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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 111, 113, 115, 525.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 524
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "124" and "126" have both been used to designate the grooming tool in figs. 3A-3B. Para. 0039 describes the grooming tool 124 and 126 but they seem to be the same grooming tool used in different orientations for different modes but numbered with two different reference numbers.
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. 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
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 12 claims “further comprising a curved dematting blade coupled to a folower link and a separate drive link on a rotating bearing or shaft, where rotation of the bearing pivots the blade and translates an opposing cutting element to form and open a nip” but the specification does not explicitly reference a dematting blade, a follower link, a drive link, or a bearing and it is unclear where they are located in the figures and if the specification referred to them in a different way and with a different terminology. It is best understood to be referring to fig. 4 and para. 0041.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites “folower", which is a typo for follower.
Claim 12 recites “the blade”, which seems to be inconsistent terminology for the “curved dematting blade”. It should be corrected to further clarify it apart from the cutting blade in the other claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9-10, 12, and 14 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the cutting blade" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 3 first introduces “at least one cutting blade” but claim 9 depends upon claim 2. If claim 9 is referring to the “at least one cutting blade”, the terminology should be consistent such that it is unclear if claim 9 is referring to one of the at least one cutting blade or all cutting blades of the group “at least one cutting blade”.
Claim 10 recites “the method of claim 2” but claim 2 is an apparatus claim and claim 6 is the method claim. It is unclear if claim 10 should depend upon claim 2 or claim 6.
Claim 12 recites “a curved dematting blade coupled to a folower link and a separate drive link on a rotating bearing or shaft, where rotation of the bearing pivots the blade and translates an opposing cutting element to form and open a nip” but it is unclear what figures and components the claim is referring to due to the inconsistency between claims and the specification as detailed above. It is best understood that it is referring to para. 00041 but there is also a follower gear 525 in para. 0043. The specification references dematting tines but not a dematting blade. It is unsure if they are the same component, especially when tines and blades are considered two separate functional components in the invention. The components in para. 0041 do not use the same terminology as in claim 12 and it is unclear if the limitations in claim 12 are described in the specification and the figures.
Claim 14 recites “the blade” but it is unclear if is referring to just one blade of the “at least one cutting blade” or the whole group of “at least one cutting blade” due to inconsistent terminology.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 11, and 13 are allowed.
The prior art of record fails to disclose or make obvious the combined limitations of Applicant’s claimed invention. With regard to independent claim 2 (independent claim 6 being substantively similar), Revil (US 5915391) teaches of (fig. 1) an animal grooming device (abstract, comb can be used with an animal) comprising:
a handle (handle 10);
a housing (shaft 16) attached to the handle (seen in fig. 1);
a plurality of combing tines (teeth 22) projecting from the housing (16) (seen in fig. 1);
a plurality of linkage arms (fig. 4, each tooth 52 is hinged on a crank 54 of the crankshaft), each linkage arm operatively connected to at least one of the combing tines (seen in fig. 4).
However, the prior art does not teach the combined limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, a reciprocating mechanism, selected from a group consisting of a crank, cam, or motor, coupled operatively to the linkage arms;
wherein the reciprocating mechanism is configured to drive the linkage arms
such that the combing tines reciprocate and/or perform a coordinated scissoring action relative to one another.
Claims 9-10, 12, and 14 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZOE TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30am-6pm 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, Kimberly Berona can be reached at 571-272-6909. 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.
/ZOE TAM TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3647