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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of specie II (Figures 15-16), corresponding claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 05/27/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-9 are examined below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS, 05/27/2026, 08/13/(2025, 05/19/2025, 01/18/2025, 10/07/2024) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-9 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, the last sentence recites “wherein the magnetic assembly generates a tensioning force between the first blade and the second blade” is unclear. Applicant elects the embodiment of Figures 15-16, both magnets 376a, 376b are outside of the inner blade (the second blade). Since these magnets outside of the inner blade, it is unclear how the magnets generates a tensioning force between the first blade and the second blade. If the both magnets have different poles (both magnets are attracted), the both blades are configured to lift up and it is unclear what cause to generates a tensioning force between the first blade and the second blade.
The scope of claim 3 “wherein the first magnet and the second magnet generate the tensioning force between the first blade and the second blade that separates the first blade and the second blade and maintains a position of the second blade relative to the first blade” (emphasis added) that is unclear. See the issue of claim 1 above.
Looking at the elected embodiment (Figures 15-16), the inner and outer blades are not separated; it appears both teeth of the blades are engaged. Reading at Applicant’s specification, Para. 84 “Blade guide assembly 386 maintains a relative position of the inner blade edge 366 relative to outer blade edge 368” and
Para. 87 recites “This generates a magnetic force that separates the blades 312 and 314 to maintain the position of inner blade edge 366 relative to outer blade edge 368 during operation to reduce frictional load and facilitate cutting” (emphasis added).
However, as the claim is written, it appears only “the tensioning force between the first blade and the second blade that separates the first blade and the second blade and maintains a position of the second blade relative to the first blade”. Thus, it is unclear.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lu (CN 208196865 U and Translation) in view of Doc (JPH04112375U and Translation) hereinafter Doc’s 375
Regarding claim 1, Lu shows a magnetic blade assembly (Figure 3), comprising:
a first blade (1) having first teeth extending along a first blade edge;
a second blade (3) having second teeth extending along a second blade edge, the second blade supported relative to the first blade such that the second teeth are moveable relative to the first blade to cut hair; and
a blade guide (2) positioned between the first blade and the second blade, the blade guide maintains a position of the first blade edge relative to the second blade edge; and
a magnetic assembly (4 magnets 5) comprising: a holder (4); a first magnet (top 2 magnets 5) coupled to the holder; a second magnet (bottom 2 magnets) coupled to a surface of the second blade, the surface facing away from the first blade; wherein the magnetic assembly generates a tensioning force between the first blade and the second blade (see the abstract “magnet… effectively prevent the gap occurs between moving knife and stationary knife”).
However, Lu fails to discuss a holder coupled to the first blade and the second magnet coupled to a surface of the second blade, the surface facing away from the first blade.
Doc’s 375 shows a magnetic blade assembly (Figure 4) including a holder (25) coupled to the first blade (1); a first magnet (26) coupled to the holder; a second magnet (24) coupled to a surface of the second blade (a movable blade 2), the surface facing away from the first blade.
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 magnetic blade assembly of Lu to have a holder and the second magnet coupled to a surface of the second blade (a movable blade 2), the surface facing away from the first blade, as taught by Doc’s 375, since this is known an alternative way that the magnet can be mounted on other side of the second blade for the same purpose of generating tensioning force between the blades and in order allow adjusting the tension force by adjusting the holder (screw, see Figure 4 of the Doc’s 375).
Regarding claim 2, the modified magnetic blade assembly of Lu shows that the first magnet has a first polarity and the second magnet has a second polarity, and wherein the second polarity is different than the first polarity (this is inherent limitation since “ effectively prevent the gap occurs between moving knife and stationary knife” as discussed in the abstract that means the top magnets 5 and the bottom magnets are different poles, in order to generate the tension force).
Regarding claim 3, the modified magnetic blade assembly of Lu shows that the first magnet and the second magnet generate the tensioning force between the first blade and the second blade that separates the first blade and the second blade and maintains a position of the second blade relative to the first blade (see the discussion in claim 1 and see the abstract of Lu).
Regarding claim 4, the modified magnetic blade assembly of Lu shows that the first magnet and the second blade are permanent magnets (see Figure 3 of Lu).
Regarding claim 5, the modified magnetic blade assembly of Lu shows that the first magnet is a bar magnet (see Figure 3 of Lu).
Regarding claims 6-7, the modified magnetic blade assembly of Lu shows that the blade guide further comprises a projection (an elastic contact arm 21, Figure 3 of Lu), and wherein the first blade further comprises a slot (12) configured to receive the projection of the blade guide (see the translation of Lu, the middle paragraph of page 3 “contact arm 21 interference fit with the guide groove 12”), wherein the projection is slidably engaged with the slot of the first blade (as this is written, it is unclear when it occurs. Therefore, during assembling the blades, the arm 21 of the block 2 is slidably engaged with slot).
Regarding claim 8, the modified magnetic blade assembly of Lu shows that the projection of the blade guide and the slot of the first blade together form a dovetail joint (see the translation of Lu, the middle paragraph of page 3 “contact arm 21 interference fit with the guide groove 12”). With regards to the “dovetail joint”
As the applicant had not pointed out the criticality of why the joint between the projection and the slot should be a dovetail joint. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the joint between the projection and the slot of whatever form or shape was desired or expedient, including a dovetail joint. Furthermore, the shape of the joint is merely a recognized equivalent way to aid the connection between the projection and the slot, since applicant has not disclosed that having any specific construction of the dovetail joint solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and it appears that the dovetail joint shape would perform equally well while being constructed of any shape of joints (for example, see Lu’s Figure 3). A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art, absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey etal., 149 USPQ 47. Since a change in shape of a joint between the projection and the slot involves only routine skill in the art. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a desired aesthetic to the joint for the magnetic blade assembly.
Regarding claim 9, the modified magnetic blade assembly of Lu shows that the holder comprises an arm (see the threaded section of the screw 25 of the Doc’s 375) that extends over the surface of the second blade such that the first magnet is positioned above the second magnet (see the screw 25 in Figure 4 of Doc’s 375 over the second blade 2 and the magnet 24).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Manfred (WO 2007125491) and Werner (US-20160075039-A1) show a magnetic blade assembly.
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 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights