DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The amendment filed 8/13/25 overcomes the previous objection.
The amendment to page 9, line 9 is objected to for attempting to add new matter into the disclosure. The original disclosure did not indicate that the device of Figure 4 is “handheld”; however, applicant is now attempting to add this language, which is improper and new matter.
The disclosure remains objected to for attempting to “incorporate by reference” a series of foreign applications and WIPO publications including WO 2019048357, WO 2014108775, WO 2017080957, EP 17190268.7, EP 17190266.1, EP 17190269.5, EP 17190265.3, and EP 18153518.8; however, the disclosure does not clearly indicate what information exactly from each of these foreign documents is meant to be “incorporated by reference”. While applicant has now come back and amended the disclosure to broadly state that every reference is incorporated by reference “in its entirety” this remains improper. Applicant must indicate clearly what information is being incorporated by reference; i.e. is it the heating element features, the light features, the handle feature, none of the above, all of the above, etc. in order to properly incorporate these other publications and applications by reference and understand the metes and bounds of the disclosure. If any essential subject matter for the current pending application is supposed to be taught by these foreign documents, that subject matter must be provided in the pending specification and not “incorporated by reference” broadly to a series of other disclosures. Also, the Application Data Sheet (ADS) does not indicate any disclosures should be incorporated by reference. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/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.
Claims 22-23 each requires “wherein only the plurality of LEDs that generate the optical radiation produce thermal energy in the hair styling device”; however, this is new matter. The original disclosure does not require only one thermal energy source nor for the optical radiation sources to be the “ONLY” thermal energy source as applicant now attempts to claim. The disclosure repeatedly discusses a “heat source” (Page 2, 17-20) in addition to the optical radiation sources, such that there is no support in the originally filed disclosure for this new negative limitation. Additionally, the claims are contradictory because the claims also require a “heat bridge” which by definition is a “thermal energy source” so the claims directly contradict themselves and the disclosure, as well. This is a new matter rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 22-23 is/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.
Claims 22-23 each requires “wherein only the plurality of LEDs that generate the optical radiation produce thermal energy in the hair styling device”; however, then also require a “heat bridge” which by definition is a “thermal energy source” so the claims appear to contradict themselves and the disclosure, as well, making it confusing what exactly is being claimed. Furthermore, it is unknown and unclear to office what type of LEDs, if any, are capable of even producing heat of 120-180oC as this is not known to the office and applicant does not state any particular type of LED or special LED making the metes and bounds of the claims further unclear and impossible to determine. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “wherein the plurality of LEDs that generate the optical radiation produce thermal energy in the hair styling device” since this all applicant has written description support for and this is all that the disclosure enables or allows applicant to claim. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11-12, 15, and 17 as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Washington (US 20150173480).
Claim 1: Washington discloses a hair styling device comprising: an infrared [0055] heat source joined to a pair of conductive heat bridges (7 & 8) [0054-0055] for heating hair by conduction [0055] and radiation [0055-0058] both via direct contact between a hair contact surface (11 & 11’, Fig 9) and the hair [0055], and via an array of LED [0064] optical radiation sources (9 & 10) and [0055 & 0062-0064] wherein the optical radiation sources and the infrared heat source (also an optical radiation source) together heat the hair [0055] at least in part by reflectance causing heat conduction to the heat bridges (7 & 8) and thereby heating the hair contact surfaces (11 & 11’) and the hair in contact with those surfaces for styling. So Washington discloses a heat source (7 & 8) [0055] in the form of heated plates (7 & 8) that provide conductive heat to the hair via direct contact between the hair contact surface (11) and the hair. The optical radiation sources (9 & 10) are configured to generate optical radiation to provide additional conductive heat for heating hair by conduction via direct contact between the hair contact surface (top of 11) and the hair. The optical radiation sources (9 & 10) is/are configured to generate optical radiation (see above) with the hair absorbing some of this optical radiation (in the region of 12 by 10) [0057] to a desired temperature and the heat source obtains at least some of its conductive heat from thermal energy provided by the optical radiation source (9) via thermal connection between the optical radiation source and the heat source [0055-0057]. The heat source can heat the hair from about 50oC to about 180oC [0061], which includes values that do not exceed 100oC and since the hair is exposed to light twice (see Figs 1 & 5), it is exposed to heat before it is exposed to the second round of light.
