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 .
Claim Objections
1. Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “according to any of claim 3” should be –according to claim 3--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by
sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a driving unit” as set forth in claim 1;
“a holding element” as set forth in claim 11; and
“a mounting assembly” in claim 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-13 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.
Regarding claim 1, the recitation of “the driving bridge configured to couple to the cutting unit” is indefinite because it is unclear whether the driving bridge is structural component of the driving unit or a structural component of the head.
Regarding claim 1, “a primary counterpart bearing surface … and configured to contact the primary head bearing surface along a contact line” is confusing as it is unclear whether the contact line is an abstract or imaginary line of contact or a physical structure feature such as an edge.
Regarding claim 12, it is not clear whether “the rotation axis” is a reference to the first or third rotation axis previously recited.
Regarding claim 13, “a motor” is unclear. It is not clear whether the motor is the same motor set forth in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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.
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, the closes art Phoon et al. (WO 2015158681 A1), hereinafter Phoon, teaches a mounting assembly for a hair cutting appliance, the mounting assembly comprising: a driving unit (52, 54, 56, 66) comprising a driving axle 56 and a socket 88 (Fig. 4), the driving axle comprising an eccentric pin 62 cooperating with a driving bridge 140 to impart reciprocating motion to the driving bridge, and the socket 88 being configured to cooperate (via linkage 66) with a motor 52; a head (138, 150) configured to receive a cutting unit 20 and comprising: a body extending along an elongate axis; the driving bridge 140 configured to couple to the cutting unit 20 and to reciprocally move relative to the body along the elongate axis to reciprocally move the cutting unit relative to the body; a primary head bearing surface 148; and a separate secondary head bearing surface (defined by the other bearing surface 148; Figs. 10-11); and a counterpart (defined by the bars which via the hinged pivot mechanism 152 are pivotally coupled to the base 150 of the head at one end and also coupled to the bearing surfaces 148 at the other end; Figs. 10-11) pivotably coupled to the head, the counterpart comprising: a primary counterpart bearing surface configured to cooperate with the primary head bearing surface 148 to permit sliding rotation (about the rotation axis 154; Fig. 10) of the counterpart relative to the head about a first rotational axis 154 which is parallel to the elongate axis; and a secondary counterpart bearing surface separate from the primary counterpart bearing surface and configured to cooperate with the secondary head bearing surface 148. See Figs. 1-11 in Phoon.
Phoon does not explicitly teach that the primary counterpart bearing surface is configured to contact the primary head bearing surface along a contact line to limit movement of the head towards the counterpart along a second axis perpendicular to the first rotational axis; and the secondary counterpart bearing surface is configured to bear against the secondary head bearing surface to limit movement of the head relative to the counterpart along a third axis which is perpendicular to the second axis and the first rotational axis.
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to
applicant’s disclosure.
Park et al. (2023/0150156 A1), Erndt et al. (2018/0085937 A1), Andis (1,997,096), Andis (3,279,056), Bond et al. (3,319,334), Schmitt (2,099,537), and Peter et al. (2018/0085939 A1) teach a mounting assembly for a hair cutting appliance.
7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHASSEM ALIE whose telephone number is (571) 272-4501. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 pm 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 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.
/GHASSEM ALIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724
February 2, 2026
Prosecution Insights