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 .
Detailed Action
The preliminary amendment filed on 08/08/2026 has been entered.
Claims Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
(1) In claim 1, line 4, “a head housing” is vague and should read --a head housing of the pivotal head--. Note lines 2-3 of claim 9.
(2) In claim 1, line 15, “an engagement end” and “a cam end” are vague and should read --an engagement end of the detent-- and --a cam end of the detnet--, respectively.
(3) In claim 1, lines 16-17, the phrase “any one detent groove” is vague. Is it in addition to “a plurality of detent grooves” cited at lines 6-7 of the claim ? It is suggested the phrase be changed to --any of the detent grooves--.
(4) In claim 1, line 22, “the respective detent groove” has no clear antecedent basis.
(5) In claim 1, line 31, “the any one detent groove” is indefinite. Does it refer to the one cited at lines 16-17 or at line 26 of the claim?
(6) In claim 6, line 2, “a cantilever arm” is vague. Is it in addition to “one or more cantilever arms” cited in claim 5?
(7) In claim 8, lines 3-4, “the housing” is vague and indefinite. Does it refer to the handle housing or the head housing?
(8) In claim 8, line 4, “the housing slots” has no clear antecedent basis. The phrase should read --the elongated slots--.
(9) In claim 11, lines 3-4, “a bifurcated outer leaf” has no clear antecedent basis and should read --a bifurcated outer leaf of the compound leaf spring--.
(10) Claim 12 appears to be claiming intended use of the biasing element. It is unclear how the claim language further limits the structure of the claimed biasing element.
(11) In claim 13, line 2 “the outer biasing portion of the biasing element” should read --the outer biasing portion of the bifurcated outer leaf--. Note lines 7-8 of claim 11.
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
1. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Posselt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0163137, hereinafter “Posselt”).
Regarding claim 11, Posselt discloses a biasing element (31,32) comprising:
a compound leaf spring (31,32) having a bifurcated inner leaf (31) secured within a bifurcated outer leaf (32, see Fig.4);
the bifurcated inner leaf (31, see Fig.10) having an inner base portion (58) and an inner biasing portion (59/60);
the bifurcated outer leaf (32, see Fig.11) having an outer base portion (58) and an outer biasing portion (59/60);
wherein in its assembled condition the base portion (58) of the inner leaf (31) overlays the base portion (58) of the outer leaf (32).
The statement of intended use (e.g., “for a hair trimmer” as in the preamble) has no patentable import on the structure of the claimed biasing element and accordingly cannot serve to distinguish.
Regarding claim 12, Posselt’s biasing element (31,32) that contains all the structure defined in the claim, but not the recited use (e.g., engaging a locking button of a hair trimmer for providing a biasing force to the locking button and engaging a detent of the hair trimmer for providing a biasing force to the detent), anticipates the claim because a new use does not make an old product patentable. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 44 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1429 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Claim Rejection - 35 U.S.C. 103
1. 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.
2. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Posselt et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0163137, hereinafter “Posselt”).
Regarding claim 15, both of Posselt’s inner leaf (31) and the outer leaf (32) are made from a sheet material except Posselt does not explicitly mention the inner leaf (31) has a different thickness than the outer leaf (32).
However, to modify Posselt by having the inner leaf (31) and outer leaf (32) of a different thickness would have been obvious to one skilled in the art since it depends more upon an obvious matter of design choice than on any inventive concept.
Indication of Allowable Subject Matter
1. Claims 1-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
2. Claims 13 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Prior Art Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 4,581,822 shows a hair trimmer comprising a handle housing (1a), a head portion (1b) pivotally mounted to the handle housing (1a), and a spring biasing locking button (3) for locking the head portion (1b) at a selected position relative to the handle housing (1a).
U.S. Patent Nos. 6,505,404 and 6,502,312 each shows a hair trimmer equipped with a pivotal shaving head adjustable at various orientations relative to a handle housing of the hair trimmer.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0338198 is cited to show a compound biasing element (170,172, see Fig.4).
Point of Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HWEI-SIU PAYER whose telephone number is (571)272-4511. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday from 6:00 AM to 2:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Adam Eiseman, can be reached at telephone number 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/HWEI-SIU C PAYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724