Claim 17: the optical radiation sources are covered by a cover (13, 14, Fig 9) that is heated by the heat source [0055] (see Fig 9) and this cover can be transparent to infrared radiation [0055], which requires that it be transparent to wavelengths less than about 1000nm because this is the infrared spectrum and not transparent for wavelengths not in the infrared spectrum or outside of 1000 micrometers, which is broadly greater than about 1000nm thereby meeting the claim and the cover can be overall transparent in some regions (12) [0057] and optical radiation energy will generate heat because that is what LEDs do as well as infrared heat sources and the cover forms the hair contact surface (see Fig 9) and the cover in the vicinity of the optical radiation sources (10) can be transparent and/or translucent [0057], which as best understood means the cover is “largely transparent” for some wavelengths, but not all.
Claims 11 and 15: the irradiance is described as being 0.1-0.5W/cm2 [0065] and 1 Joule = 1W/s. So depending on how long the user leaves the hair straightener in one place on their hair, the device is capable of outputting 1-10 J/cm2 if the device is left on one section or “surface” of hair for at least 2s at 0.5 W/cm2. 1-10 J/cm2 fully encompasses the claimed range of 4-6 J/cm2.
Claim 12: the heat source or bridge can heat the hair from about 50-180oC [0061], which includes values that do not exceed 100oC and since the hair is exposed to light twice (see Figs 1 & 5), it can be exposed to heat before it is exposed to a second round of light, thereby meeting the claim limitations.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 9-10, 17, and 22-23 as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyal (US 20150320171).
Claims 1, 9, and 22-23: Moyal discloses a hair styling device (800, see Figs 8-9 & 11) comprising: a heat bridge in the form of a heat sink [0079] with a fan [0079] (note that since a heat “bridge” and a heat “sink” are synonymous). The heat sink (heat bridge) is joined to a plurality of light emitting diodes [0077-0079] configured to generate optical radiation [0074-0075] for further heating hair [0074-0075] sandwiched between two arms/parts of the styling device (see Figs 8-9). The optical radiation sources in combination with heat from the heat sink can be used to heat the hair [0079-0080] (see Fig 11) and the heat sink obtains heat energy from the optical radiation sources [0079]. The heat bridge includes at least one hair contact surface (801 and the facing surfaces of 1010, see Figs 9 & 11), and the device is described as operating at least at the boiling temperature of a 33% formaldehyde 0.2-2% formalin in water solution [0057 & 0067] and that boiling temperature would be approximately equal to the boiling temperature of water or 100oC. The hair contact surfaces are described as “heat blocks” meaning they are conductive so they would also be heated to approximately this temperature in use based on how the device is described to operate [0067 & 0074-0078]. The first and the second arms each includes a plurality of optical radiation sources (see Figs 8-9 & 11) along a length of the arm/part (see Figs 8 & 10) and a plurality of (at least two) LEDs of the lower arm closest to a distal free end of the lower arm do not face the plurality (at least two) LEDs of the upper arm that are closest to the proximal hinged end of the upper arm, thereby meeting the claim limitations that the plurality of LEDs of the second part do not face the plurality of LEDs of the first part. The language “for heating hair by conduction via direct contact between a hair contact surface of the heat bridge and the hair” is functional language and is not afforded patentable weight because the hair directly contacts the interior surface of the arms of the device and those surfaces constitute “hair contact surfaces”. Those surfaces are also heated at least partly via conduction because the heated vapor and air flowing around them would heat the arm surfaces even if only slightly such that the arm surfaces are heated because this is just what happens when you have warm air inside of something as disclosed by Moyal. The device of Moyal has holes (1006) for releasing the heated air, meaning that this heated air is flowing around inside of the arms (1010) so the arm interior surfaces that contact the hair and face each other will be heated via conduction at least slightly by the presence of this warm air inside and this surface would also be acting as a “heat bridge” because it is dissipating some of the heat from the air via conduction while the fan causes some of the air to exit and heat the hair also via convection (see Fig 10). The heat bridge obtains at least some thermal energy from the plurality of LEDs that generate the optical radiation.
