DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/14/25 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, and 9 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.
Claim 1: This claim was amended to recite “a valve to close the opening”; however, line 2 requires “a spray dispenser”. While applicant has support for a spray dispenser comprising valves, applicant does not have support for both a spray dispenser and a series of valves for each tip separate from the dispenser as now appears to be claimed. This claim also was amended to recite “the plurality of tips are arranged in increasing diameter circular patterns and some of the tips are arranged in a linear pattern”; however, while applicant has support for the tips to be arranged in a concentric circular pattern where some of the tips also happen to be in a line does not constitute the tips being both circular patterns and linear patterns. Applicant can claim that some of the tips of the circular patterns form a straight line, but attempting to claim that the tips are arranged in both “increasing diameter circular patterns” and that some are “arranged in a linear pattern” appears to be attempting to claim that some tips are in a linear pattern and some tips form the circular patterns and this is not disclosed by applicant (see applicant’s Figure 9). 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) 1-2, 5-6, and 9 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1: This claim was amended to recite “a valve to close the opening”; however, line 2 requires “a spray dispenser” and line 10 recites “a controller”; however, it is unclear what the “spray dispenser” language is supposed to be when it appears this is the valves and controller recited further down in the claim. The metes and bounds of the claims are unclear. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting, “wherein the spray dispenser comprises:” in line 2. This claim also was amended to recite “the plurality of tips are arranged in increasing diameter circular patterns and some of the tips are arranged in a linear pattern”; however, this language is unclear and confusing because “some of the tips” does not clearly refer back to “the plurality of tips” and also because it appears applicant is attempting to claim both “increasing diameter circular patterns” and “a linear pattern” made by different tips, but this is confusing and not commensurate with applicant’s disclosure. While applicant has support for the tips to be arranged in a concentric circular pattern where some of the tips in the concentric circular pattern also form a straight line, the newly presented claim language is unclear because it appears to be asserting that different tips form the different patterns and that is not what is disclosed (see applicant’s figure 9) and which makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Applicant can claim that some of the plurality of tips in the circular patterns form a straight line. The last lines of the second clause recite “wherein the plurality of tips extend at an angle from a longitudinal axis, lengths of which and are arranged on a perimeter of an imaginary cone shape”; at the outset, “a longitudinal axis” is unclear because what is a longitudinal axis of? The tip, the dispenser, the device, the cartridge? Second, “lengths of which and are arranged on a perimeter” is not proper idiomatic English and does not make sense. Third, this language appears to be referring to the arrangement of the tips, which is already set forth in the preceding lines to be in “circular patterns” so is this “imaginary cone” part of the circular patterns somehow because no relationship is set forth between them making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. The third clause still recites “the spray pattern” without antecedent basis. This clause also recites “the controller opens the tips”, but the tips are now claimed to have valves so is this saying that the controller opens the valves or it opens some other structure on the tips? What does “opens the tips” mean when valves are now required? The third clause also recites “the tips arranged in a linear pattern”; however, “a linear pattern” is set forth in the second clause so are these the same or different? Line 3 of this clause recites “a fan spray pattern”, but “the spray pattern” is recited before this so are these the same or different? How many “spray patterns” are being simultaneously claimed? The next lines require “the controller opens the tips arranged lengthwise following a cone shape…in a cone spray pattern”; however, again what does “opens the tips” mean when valves are required by the preceding clause. Also, “a cone shape” is unclear when applicant already set forth “an imaginary cone shape” in the preceding clause so are these the same or different? It is also unclear what “opens the tips arranged lengthwise” is supposed to mean. The claim also recites “a cone spray pattern” in the last line, but it set forth “the spray pattern” in the beginning of the clause. The claim is replete with indefinite issues and the outlined issues above should not be interpreted to constitute an exhaustive list of every issue encountered. Applicant is respectfully requested to reread the claims carefully, to use one term consistently throughout the claims to refer to a single structural feature in order to avoid these issues. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 2: recites “wherein the controller closes the valves of the tips”; however, claim 1 already requires the controller “closes the tips” and never mentions closing the valves so is applicant attempting to claim that the controller somehow closes the tips in claim 1 without the valves? Furthermore, this claim recites “a fan spray pattern”; however, this is already recited in claim 1, so are these the same or different? Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 5: this claim requires “wherein the plurality of tips are arranged on a brush head” without setting forth any structural relationship between this “brush head” and the “spray dispenser” required by claim 1. It would appear this brush head must be part of the spray dispenser based on a review of applicant’s disclosure, but no relationship between them is set forth making the metes and bounds of the claims unclear. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “wherein the plurality of tips form a brush head on the spray dispenser”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 6: this claim recites “wherein the plurality of tips include a first and second hollow chamber”; however, claim 1 requires “each tip has at least one opening…and a valve to close the opening”. Claim 6 does not clearly refer back to this “at least one opening” so is applicant attempting to claim that the plurality of tips include two hollow chambers and at least one opening with a valve? It would seem that the hollow chambers form openings for dispensing and are not some separate structure as the claims appear to require. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “wherein the at least one opening is formed by a first hollow chamber and a second hollow chamber in each tip of the plurality of tips”. Clarification or correction is requested.
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 1-2, 5-6, and 9, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopalan (US 20200196937) in view of Coffee (US 20200205543) and Vandenbelt (US 20090234253).
