DETAILED ACTION
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gopalan (US 20200196937) in view of Coffee (US 20200205543) and Leventhal (US 7011468).
Claims 1-2 and 5: 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, programming, or control system. So since Gopalan teaches micromechanical nozzles controlled by a microcontroller, Gopalan teaches a controller that can be “programmed” to create the claimed fan and cone pattern(s) as best understood.
Gopalan discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the plurality of tips forming a brush head; the openings and their corresponding valves being disposed in the plurality of tips with the tips defining a plurality of frustoconical shapes and ends of the frustoconical shapes forming concentric circular patterns while other times form a straight line and the cartridge being removable from the dispenser.
Coffee, however, teaches providing dispensing heads with a detachable brush head formed by a plurality of hollow tips (112 & 122) extending and arranged radially in a plurality of concentric circular patterns [0074] with the tips defining a plurality of frustoconical shapes (see Figs 5 & 8). Ends of the frustoconical shaped tips form the concentric circular patterns (see Figs 1-5). Each tip includes at least one central opening to dispense the formulation. 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]. Coffee also teaches the reservoir of substance being removable from the rest of the device for the common sense reason this would allow a user to replace the cartridge when it is used up. 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 a removable brush head and the plurality of come tines being hollow frustoconical dispensing tines disposed 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 frustoconical and 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.
Alternatively, or additionally, if applicant feels that modified Gopalan does not teach the pattern being a fan or a cone pattern, then modified Gopalan discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the pattern being a fan pattern or a cone pattern.
Leventhal, however, teaches a dispensing hairbrush (see Figs 5 & 7-8) including a dispensing valve (see Fig 5) that can alternate between a conical vertical spray pattern (190A, see Fig 5) and a fan spray pattern coming out of a periphery of the nozzle/valve (190, Fig 5) in order to enable a user to dispense the solution in different directions. 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 dispensing brush of modified Gopalan by providing the dispensing nozzles with nozzles extending in multiple directions as taught by Leventhal in view of Leventhal in order to allow the formulation to be dispensed in multiple directions from each tip. The proposed modification would result in the tips and controller being able to spray the formulation in a fan spray patter or in a cone spray pattern.
Claim 6: the proposed modification results in each opening being formed by at least a first hollow chamber (interior passage of 112b) and a second hollow chamber (interior passage of 122a) and the proposed modification results in each having a nozzle with a plurality of openings at the end of the tip forming another hollow chamber, so at least two hollow chambers are taught by the proposed modifications. So modified Gopalan teaches these limitations.
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, modified Gopalan discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for explicitly stating the cartridge is replaceable. However, Coffee teaches the brush head to be removable from a housing and the cartridge being removable [0070] (see Figs 4-5). 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 modified Gopalan by providing the cartridge removable in view of Coffee in order to allow a user to replace the cartridge as needed when it is empty.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/10/26 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.
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