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 .
Drawings
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 structure allowing expelling of the heat from the heat dissipation channel to the outside, of claim 1
The structure allowing for channel 32 to include channel 321, of claim 8
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
In this case, the abstract utilizes the legal phraseology “comprising”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification, title, and claims (preambles) are replete with the phrase “hair trimmer capable of cooling blade”. This phrase needs to be re-written.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
With regards to claim 1 and the specification, the phrase capable of cooling blade” is unclear. Claim 1 discloses the cooling channel which has to be the structure making the trimmer capable of cooling the blade. Using Figure 2, it is unclear how the inlets 11, the channel 3, and the fan 4 cooperate to cool the blades. The blades 2 are on an outside of the body and appear to be separated or walled off (via 8) from the inlets 11. The specification fails to provide any insight on how the air from the inlets interacts with the blade as the air from the inlets would first travel forward away from the fan to interact/cool the blades and then travels rearward through the channel past the fan. The specification fails to provide any insight on how the air navigates through the structures (8) in between the blades and the inlets as there does not appear to be a path connecting the blades and the inlets.
With regards to claim 1 and the specification, the phrase “expel heat from the heat dissipation channel to the outside” is unclear. The specification fails to provide any insight on structures defining the “outlet” allowing for the heat to exit the body.
With regards to claim 7 and the specification, the specification fails to provide any insight on how a single channel 3 can be made up of more than one channel (31, 32). Figure 2 does not appear to show details of how 31 and 32 interconnect. Since channel 3 comprises both 31 and 32, it can only be assumed there is a single space that extends from 11 to the back of the 322. Therefore, 31, 3, and 322 are one single channel with 31 and 322 being portions of the single channel.
With regards to claim 8 and the specification, it is unclear how channel 32 includes channel 321. The specification fails to provide any insight on the structure allowing for 321 to be a part of 32.
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 1-10 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.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase capable of cooling blade” is unclear. Claim 1 discloses the cooling channel which has to be the structure making the trimmer capable of cooling the blade. Using Figure 2, it is unclear how the inlets 11, the channel 3, and the fan 4 cooperate to cool the blades. The blades 2 are on an outside of the body and appear to be separated or walled off (via 8) from the inlets 11. The specification fails to provide any insight on how the air from the inlets interacts with the blade as the air from the inlets would first travel forward away from the fan to interact/cool the blades and then travels rearward through the channel past the fan. The specification fails to provide any insight on how the air navigates through the structures (8) in between the blades and the inlets as there does not appear to be a path connecting the blades and the inlets. If the chip 6 is what cools the blade, the trimmer is not capable of cooling the blade until claim 3.
With regards to claim 1, the body and blade disclosure is unclear in that the blade is never disclosed as having a structural relationship with the body which is not supported. Two items can be thermally conductive but not be in direct contact. The blade being “on” the body is the structure allowing for the thermally conductive relationship.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outside" on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 1, the phrase “expel heat from the heat dissipation channel to the outside” is unclear. The specification fails to provide any insight on structures defining the “outlet” allowing for the heat to exit the body.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the cooling surface" on line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the material" on lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the outer wall" on line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claim 7, the specification fails to provide any insight on how a single channel 3 can be made up of more than one channel (31, 32). Figure 2 does not appear to show details of how 31 and 32 connect. Since channel 3 comprises both 31 and 32 is can only be assumed there is a single space that extend from 11 to the back of the 322. Therefore, 31, 3, and 322 are one single channel with 31 and 322 being portions of the single channel.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the front and rear sides" on line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
With regards to claims 7 and 8, the outlet channel and the upper and lower channels are unclear in light of claim 1’s disclosure of “expel heat…to the outside”. As written, the outlet channel in claim 7 and the upper and lower channels in claim 8, are unrelated to the expel to the outside function which is not supported. Claims 7 and 8 both need to tie the claim 1 function with the channel and channels because this is the only way there is support.
With regards to claim 8, it is unclear how channel 32 includes channel 321. The specification fails to provide any insight on the structure allowing for 321 to be a part of 32.
With regards to claim 8, a single channel cannot be an upper channel and a lower channel and still be a single channel. 3/32 and 322 appear to be the same channel and 32 and 322 appear to be the same portion of 3. If 3 comprises 31, 32, 321, 322, 3 cannot be a channel because there are more than one channels made up in this space. 31, 32, and 322 appear to make up one channel. 321 is another channel that is in communication with channel 31/32/322. A better description of these structures is needed.