Moyal discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the styling temperature being 120-180oC. However, Moyal explicitly states that any hair care solution can be used that is appropriate and that the device can be operated at whatever necessary temperature for hair styling [0017 & 0057]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the device of Moyal to heat the hair to higher temperatures for the common-sense reason that drier coarser hair types require more heat for styling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the device of Moyal by operating the device at temperatures of 120-180oC as necessary in order to allow for styling of different hair types with the same device and since the “boiling temperature” of the respective solution is entirely dependent on the solution a user wishes to place inside the device.
Claim 17: Modified Moyal discloses the invention of claim 1 and Moyal further discloses each of the LEDs is covered by a cover (801) that is transparent [0076-0077] to some, but not all wavelengths of light [0077-0079] and the heat energy from the optical radiation sources is transferred to the hair at the hair contact surface with the covers forming at least a portion of this hair contact surface (see Figs 8-9 & 11). The covers will end up heated in some fashion since they receive heat and light energy from the lights and since convective heat is dispersed around the plates, they would heat up with the rest of the device to at least some degree, thereby meeting the claim limitations since this convection and conduction is caused by the heat source/heat sink arrangement. The cover covers the optical radiation sources and is transparent [0077-0079] “only” for wavelengths of the optical radiation absorbable by the hair for heating the hair to the required styling temperature for hair styling” since the device only outputs certain wavelengths via the filter [0075 & 0077-0079] and since “required wavelengths” is an indefinite term on its own. The wavelengths can be limited to 700-1000nm [0075] if used for hair removal and Moyal discusses that it is necessary to use the optical radiation sources outside of this range for heating hair [0075] and that the visible light range (380-700nm) wavelengths can be used [0077]. So Moyal discloses the heat source having a transparent cover covering the optical radiation source with the transparent material receiving thermal energy and being transparent for wavelengths less than 1000nm like 380-700nm for styling hair and not transparent for wavelengths greater than 1000nm.
Claim 10: Modified Moyal discloses the invention of claim 1 and Moyal further discloses in each part, reflective materials (904, see Figs 9 & 11) [0077] are positioned between adjacent optical radiation sources in each part (see Figs 9 & 11) and based on the lines illustrating the light reflection (see Figs 9 & 11), these reflective materials reflect the light from the optical radiation sources at an angle, so at least partly sideways (see Fig 9 & 11).
Claims 1, 9, 12, 17 and 21-23, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altmann (WO 2013189786) in view of Petroski (US 20130294096).
Claims 1, 9, and 22-23: Altmann discloses a hair styling device comprising two arms/parts (5 & 6) between which hair is sandwiched (see Figs 4-5) each part comprising at least one optical radiation source (10 & 20 & 21 & 30) including a plurality of LEDs [0012 & 0019] configured to generate optical radiation [0018-0019 & 0032] for hair styling/shaping via radiation. The optical radiation sources can be overlaid by straightening plates [0019] formed as optical filters [0019] to block unwanted wavelengths of radiation in use, which would result in the straightening plates constituting a cover over the optical radiation source and these plates can also be heated [0012 & 0018]. Since the optical radiation sources can be covered by any type of filter including a blocking filter, a type of absorptive filter and absorptive filters are known to heat up during use by absorbing the unwanted wavelengths, this means the filter can also constitute part of this “heat source”. The optical radiation sources can be LEDs [0026]. The filter by definition is transparent to certain wavelengths of radiation, thereby constituting “transparent” and not all wavelengths [0010 & 0012 & 0019]. Both arms/parts have at least one optical radiation source and at least one optical radiation source from one arm does not face at least one optical radiation source from another arm since source (21) does not face any of the sources (30, see Figs 1-5). Altmann further discloses the device can be heated to 50-180oC [0018], which includes 120-180oC and includes values that do not exceed 100oC, as well and the hair is further heated by the optical radiation sources during styling. Altmann discloses using the LEDS to both heat and irradiate the hair and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the LED arrays each comprising at least one heat sink and at least one heat bridge connected together with the LED array for transferring their excess waste thermal energy to the hair straightening plates/heated hair contact surface via conduction.
Petroski, however, teaches harnessing wasted heat from optical radiation sources (18), particularly arrays of LEDs [0024]. Petroski teaches that when using LED optical radiation sources, one can recycle the wasted heat by providing the LED array with a heat source (26) [0027-0029] that obtains conductive heat from thermal energy provided by the optical radiation source via a thermal connection with a heat sink (24) directly connected to the optical radiation source for removing the thermal energy from the optical radiation source [0024]. The heat source is a bridge coupled to the heat sink to obtain this conductive heat [0024 & 0020] for dispersing this heat to an adjacent heat conductive surface (14) [0023 & 0039] in order to reduce thermal waste. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the LED arrays of Altmann by providing them with the heat sink and heat bridge thermal arrangement taught by Petroski in order to enable recycling of the otherwise wasted heat energy created by the LEDs. The proposed modification is to provide the hair straightening/hair contacting surface of Altmann, which is already described as being heated and which is heated by optical radiation sources during use with an attached heat bridge in contact with a heat sink joined to the LED arrays in order to better heat the plates without wasting the excess thermal energy generated by each LED array. This proposed modification would result in each arm/part of the device of Altmann having a heat source comprising a heat sink and a heat bridge that both receive conductive heat energy from the optical radiation sources as claimed.
Claims 12: modified Altmann discloses the device of claim 1 and Altmann further discloses the device can be heated to 50-180oC [0018], which includes 120-180oC and heating the hair by conduction and that includes values that do not exceed 100oC, as well and the hair is further heated by the optical radiation sources during styling.
Claims 17 and 21: Altmann discloses a hair styling device comprising at least one optical radiation source (10 & 20 & 21 & 30) including at least one plurality of LEDs [0012 & 0019] configured to generate optical radiation [0018-0019 & 0032] for hair styling/shaping via radiation. The optical radiation sources can be overlaid by straightening plates [0019] formed as optical filters [0019] to block unwanted wavelengths of radiation in use, which would result in the straightening plates constituting a cover over the optical radiation source and these plates can also be heated [0012 & 0018]. Since the optical radiation sources can be covered by any type of filter including a blocking filter, a type of absorptive filter and absorptive filters are known to heat up during use by absorbing the unwanted wavelengths, this means the filter can also constitute part of this “heat source”. The optical radiation sources can be pluralities of LEDs [0026]. The filter by definition is transparent to certain wavelengths of radiation, thereby constituting “transparent” and not all wavelengths [0010 & 0012 & 0019]. Both arms/parts have at least one optical radiation source and at least one optical radiation source from one arm does not face at least one optical radiation source from another arm since source (21) does not face any of the sources (30, see Figs 1-5). Altmann discloses using the LEDS to both heat and irradiate the hair and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the LED arrays each comprising at least one heat sink and at least one heat bridge connected together with the LED array for transferring their excess waste thermal energy to the hair straightening plates/heated hair contact surface via conduction. Altmann further discloses the device can be heated to 50-180oC [0018], which includes 120-180oC and includes values that do not exceed 100oC, as well and the hair is further heated by the optical radiation sources during styling. The filter or cover is disclosed to be able to block wavelengths outside of the range of 440nm-10micrometers [0020], which fully encompasses applicant’s claimed range of 400-1000nm. Altmann discloses using the LEDS to both heat and irradiate the hair and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the LED arrays each comprising at least one heat sink and at least one heat bridge connected together with the LED array for transferring their excess waste thermal energy to the hair straightening plates/heated hair contact surface.
Petroski, however, teaches harnessing wasted heat from optical radiation sources (18), particularly arrays of LEDs [0024]. Petroski teaches that when using LED optical radiation sources, one can recycle the wasted heat by providing the LED array with a heat source (26) [0027-0029] that obtains conductive heat from thermal energy provided by the optical radiation source via a thermal connection with a heat sink (24) directly connected to the optical radiation source for removing the thermal energy from the optical radiation source [0024]. The heat source is a bridge coupled to the heat sink to obtain this conductive heat [0024 & 0020] for dispersing this heat to an adjacent heat conductive surface (14) [0023 & 0039] in order to reduce thermal waste. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the LED arrays of Altmann by providing them with the heat sink and heat bridge thermal arrangement taught by Petroski in order to enable recycling of the otherwise wasted heat energy created by the LEDs. The proposed modification is to provide the hair straightening/hair contacting surface of Altmann, which is already described as being heated and which is heated by the filter during use with an attached heat bridge in contact with a heat sink joined to the LED arrays in order to better heat the plates without wasting the excess thermal energy generated by each LED array. This proposed modification would result in each arm/part of the device of Altmann having a heat source comprising a heat sink and a heat bridge that both receive conductive heat energy from the optical radiation sources as claimed. So this would result in the cover also still acting as a filter and generating additional heat while doing so and the conductive heat bridge as claimed.
