. Any resistance or any gauge of wire (including claimed gauge) and number of turns (including claimed turns) on the bobbin would have been obvious because it discovers the optimum power that requires to power a hair clippers. The optimum power would have been a mere design consideration based on coil sizes and turns of motors produce power torque. Such a modification would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirement depending on the motors. It has been held that discovering an optimum power torque of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within technical grasp.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 8 is free of the prior art because the prior art does not discuss said sensor is an opto-sensor (the art above shows a pressure sensor or transducer sensor).
Ryo (US 5632087) shows a coil sensor (83, Figure 2, it can be an opto-sensor or a photo sensor as discussed Col. 6, line 54 “a photo sensor”) for detecting and monitoring reciprocators (61, 62) and for current regulator (104, Figure 12), however, Ryo’s shaving device has a configuration different from the Todd’s device, therefore, there appears to be no justification or suggestion to modify the above mentioned references, in any combination to meet the requirements of the claimed invention as set forth in claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM EST.
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 on (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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 3/18/2026