With regards to claim 8, the terms “upper” and “lower” are unclear because the terms are dependent upon an unclaimed indefinite orientation. The trimmer is handheld and is capable of being utilized in an infinite number of orientations including ones that do not correspond with the terms. Terms that are true regardless of orientation need to be utilized.
With regards to claim 9, what structure incorporates the inlets? As written, the inlets are unrelated to the body which is not supported.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Obermann (7,228,630).
With regards to claim 1, Obermann discloses the same invention including a hair trimmer capable of cooling a blade (1) having a body (3, 4) and a blade (38) that are thermally conductive to each other (Fig. 4), the body has a heat dissipation channel (channel directing 20 in Fig. 4) connected to the outside (Fig. 4), and a fan blade is installed in the body capable of expelling heat from the channel to the outside (18).
With regards to claims 2, 7, and 8, Obermann discloses a dual-head motor (13) installed inside the body (Fig. 4), the motor has a first output shaft (14) and a second output shaft (15), the first output shaft is connected to the blade for power transmission (14, 10, 11), the second output shaft is connected to the fan blade (15, 18), an inner lining shell for installing the motor and the fan blade (Figs. 3 and 4), the channel is formed between the body and the lining shell (Fig. 4), the channel includes interconnected air intake channel in front of the fan blade (portion directing 20 in front of fan blade 18 in Fig. 4) and air outlet channel rear of the fan blade (portion directing 20 rear of fan blade 18 in Fig. 4), and the air outlet channel includes an upper channel (19 directing 20 towards the top in Fig. 4) and a lower channel (19 directing 20 towards the bottom in Fig. 4) both connected to the outside (Fig. 4).
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.
Claim 3 is rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obermann (7,228,630) in view of WO 2020/019157.
Obermann discloses the invention but fails to disclose a semiconductor cooling chip installed between the blade and the body where a cooling surface of the chip is in contact with the blade.
WO 2020/019157 teaches it is known in the art of shavers to incorporate a semiconductor cooling chip (paragraph [0057] of the attached machine translation). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have places the chip in any reasonable location and engaged with any object intended to be cooled (the blade). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Obermann with the semiconductor cooling chip, as taught by WO 2020/019157, because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 4 is rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obermann (7,228,630) in view of Johnson et al. (2015/0224656).
Obermann discloses the invention but fails to disclose the fan blade is a centrifugal fan blade.
Johnson et al. teach it is known in the art of shavers to incorporate a centrifugal fan blade (151, paragraph [0022] lines 1-2). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have utilized any reasonable and known fan blade. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Obermann with the centrifugal fan blade, as taught by Johnson et al., because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 5 is rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obermann (7,228,630) in view of Witmer (2,916,821).
Obermann discloses the invention but fails to disclose the material of the body is metal.
Witmer teaches it is known in the art of shavers to incorporate the material of the body is metal (column 2 lines 1-3). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have utilized any reasonable and known material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Obermann with the material, as taught by Witmer, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claim 6 is rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obermann (7,228,630) in view of Segeren et al. (2009/0320297).
Obermann discloses the invention but fails to disclose an insulation sleeve fitted over the outer wall of the body.
Segeren et al. teach it is known in the art of shavers to incorporate an insulation sleeve fitted over the outer wall of the body (5, abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Obermann with the sleeve, as taught by Segeren et al., because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected, as best understood, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obermann (7,228,630) in view of Atkins (10,040,209).
With regards to claim Obermann discloses the invention including an air inlet connected to the air intake channel (Fig. 4) and the air inlet is located on the front side of the fan blade (Fig. 4).
However, Obermann fails to disclose multiple air inlets.
Atkins teaches it is known in the art of shavers to incorporate multiple air inlets (142). It would have been well within one’s technical skill to have applied any reasonable number of inlets in front of the fan blade in Obermann. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to have provided Obermann with the more than one inlet, as taught by Atkins, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results and all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function and the combination would have yielded predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON DANIEL PRONE whose telephone number is (571)272-4513. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 7:00 am-3:00 pm.
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 D 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.
06 August 2026
/Jason Daniel Prone/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
Prosecution Insights