CTNF 18/861,948 CTNF 91084 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 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 (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 2, 10-12 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. -A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation a range from 0-15 degrees, and the claim also recites a range from 0-5 degrees which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. -A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation a ratio from 0.4 and 0.8, and the claim also recites preferably between 0.5 and 0.6 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. -A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation a range from 2 to 6, and the claim also recites preferably 3 or 4 which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 12 dependent from claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, are rejected as being dependent from a rejected parent claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-4,10,14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veenstra (US2021/0252724) . - Regarding claim 1, Veenstra teaches a hair-cutting unit (24)(Figure 3) comprising a central axis (26), an external cutting member (28) and an internal cutting member (30) which is covered by the external cutting member and rotatable relative to the external cutting member about the central axis (Figures 1-3; Abstract) wherein: the external cutting member comprises a plurality of hair-entry slots (46) that each extend, relative to the central axis, from a radially inner slot-end position to a radially outer slot-end position along a longitudinal extension of the hair-entry slot (Figure 4 Noting the extension of slot 46 from the internal portion to the external side portion); the internal cutting member comprises a plurality of cutting elements (30) that each have a cutting edge(64) (Figures 1-4; Paragraph 0075 noting multiple shaving units with cutting units); a slot angle (α)(Figure 8) of each hair-entry slot, when seen in an axial direction parallel to the central axis, is defined as a sharp angle enclosed by a trailing edge of the hair-entry slot, relative to a rotational direction (36) of the internal cutting member and extending along the longitudinal extension of the hair-entry slot, and a local radial direction, relative to the central axis, at said trailing edge (Figure 8 and Paragraphs 018-019, 101-102); and a cutting-edge angle (β) of each cutting edge, when seen in the axial direction, is defined as a sharp angle enclosed by the cutting edge and a local radial direction, relative to the central axis (Paragraph 0018), at said cutting edge, said cutting-edge angle being in a range from 55 to 85° (Paragraphs 0012-0017, 0031 noting the angle to be greater than 40°); characterized in that: the slot angle of each hair-entry slot (α) along the longitudinal extension of the hair entry slot is in a range from 35° to 65° in each radial position of the hair-entry slot between the radially inner slot-end position and the radially outer slot-end position (Paragraphs 0015-0018); and the trailing edge of each hair-entry slot is provided with a hair-retaining structure having an array of hair-abutment surfaces (78,80) arranged along the trailing edge, each hair-abutment surface extending transversely relative to the trailing edge and facing the central axis (Figure 5; Paragraph 0091). Regarding claim 1, Veenstra teaches a slot angle, but does not provide the slot angle is in a range from 0° to 20°. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Veenstra to have the slot angle is in a range from 0° to 20° since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Veenstra would not operate differently with the claimed slot angle and since the internal and external cutting members provide the associated cutting, they would function appropriately having the claimed angle range. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed. Regarding claim 1, Veenstra teaches a cutting angle of greater than 40 degrees, but does not provide said cutting-edge angle being in a range from 55 to 85° specifically. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Veenstra to have the said cutting-edge angle being in a range from 55 to 85° since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Veenstra would not operate differently with the claimed cutting angle and since the internal and external cutting members provide the associated cutting, they would function appropriately having the claimed angle range. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed. Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Veenstra teaches the hair-cutting unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein a shearing angle (δ) enclosed by each hair-abutment surface, when seen in the axial direction, and the cutting edge of each of the cutting elements at said hair-abutment surface is in a range from 0° to 15°, preferably in a range from 0° to 5° (Paragraphs 028-029, 102-103). Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Veenstra teaches the hair-cutting unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the cutting- edge angle is in a range from 70° to 80° (Paragraphs 0012-0017, 0031). Regarding claim 4, Veenstra teaches the hair-cutting unit as claimed in claim 1, wherein the slot angle is in a range from 0° to 5°. Regarding claim 10, Veenstra teaches the hair-cutting unit as claimed in claim 1, and provides a first radial distance between the radially inner slot-end position and the central axis and a second radial distance between the radially outer slot-end position and the central axis but does not provide the specifics of wherein a ratio of a first radial distance between the radially inner slot-end position and the central axis and a second radial distance between the radially outer slot-end position and the central axis is between 0.4 and 0.8. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of Veenstra to have a ratio of a first radial distance between the radially inner slot-end position and the central axis and a second radial distance between the radially outer slot-end position and the central axis is between 0.4 and 0.8 since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Veenstra would not operate differently with the claimed ratio and since the internal and external cutting members provide the associated cutting within the distances between the slots and would function appropriately having the claimed ratio to allow hair to enter to be cut. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed. Regarding claim 14, Veenstra teaches a hair-cutting unit (24)(Figure 3) as claimed in claim 1, the wherein the hair-entry slots (46) are open in a radially outward direction at the radially outer slot-end positions (Figure 4 noting the slot extending to the outer end position of the shaving track). Regarding claim 15, Veenstra teaches a hair-cutting unit (24)(Figure 3) as claimed in claim 1 further having a supporting structure (14) configured to support the at least one hair-cutting unit (Figure 1; Paragraph 0073). Regarding claim 16, Veenstra teaches a hair-cutting unit (24)(Figure 3) as claimed in claim 15 and wherein the shaving unit is coupled to the main housing and the main housing accommodates a driving system (16)configured to drive the internal cutting member of each hair cutting unit of the shaving unit into rotation relative to the external cutting member (Figures 1-3; Paragraphs 0052, 0072) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veenstra (US2021/0252724) in view of Meyer (US 2,217,519) . Regarding claim 5, the modified device of Veenstra teaches a hair-cutting unit (24)(Figure 3) as claimed in claim 1 but does not provide wherein the hair-retaining structure comprises an array of tooth-like elements arranged along the trailing edge of at least one of the hair-entry slots, wherein the hair-abutment surfaces are each formed by a first side-edge surface of a respective one of the tooth-like elements facing the central axis. Meyer teaches it is known in the art of shaving devices to incorporate a hair-retaining structure comprising an array of tooth-like elements (63,64) arranged along the trailing edge of at least one of the hair-entry slots, wherein the hair-abutment surfaces are each formed by a first side-edge surface of a respective one of the tooth-like elements facing the central axis (Figure 1 noting the central axis and Figure 12 noting the tooth like structure provided within the hair entry slots; Page 3, Column 2, Lines 34-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have further modified the device of Veenstra to incorporate the teachings of Meyer to provide the hair retaining structure as toothlike as described above. Doing so, may be more effective in permitting access of fine long hairs to the cutter Regarding claim 6, the modified device of Veenstra teaches a hair-cutting unit (24)(Figure 3) as claimed in claim 5, wherein a second side-edge surface of each respective tooth-like element facing away from the central axis extends substantially parallel to the first side-edge surface of the respective tooth-like element (Meyer Figure 12 noting the teeth extending from the inner portion to the external edge substantially parallel). Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Veenstra teaches the hair-cutting unit (9a) as claimed in claim 6, wherein a leading edge, relative to the rotational direction of the internal cutting member, of the hair-entry slot extends as a straight line from the radially inner slot-end position to the radially outer slot-end position at a distance from the tooth-like elements (Veenstra Figure 1 and Meyer Figure 12 noting at least a portion of the leading edge is straight ). Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Veenstra teaches the hair-cutting unit as claimed in claim 5, wherein a leading edge, relative to the rotational direction of the internal cutting member, of the hair-entry slot comprises a further hair-retaining structure (63,34) having an array of further tooth-like elements arranged along the leading edge, each further tooth-like element having a further hair-abutment surface formed by a side edge surface of the further tooth-like element extending transversely relative to the leading edge and facing the central axis (Veentstra Figure 1 and Meyer Figure 12 noting the tooth like structure provided within the hair entry slots on both the leading edge and rear edge) Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Veenstra teaches the hair-cutting unit as claimed in claim 8, wherein the tooth-like elements (63,64) of the hair-retaining structure of the trailing edge of the hair-entry slot and the further tooth-like elements of the further hair-retaining structure of the leading edge of the hair- entry slot are mutually arranged in a staggered configuration and, seen in the radial direction, in a partially overlapping configuration (Meyer Figure 12) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Veenstra (US2021/0252724) in view of Fletcher (US 4,733,466) . Regarding claim 11, the modified device of Veenstra provides, the hair cutting unit as claimed in claim 1, but does not provide the wherein the cutting edge of each cutting element of the internal cutting member extends as a continuous curved line from a radial position at or near the radially inner slot-end position of each hair-entry slot to a radial position at or near the radially outer slot-end position of each hair-entry slot, and wherein a number of the cutting elements of the internal cutting member is in a range from 2 to 6, preferably 3 or 4. Fletcher teaches it is known in the art of rotary hair trimmer to provide a hair cutting unit wherein a cutting edge (106) of a cutting element extends as a continuous curved line from a radial position at or near a radially inner slot-end position of each hair-entry slot (18) to a radial position at or near the radially outer slot-end position of each hair-entry slot, and wherein a number of the cutting elements of the internal cutting member is in a range from 2 to 6 (Figures 1 and 3; Col. 5, Lines 45-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Veenstra to incorporate the teachings of Fletcher to provide a cutting edge of a cutting element extending as a continuous curved line as provided above. In doing so, it allows for the cutting edge shape to be changed as desired to cooperate with the hair slots to perform a hair trimming function. Regarding claim 12, the modified device of Veenstra provides the hair-cutting unit as claimed in claim 11, wherein the cutting edge of each cutting element of the internal cutting member (Veenstra Figures 4-5 and Fletcher Figure 3) extends over an angle of 360°/N about the central axis, wherein N is the number of the cutting elements of the internal cutting member (Veenstra Figures 4-5 and Fletcher Figure 3). Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Veenstra provides the hair-cutting unit in claim 1, but does not provide wherein the cutting edges of the cutting elements of the internal cutting member each have, relative to the central axis, a radially inner edge-end position which is closer to the central axis than the radially inner slot-end position of each of the hair-entry slots. Fletcher teaches it is known in the art of rotary hair trimmer to provide a hair cutting unit wherein cutting edges (106) of the cutting elements of the internal cutting member each have, relative to the central axis, a radially inner edge-end position which is closer to the central axis than the radially inner slot-end position of each of the hair-entry slots. (Figures 1 and 3; Col. 5, Lines 45-60). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Veenstra to incorporate the teachings of Fletcher to provide a cutting edge of a cutting element extending as a continuous curved line as provided above. In doing so, it allows for the cutting-edge shape to be changed as desired to cooperate with the hair slots to perform a hair trimming function. Related Prior Art Below is an analysis of the relevance of references cited but not used - "892 cited references A-M on page 1 and A,C-E on Page 2 establish the state of the art with a variety of shaver and with different cutting elements/blades using a variety of driving mechanisms for the cutting elements and blades. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICHARD D CROSBY JR whose telephone number is (571)272-8034. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-4:00. 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. /RICHARD D CROSBY JR/ 03/26/206Examiner, Art Unit 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/861,948 Page 2 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/861,948 Page 3 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/861,948 Page 4 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/861,948 Page 5 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/861,948 Page 6 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/861,948 Page 7 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/861,948 Page 8 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/861,948 Page 9 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/861,948 Page 10 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/861,948 Page 11 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/861,948 Page 12 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/861,948 Page 13 Art Unit: 3724 Application/Control Number: 18/861,948 Page 14 Art Unit: 3724
Prosecution Insights