Claims 1-2: Gopalan discloses a hair and scalp treatment device (see Fig 1) [0003 & 0034] comprising: a dispenser connected to a cartridge (107) and the cartridge comprises a formulation [0003 & 0034]; a plurality of tips in the form of comb teeth (201) wherein each tip has at least one opening (202) for dispensing the formulation and a controller (103 & 104) to control the dispensing of the formulation in a spray [0039 & 0041] through the at least one opening individually via a series of micromechanical nozzles [0007 & 0050], which are valves, and the controller is configured to open/dispense or spray from selective tips in any of a variety of patterns [0007] including pre-determined patterns [0009 & 0034], while not dispensing from the tips that do not lie in the pre-determined pattern. So the controller is capable of being “configured to open tips in a line to dispense the formulation in a fan pattern or a cone pattern” since a “fan” and a “cone” are simply basic geometric shapes. It is also noted that any controller can be programmed to do this and applicant does not set forth any particular special controller or control system. So since Gopalan teaches micromechanical nozzles controlled by a microcontroller, Gopalan teaches a controller that can be “configured” to create the claimed fan and cone pattern(s) as best understood. Gopalan discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the tips extending radially and outward and away from the device and being arranged in a plurality of circular patterns with some of the plurality of tines splaying outward forming “an imaginary cone shape” and the opening and valves being disposed in the tips.
Coffee, however, teaches providing dispensing heads with a plurality of hollow tips (112 & 122) extending and arranged radially in a plurality of circular patterns [0074] with the tips extending radially outward and away from the device since they extend outward and away in radial patterns from the device. At least one tip from each circular pattern lies on a line (see Figs 1-5) and the concentric circles forming the circular pattern increase in diameter moving away from a center of the brush head (see Figs 1-5). Coffee teaches providing the dispensing head with these tines being hollow for dispensing the contents and with the hollow tines being arranged in a plurality of circular patterns in order to enable massaging of the scalp during dispensing [0074] and because circular nozzle patterns are more efficacious for better coverage during application [0082]. 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 Gopalan by providing the tines as hollow tines and in a plurality of concentric circular patterns as prescribed by Coffee in order to enable massaging of the scalp during application and in order to provide better coverage during dispensing. The proposed modification would result in each tine having an opening and a micromechanical nozzle, or valve, to close its respective opening since this is already taught by Gopalan, as well as the tines being arranged in a circular pattern including a straight line formed by some of the tines towards a center, which as best understood is what applicant is claiming.
Gopalan discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the plurality of tines extending radially outward forming an “imaginary cone shape”. Vandenbelt discloses that it is old and well known to provide treatment brush heads with bristles/tines in concentric circular patterns where some of the tines in the circular patterns are aligned in a straight line at the center and with the outer tines extending outward in an “imaginary cone” shape for the obvious reason that splaying bristles/tines outward rather than directly longitudinally will cover more area. In other words, splaying bristles in circular patterns outward from their bases in a “cone shape” results in a wider area covered by the bristles meaning a user can detangle more hair at one time. This is common sense. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the device of modified Gopalan by providing the outer tines extending radially outwards (it is noted that all of applicant’s tines are not disclosed to extend radially outward) in an imaginary cone configuration as taught by Vandenbelt for the common sense reason that this would allow a user to treat more hair at one time with one pass because the bristles would cover more hair.
Alternatively, or additionally, if applicant feels that Gopalan does not teach the pattern being a fan or a cone pattern, it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). The office also notes that applicant’s own disclosure does not state that the fan or cone patterns are for any particular reason nor that they solve any particular problem. Instead, applicant’s disclosure on Page 7 states in the first lines that “Controlling the dispensing of formulations from only certain tips on the brush head allows dispensing in multiple patterns, for example cone spray, fan spray, and the like” giving no criticality to this particular spray shape over others.
Claim 5: Gopalan discloses the tips being arranged to form a comb or a “brush head” and the proposed modification also results in the comb being in the form of a “brush head” on the dispenser.
Claim 6: the opening in the tips is formed by at least a first hollow chamber (interior passage of 112b) and a second hollow chamber (interior passage of 122a).
Claim 9: Gopalan discloses the device can be used on the skin or hair [0003 & 0009 & 0050], which would require the cartridge be replaceable with other cartridges having different compositions/formulations therein. Alternatively, Gopalan discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for explicitly stating the cartridge is replaceable. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the dispensing device of modified Gopalan by providing the cartridge as removable and replaceable, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various separable elements involves only routine skill in the art and since making the cartridge removable would make it replaceable. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(C).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/15/25 have been considered but are moot because they are all drawn to the newly presented claim limitations, which have been addressed above with a modified ground of rejection.
Applicant argues that the bristles arranged to splay outward in an “imaginary cone pattern” is what causes the particular spray patterns. This is not persuasive because the controller opening the valves is disclosed to “cause” the various patterns; however, another reference is provided to highlight that splayed bristles forming an outwardly conical pattern are old and well-known in hair brushes. Additional prior art illustrating splaying tines/bristles on brushes are provided below, as well, to show that this is old and well known.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5927290, US 7814917, US 20080202544, US 20070261643, US 2162907, US 20070144451, US 20070017539 all teach splaying bristles to be known in various different types of hairbrushes and hair brush dispensers.
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-Friday 10:00am-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