Claims 4-5 and 16, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Altmann (WO 2013189786) in view of Petroski (US 20130294096) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Jay (US 7699058).
Claims 4-5: modified Altmann discloses the invention of claim 1 and Altmann further discloses that the optical radiation can be provided in “fast switching on and off the LEDs” [0009] or LED pulses/flashes. Modified Altmann discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the flash duration being at least 0.1s. Jay, however, teaches a hair styling device in the form of a comb (Col 5, 43-56), a hair curler, or a hair straightener (Col 5, 44-55), the hair styling device (Col 7, 10-20) comprising: a heat source for heating hair by conduction via direct contact of the hair with the comb tines or curler/straightener and the heat source includes a plurality of optical radiation sources that heat the hair (Col 7, 10-20), and transmit both heat and optical radiation to the hair (Col 6, 60-Col 7, 20) for styling (Col 7, 10-20), where the optical radiation source(s) are arranged for radiating the hair with flashes or pulses (Col 7, 10-20 & Col 6, 1-13) and at least one flash/pulse can have a duration of 1ns-2s (Col 6, 1-13), which includes values at least 0.1s. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of modified Altmann to include flash durations of at least 0.1s in view of Jay since Jay teaches this to be a known flash duration for this exact purpose.
Claims 5 and 16: modified Altmann discloses the invention of claim 1 and Altmann further discloses that the optical radiation can be provided in fast switching on and off the LEDs [0009] or pulses/flashes, which would include “at least two flashes”. Modified Altmann discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the intervals between at least two flashes being less than 5s or the interval between flashes being smaller than 0.3s. Jay, however, teaches a hair styling device in the form of a comb (Col 5, 43-56), a hair curler, or a hair straightener (Col 5, 44-55), the hair styler (Col 7, 10-20) comprising: a heat source for heating hair by conduction via direct contact of the hair with the comb tines or curler/straightener and the heat source includes a plurality of optical radiation sources that heat the hair (Col 7, 10-20), and transmit both heat and optical radiation to the hair (Col 6, 60-Col 7, 20) for styling (Col 7, 10-20), where the optical radiation source(s) are arranged for radiating the hair with flashes or pulses (Col 7, 10-20 & Col 6, 1-13) and at least one flash/pulse can have an interval between pulses between 1ns-2s (Col 6, 1-13), which includes values less than 0.3-5s. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of modified Altmann to include flash durations of at least 0.1s in view of Jay since Jay teaches this to be a known flash duration for this exact purpose.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/13/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that “it is not clear what element in Washington is alleged to disclose applicant’s thermal connection”. The term thermal connection is broad at the outset and not any required physical structure. To be clear, air is a conductor so a connection to air by a heated anything constitutes a “thermal connection” because the claim language is broad. Second, the office action clearly states the ceramic plates 7 & 8 constitute the “heat bridges” or “thermal connection” between the various lights because these plates are disclosed to be made of ceramic [0055] and electromagnetic radiation heats ceramic, this is a known and historically well documented thermal property of ceramics and electromagnetic radiation. This argument is not persuasive.
While applicant argues that “thermal connection” means “heat sink”, the applicant is respectfully advised that claims in a pending application should be given their broadest reasonable interpretation and as discussed above “thermal connection” is not a definite structure of any kind. If applicant wishes the term to be interpreted to mean only a heat sink, then applicant can amend the claims to clarify this. See MPEP § 2111.01.
Applicant then argues that Moyal fails to teach:
PNG
media_image1.png
174
517
media_image1.png
Greyscale
At the outset, the argument/assertion that “Moyal’s heat sink is not analogous to Applicant’s heat bridge” has zero evidence or any factual basis for support. This appears to simply be a broad statement by applicant’s representative with no legal reasoning. Applicant has provided no evidence to establish an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art, but rather has merely argued such alleged difference. Mere arguments cannot take the place of evidence.
Applicant again argues the claims require a heat sink directly contacting hair, that is incorrect. The claims require “a hair contact surface”, which could be literally anything that comes in contact with hair and a “heat bridge”. Moyal teaches all the structure claimed by applicant.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Gill whose telephone number is (571)270-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, can be reached on 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER GILL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights