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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1 July 2026 has been entered.
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome one of the Specification objections. However, there are still grounds for a Specification objection in the Instant Application.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous Claim objections. A new Claim objection has been added in the present Office action.
The Applicant’s arguments regarding the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive (pages 8-11 in the arguments filed 1 July 2026). Accordingly, the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments have provided new grounds for additional 35 USC 112 rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1 July 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Claims 21-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if claims 21 and 23-24 were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 1 July 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 10, 14, 16, 19, 21, and 23-24 have been amended. Claim 26 is new.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10-26 are pending.
Specification
The amendment filed 24 March 2021 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The incorporation by reference in the international patent application PCT/EP2019/077840 and of the European patent application 18205289.0is ineffective as it was added on the day of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the Instant Application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 15 October 2019, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore, the specification amendment of 24 March 2021 is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p).
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informality: claim 26 is identified as being “previously presented;” however, claim 26 is a new claim in the claim submission that was filed on 1 July 2026.
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 26 is 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.
The negative limitation “wherein the hair styling device is configured to perform styling without real-time measurement of hair water content” from claim 26 is not mentioned in the original Specification nor in the original set of claims. Although the Specification discloses that “it is not necessary to accurately and constantly measure the moisture content of the hair while styling it,” this statement is in reference to a fig. 1 from the Specification, which discloses measuring the moisture content and makes no mention of the “hair styling device” of fig. 2. Furthermore, the Specification discloses that in reference to the embodiment of fig. 2, “additional hair conductivity sensing controls 104 can be used to measure hair dielectric properties.” Claims 10, 14, and 19 includes this limitation. The claims recite: “further comprising: a conductivity sensor configured to measure dielectric properties of the hair, wherein the hair styling device is configured to adjust power based on dielectric properties of the hair measured by the conductivity sensor.” Thus, there is no basis in the original disclosure for a hair styling device that is “configured to perform styling without real-time measurement of hair water content.” Any negative limitation must have basis in the original disclosure (MPEP 2173.05.i). As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the application.
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 26 is 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 26 recites “wherein the hair styling device is configured to perform styling without real-time measurement of hair water content.” It is unclear what structure is being excluded from the “hair styling device” based on this limitation. As a result, this limitation is indefinite because it attempting to exclude hair styling devices that the Applicant did not invent from the claim rather claiming a hair styling device that was invented (MPEP 2173.05.i). Furthermore, this limitation for the hair styling device is not mentioned in the Specification. As a result, one of ordinary skill would not know whether they were infringing on the limitation, because it is not clear which hair styling devices are “configured to perform styling without real-time measurement of hair water content.” Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of this limitation, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (US-20170360174-A1, hereinafter Moore ‘174) in view of Moore et al (US-20150335120-A1; hereinafter Moore ‘120) and Boudouris et al. (US-3760148-A).
Regarding claim 1, Moore ‘174 teaches a hair styling device (fig. 1; para 0044), comprising:
electrodes (electrodes 25a and 25b, fig. 2) configured to selectively generate heat to be applied to hair when a radio-frequency signal passes through the electrodes (“causing dielectric heating of the hair 10,” para 0061; generating an “alternating electric field” by “dielectric heating” is construed as the claimed applying a radio-frequency signal, para 0061), characterized in that a frequency of the radio-frequency signal is between 50 MHz and 90 MHz (“in the range of 10 MHz to 100 MHz,” para 0063).
Moore ‘174, fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
1128
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moore ‘174 does not explicitly disclose a temperature all the way up to 170°C; a frequency of the radio-frequency signal is between 50 MHz and 90 MHz.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Moore ‘120 teaches a temperature all the way up to 170°C (“an operating temperature, for example in a region 140° C.-185° C,” para 0082; a temperature range of 140-185°C is construed as overlapping with a range of less than or equal to 170° C).
Moore ‘120, fig. 3a
PNG
media_image2.png
214
682
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Moore ‘174, in view of the teachings of Moore ‘120, by using an operating temperature that is between 140-185°C, as taught by Moore ‘120, for the plates 6a and 6b, as taught by Moore ‘174, such that the plates had a plasma electrolytic oxide (PEO) coating 320, as taught by Moore ‘120, instead of a plastic coating, as taught by Moore ‘174, in order to use a PEO coating on both sides of the heater plate that face the hair, for the advantage of using a coating that is durable and that reduces friction with the hair, and which can be used condition and style hair, where the transition temperature may be in the range of 160-200° C, because a typical temperature of around 210° C is excessive and can be a safety risk to others, such as children, who may come into contact with the hair styler (Moore ‘120, paras 0002, 0074, and 0077; Moore ‘174, paras 0002 and 0005) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Moore ‘174 / Moore ‘120 do not explicitly disclose a frequency of the radio-frequency signal is between 50 MHz and 90 MHz (Moore ‘174 teaches a range of “10 MHz to 100 MHz,” but does not explicitly disclose a range of 50-90 MHz, para 0063).
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Boudouris teaches that a frequency of the radio- frequency signal is between 50 MHz and 90 MHz (“a frequency of about 65 megacycles is obtained,” column 4, lines 24-25; construed as 65 MHz).
Boudouris, fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
482
212
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Moore ‘174 to include, using a frequency of 65 MHz, in view of the teachings of Boudouris, for the frequency of the alternating electric field that is produced, as taught by Moore ‘174, in order to use a high frequency that provides a particularly intense and profound drying of the hair with a relatively low power, which presents no danger for the person whose hair is being treated or the person who is carrying out the treatment (Boudouris, column 1, lines 7-14; column 3, lines 14-30; and column 4, lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 2, Moore ‘174 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a voltage of the radio-frequency signal does not exceed 30 V.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Moore ‘120 teaches wherein a voltage of the radio-frequency signal does not exceed 30 V (“a voltage in the range of 7 to 15V DC,” para 0023; construed as providing a 7-15 DC voltage source that does not exceed 30 V).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Moore ‘174, in view of the teachings of Moore ‘120, by using a DC voltage of 7-15 volts, as taught by Moore ‘120, to provide a DC voltage from batteries/cells, which can be up-converted to 50 volts AC, as taught by More ‘174, for the advantage of using a battery-operated hair styling appliance that is low voltage and cordless (Moore ‘120, para 0037; Moore ‘174, para 0083; line 19 of page 1 of the Specification in the Instant Application disclose that a voltage of 50 volts AC is used)
Regarding claim 4, Moore ‘174 teaches wherein the electrodes (electrodes 25a and 25b, fig. 2) are configured to generate heat when the radio-frequency signal is carried through the electrodes and the heat is applied to the hair (para 0061; fig. 2).
Regarding claim 26, Moore ‘174 teaches wherein the hair styling device (fig. 1) is configured to perform styling without real-time measurement of hair water content (Moore ‘174 does not measuring the hair water content in real time but instead teaches that “the feedback control is performed by current sensing means,” para 0075; similarly, the Applicant’s Instant Application discloses that “additional hair conductivity sensing controls 104 can be used to measure hair dielectric properties and optimize the treatment by adjusting the power.”).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (US-20170360174-A1, hereinafter Moore ‘174) in view of Moore et al (US-20150335120-A1; hereinafter Moore ‘120) and Boudouris et al. (US-3760148-A) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Moore et al. (US-20230181429-A1, effective filing date of 22 Dec 2017; hereinafter Moore ‘429).
Regarding claim 10, Moore ‘174 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a conductivity sensor configured to measure dielectric properties of the hair, wherein the hair styling device is configured to adjust power based on dielectric properties of the hair measured by the conductivity sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Moore ‘429 teaches further comprising: a conductivity sensor configured to measure dielectric properties of the hair (“RF sensor for measuring RF reflection or a temperature sensor may be used to determine dielectric, energy adsorption or temperature parameters of the hair during operation,” para 0130), wherein the hair styling device is configured to adjust power based on dielectric properties of the hair measures by the conductivity sensor (“control the power actuator based on a measured RF reflection or temperature parameter,” para 0130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Moore ‘174, in view of the teachings of Moore ‘429, by using an RF sensor, as taught by Moore ‘429, to sense the electrical power output that is produced by the electrodes, as taught by Moore ‘174, in order to use a power sensor that can be used as feedback by a PID Controller to reach a target RF level, for the advantage of keeping the power, which is controlled based on the actual wattage value determined by a sensor, at a substantially constant wattage while hair is being treated (Moore ‘429, paras 0118-0119 and 0129-0130).
Regarding claim 11, Moore ‘174 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a heat controller configured to regulate temperature settings and treatment time.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Moore ‘429 teaches further comprising: a heat controller (“control electronics (which may include a PID…controller,” para 0130) configured to regulate temperature settings (“target temperature parameter,” para 0130) and treatment time (“A control switch may thus be employed in connection with the control system to provide a signal when the arms are in the closed position,” para 0128; the claimed “treatment time” is construed as the time when the arms are in the closed position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Moore ‘174, in view of the teachings of Moore ‘429, by using a control switch and a PID controller, as taught by Moore ‘429, to control the electrical power output that is produced by the electrodes, as taught by Moore ‘174, in order to use a control switch and a PID Controller to reach a target RF level, for the advantage of keeping the power, which is controlled based on the actual wattage value determined by a sensor, at a substantially constant wattage while hair is being treated (Moore ‘429, paras 0118-0119 and 0129-0130).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (US-20170360174-A1, hereinafter Moore ‘174) in view of Moore et al (US-20150335120-A1; hereinafter Moore ‘120), Boudouris et al. (US-3760148-A), and Varghese et al. (WO-2017080957-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Moore ‘174 teaches a hair styling device (fig. 1; para 0044), comprising: electrodes (electrodes 25a and 25b, fig. 2) configured to selectively generate heat to be applied to hair when a radio-frequency signal passes through the electrodes (“causing dielectric heating of the hair 10,” para 0061; generating an “alternating electric field” by “dielectric heating” is construed as the claimed applying a radio-frequency signal, para 0061), characterized in that a frequency of the radio-frequency signal is between 50 MHz and 90 MHz (“in the range of 10 MHz to 100 MHz,” para 0063).
Moore ‘174 does not explicitly disclose a temperature all the way up to 170°C, a frequency of the radio-frequency signal is between 50 MHz and 90 MHz; a heat source different from the electrodes and configured to heat hair to a first temperature that is no more than 150°C, wherein a voltage of the radio-frequency signal does not exceed 10 V, and wherein the temperature all the way up to 170°C is a second temperature.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Moore ‘120 teaches a temperature all the way up to 170°C (“an operating temperature, for example in a region 140° C.-185° C,” para 0082; a temperature range of 140-185°C is construed as overlapping with a range of less than or equal to 170° C), wherein a voltage of the radio-frequency signal does not exceed 10 V (“a voltage in the range of 7 to 15V DC,” para 0023; a range of 7-15 for a DC voltage is construed as overlapping with a claimed range of less than 10 V)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Moore ‘174, in view of the teachings of Moore ‘120, by using an operating temperature that is between 140-185°C, as taught by Moore ‘120, for the plates 6a and 6b, as taught by Moore ‘174, such that the plates had a plasma electrolytic oxide (PEO) coating 320, as taught by Moore ‘120, instead of a plastic coating, as taught by Moore ‘174, in order to use a PEO coating on both sides of the heater plate that face the hair, for the advantage of using a coating that is durable and that reduces friction with the hair, and which can be used condition and style hair, where the transition temperature may be in the range of 160-200° C, because a typical temperature of around 210° C is excessive and can be a safety risk to others, such as children, who may come into contact with the hair styler (Moore ‘120, paras 0002, 0074, and 0077; Moore ‘174, paras 0002 and 0005) and by using a DC voltage of 7-15 volts, as taught by Moore ‘120, to provide a DC voltage from batteries/cells, which can be up-converted to 50 volts AC, as taught by More ‘174, for the advantage of using a battery-operated hair styling appliance that is low voltage and cordless (Moore ‘120, para 0037; Moore ‘174, para 0083; line 19 of page 1 of the Specification in the Instant Application disclose that a voltage of 50 volts AC is used), and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Moore ‘174 / Moore ‘120 do not explicitly disclose a frequency of the radio-frequency signal is between 50 MHz and 90 MHz (Moore ‘174 teaches a range of “10 MHz to 100 MHz,” but does not explicitly disclose a range of 50-90 MHz, para 0063); a heat source different from the electrodes and configured to heat hair to a first temperature that is no more than 150°C, and wherein the temperature all the way up to 170°C is a second temperature.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Boudouris teaches that a frequency of the radio- frequency signal is between 50 MHz and 90 MHz (“a frequency of about 65 megacycles is obtained,” column 4, lines 24-25; construed as 65 MHz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Moore ‘174 to include, using a frequency of 65 MHz, in view of the teachings of Boudouris, for the frequency of the alternating electric field that is produced, as taught by Moore ‘174, in order to use a high frequency that provides a particularly intense and profound drying of the hair with a relatively low power, which presents no danger for the person whose hair is being treated or the person who is carrying out the treatment (Boudouris, column 1, lines 7-14; column 3, lines 14-30; and column 4, lines 52-57).
Moore ‘174 / Moore ‘1720 / Boudouris do not explicitly disclose comprising a heat source different from the electrodes for heating hair to a first temperature that is no more than 150° C, and wherein the temperature all the way up to 170 °C is a second temperature.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Varghese teaches wherein the hair styling device further comprises a heat source different (heat source 103, fig. 1; “hot plates,” page 3, line 11) from the electrodes (source 102, fig. 1) for heating hair up till a first temperature that is no more than 150° C (“a heat source (103) for heating hair up till a first temperature that is no more than 150 °C,” claim 1) and wherein the temperature all the way up to 170 °C is a second temperature (“a second temperature T2 of about 170 °C,” page 3, line 16).
Varghese, fig. 1
PNG
media_image4.png
262
558
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Moore ‘174, in view of the teachings of Varghese, by using a hot plate, as taught by Varghese, in addition to the electrodes, as taught by Moore ‘174, in order to heat the hair fibers using the hot plates to a first temperature, and where the second heat source is selectively heated to a second temperature based on the desired styling, such that the combination of heat sources is selected so as to prevent cuticle damage dependent on hair type, because each hair type will differ based on the pigmentation / absorption coefficient of the hair strands (Varghese, pages 1-2).
Regarding claim 13, Moore ‘174 teaches wherein the electrodes (electrodes 25a and 25b, fig. 2) are configured to generate heat when the radio-frequency signal is carried through the electrodes and the heat is applied to the hair (para 0061; fig. 2).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al. (US-20170360174-A1, hereinafter Moore ‘174) in view of Moore et al (US-20150335120-A1; hereinafter Moore ‘120), Boudouris et al. (US-3760148-A), and Varghese et al. (WO-2017080957-A1) as applied to claim 12 above and further in view of Moore et al. (US-20230181429-A1, effective filing date of 22 Dec 2017; hereinafter Moore ‘429).
Regarding claim 14, Moore ‘174 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a conductivity sensor configured to measure dielectric properties of the hair, wherein the hair styling device is configured to adjust power based on dielectric properties of the hair measured by the conductivity sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Moore ‘429 teaches further comprising: a conductivity sensor configured to measure dielectric properties of the hair (“RF sensor for measuring RF reflection or a temperature sensor may be used to determine dielectric, energy adsorption or temperature parameters of the hair during operation,” para 0130), wherein the hair styling device is configured to adjust power based on dielectric properties of the hair measured by the conductivity sensor (“control the power actuator based on a measured RF reflection or temperature parameter,” para 0130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Moore ‘174, in view of the teachings of Moore ‘429, by using an RF sensor, as taught by Moore ‘429, to sense the electrical power output that is produced by the electrodes, as taught by Moore ‘174, in order to use a power sensor that can be used as feedback by a PID Controller to reach a target RF level, for the advantage of keeping the power, which is controlled based on the actual wattage value determined by a sensor, at a substantially constant wattage while hair is being treated (Moore ‘429, paras 0118-0119 and 0129-0130).
Regarding claim 15, Moore ‘174 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a heat controller configured to regulate temperature settings and treatment time.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Moore ‘429 teaches further comprising: a heat controller (“control electronics (which may include a PID…controller,” para 0130) configured to regulate temperature settings (“target temperature parameter,” para 0130) and treatment time (“A control switch may thus be employed in connection with the control system to provide a signal when the arms are in the closed position,” para 0128; the claimed “treatment time” is construed as the time when the arms are in the closed position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Moore ‘174, in view of the teachings of Moore ‘429, by using a control switch and a PID controller, as taught by Moore ‘429, to control the electrical power output that is produced by the electrodes, as taught by Moore ‘174, in order to use a control switch and a PID Controller to reach a target RF level, for the advantage of keeping the power, which is controlled based on the actual wattage value determined by a sensor, at a substantially constant wattage while hair is being treated (Moore ‘429, paras 0118-0119 and 0129-0130).
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese et al. (WO-2017080957-A1) in view of Moore et al. (US-20170360174-A1, hereinafter Moore ‘174) and Boudouris et al. (US-3760148-A).
Regarding claim 16, Varghese teaches a hair styling device (hair care device 100, fig. 1), comprising:
electrodes (electrodes are not explicitly disclosed; Varghese teaches lasers 102, fig. 1) configured to selectively generate heat to a temperature all the way up to 170 °C (“a radiation source (indicated by black dots 102)… selectively heat the cortex to a second temperature T2 of about 170 °C,” page 3, lines 13-16)
a first jaw (top jaw 101, fig. 1) and a second jaw (bottom jaw 101, fig. 1), wherein the first jaw and the second jaw are hinged about a hinge (“hinged,” page 3, line 10; hinge between the jaws 101, fig. 1) to pinch strands of the hair (“to pinch strands of hairs,” page 3, line 10);
a first heat source in the first jaw (heat source 103 in top jaw, fig. 1) that is different from the first array of electrodes (electrodes are not explicitly disclosed; in the top jaw, heat source 103 is different from the laser 102, fig. 1) and configured to heat the hair to a first temperature that is no more than 150 °C (“a first temperature that is no more than 150 °C,” page 1, line 28), wherein the temperature all the way up to 170 °C is a second temperature (“a second temperature T2 of about 170 °C,” page 3, line 16); and
a second heat source in the second jaw (heat source 103 in bottom jaw, fig. 1) that is different from the second array of electrodes (electrodes are not explicitly disclosed; in the bottom jaw, heat source 103 is different from the laser 102, fig. 1) and configured to heat the hair to the first temperature that is no more than 150 °C (“a first temperature that is no more than 150 °C,” page 1, line 28).
Varghese does not explicitly disclose electrodes configured to selectively generate heat to be applied to hair when a radio-frequency signal passes through the electrodes, characterized in that a frequency of the radio-frequency signal is between 50 MHz and 90 MHz; wherein the first jaw comprises a first array of the electrodes and the second jaw comprises a second array of the electrodes.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Moore ‘174 teaches electrodes (electrodes 25a and 25b, fig. 2) configured to selectively generate heat to be applied to hair when a radio-frequency signal passes through the electrodes (“causing dielectric heating of the hair 10,” para 0061; generating an “alternating electric field” by “dielectric heating” is construed as the claimed applying a radio-frequency signal, para 0061), characterized in that a frequency of the radio-frequency signal is between 50 MHz and 90 MHz (“in the range of 10 MHz to 100 MHz,” para 0063); wherein the first jaw (arm 4b, fig. 1) comprises a first array of the electrodes (array of electrodes 25a, fig. 3) and the second jaw (arm 4a, fig. 1) comprises a second array of the electrodes (array of electrodes 25b, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Varghese, in view of the teachings of Moore ‘174, by using the electrodes 25a and 25b, as taught by Moore ‘174, instead of the lasers 102, as taught by Varghese, in order to use dielectric heating instead of laser irradiation, because in contrast with laser irradiation, dielectric heating is a known technique that that is particularly useful when high heat needs to be applied and charring is not desired, e.g., when hair needs to be treated (Moore ‘174, paras 0004-0005).
Varghese/Moore ‘174 do not explicitly disclose a frequency of the radio-frequency signal is between 50 MHz and 90 MHz (Moore ‘174 teaches a range of “10 MHz to 100 MHz,” but does not explicitly disclose a range of 50-90 MHz, para 0063).
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Boudouris teaches that a frequency of the radio- frequency signal is between 50 MHz and 90 MHz (“a frequency of about 65 megacycles is obtained,” column 4, lines 24-25; construed as 65 MHz).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Varghese/Moore ‘174 to include, using a frequency of 65 MHz, in view of the teachings of Boudouris, for the frequency of the alternating electric field that is produced, as taught by Moore ‘174, in order to use a high frequency that provides a particularly intense and profound drying of the hair with a relatively low power, which presents no danger for the person whose hair is being treated or the person who is carrying out the treatment (Boudouris, column 1, lines 7-14; column 3, lines 14-30; and column 4, lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 17, Varghese teaches wherein the first heat source and the second heat source (heat sources 103, fig. 1) directly (“directly,” page 3, line 11) pre-heat the hair to the first temperature (“a source of heat within an opposable part of the opposable parts….the source of heat is configured to heat the hair cuticle of the strand of hair up to a first temperature of no more than 150° C,” claim 1; the first temperature in claims 1 and 10 is construed as preheating prior to the second temperature where a combined heating and radiating takes place).
Regarding claim 18, Varghese teaches wherein the first heat source and the second heat source (heat sources 103, fig. 1) indirectly (“indirectly,” page 3, line 11) pre-heat the hair to the first temperature (“a source of heat within an opposable part of the opposable parts….the source of heat is configured to heat the hair cuticle of the strand of hair up to a first temperature of no more than 150° C,” claim 1; the first temperature in claims 1 and 10 is construed as preheating prior to the second temperature where a combined heating and radiating takes place).
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese et al. (WO-2017080957-A1) in view of Moore et al. (US-20170360174-A1, hereinafter Moore ‘174) and Boudouris et al. (US-3760148-A) as applied to claim 16 above and further in view of Moore et al. (US-20230181429-A1, effective filing date of 22 Dec 2017).
Regarding claim 19, Varghese teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a conductivity sensor configured to measure dielectric properties of the hair, wherein the hair styling device is configured to adjust power based on dielectric properties of the hair measured by the conductivity sensor.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Moore ‘429 teaches further comprising: a conductivity sensor configured to measure dielectric properties of the hair (“RF sensor for measuring RF reflection or a temperature sensor may be used to determine dielectric, energy adsorption or temperature parameters of the hair during operation,” para 0130), wherein the hair styling device is configured to adjust power based on dielectric properties of the hair measured by the conductivity sensor (“control the power actuator based on a measured RF reflection or temperature parameter,” para 0130).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Varghese/Moore ‘174, in view of the teachings of Moore ‘429, by using an RF sensor, as taught by Moore ‘429, to sense the electrical power output that is produced by the electrodes, as taught by Moore ‘174, in order to use a power sensor that can be used as feedback by a PID Controller to reach a target RF level, for the advantage of keeping the power, which is controlled based on the actual wattage value determined by a sensor, at a substantially constant wattage while hair is being treated (Moore ‘429, paras 0118-0119 and 0129-0130).
Regarding claim 20, Varghese teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising: a heat controller configured to regulate temperature settings and treatment time.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Moore ‘429 teaches further comprising: a heat controller (“control electronics (which may include a PID…controller,” para 0130) configured to regulate temperature settings (“target temperature parameter,” para 0130) and treatment time (“A control switch may thus be employed in connection with the control system to provide a signal when the arms are in the closed position,” para 0128; the claimed “treatment time” is construed as the time when the arms are in the closed position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Varghese/Moore ‘174, in view of the teachings of Moore ‘429, by using a control switch and a PID controller, as taught by Moore ‘429, to control the electrical power output that is produced by the electrodes, as taught by Moore ‘174, in order to use a control switch and a PID Controller to reach a target RF level, for the advantage of keeping the power, which is controlled based on the actual wattage value determined by a sensor, at a substantially constant wattage while hair is being treated (Moore ‘429, paras 0118-0119 and 0129-0130).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if claims 21 and 23-24 were rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show “wherein the electrodes are contact resistive radio frequency (RF) electrodes configured to be in contact with hair,” as recited in claims 21, 23, and 24.
The examiner fully considered and was persuaded by pages 8-11 of the Applicant’s arguments filed 1 July 2026 that the original Specification discloses “contact resistive radio frequency electrodes.” The examiner particularly relied on page 11 of the Applicant’s arguments for understanding what is meant in claiming “contact resistive radio frequency electrodes,” which states the following:
“A person of ordinary skill would therefore understand 'contact resistive RF electrodes' as electrodes that couple RF energy into the hair through direct electrical contact (resistive coupling), rather than through capacitive or remote electromagnetic coupling.”
The closest prior art of reference is Moore / US-20170360174-A1. Moore ‘174 teaches heating the hair dielectrically in the manner of a capacitor. In contrast, the claims are directed to “contact resistive radio frequency electrodes,” which use direct electrical contact to cause the heating as opposed to the capacitive coupling that is taught by Moore ‘174. Furthermore, Moore ‘174 teaches using dielectric heating plates with a plastic or ceramic outer surface, which is a non-conductive material. In further contrast, the claims are directed to “conductive resistive” electrodes that make “contact with hair.” In other words, the claims are directed to electrodes that do not have an insulation layer, but instead the conductive material of the electrodes are configured to make contact the hair.
Another reference that was considered is Moore / US-20150335120-A1. The examiner agrees with the Applicant’s description of Moore ‘120 on pages 13-14 of the arguments filed 1 July 2026 that Moore ‘120 uses resistive heating plates that are conventional and which do not generate RF heating. In contrast, the claims require “contact resistive radio frequency electrodes.” Furthermore, for the surfaces of the heating plates, Moore ‘120 teaches using a plasma electrolytic oxide layer, which is an insulator. As explained in the previous paragraph, the claims are directed to “conductive resistive” electrodes that make “contact with hair,” as opposed to using an insulation layer between the electrodes and the hair.
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claims.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 1 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objections to the Specification
Page 8 of the arguments states that removal of the sentence from the Specification “These applications are hereby incorporated by reference herein” has voided the Specification objection. However, respectfully submit that the Specification amendment filed 24 March 2021 includes another sentence: “This application is the U.S. National Phase application under 35 U.S.C. §371 of International Application No. PCT/EP2019/077840 filed October 15, 2019, which claims the benefit of European Patent Application Number 18202589.0 filed October 25, 2018.” In accordance with MPEP 1893.03.b and 608.01.p, this sentence also constitutes new matter and should be removed from the Specification.
Rejections Under 35 USC 103
In response to the Applicant’s arguments that Moore ‘174 (US-20170360174-A1), Moore ‘120 (US-20150335120-A1), and Boudouris (US-3760148-A) failed to disclose individually, or suggest in combination, a temperature all the way up to 170°C and a radio-frequency signal between 50 MHz and 90 MHz, the applicant is respectfully advised that, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Schreiber, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case, there are no structural differences between the structure that is claimed and the structure that is taught by Moore ‘174. Instead of relying on structural differences, the Applicant relies on functional limitations in order to distinguish their claimed invention over the prior art references. Furthermore, the Applicant’s arguments are conclusory. The do not provide arguments that are conclusory and do not make any explicit references to either the Applicant’s Specification or to any of the references. No citations are provided in the Applicant’s arguments regarding the 103 rejections.
Page 13 of the arguments states that Moore ‘174 teaches “RF electrodes, but expressly indicates that the electrodes themselves do not heat to any significant extent, reaching only about 70° C.” The examiner disagrees that Moore ‘174 teaches heating the electrodes to only about 70° C. Instead, Moore ‘174 teaches that “the plates 6 a, 6 b typically only heat up to a temperature of about 70° C.” Moore ‘174 teaches using plates 6a and 6b to support the electrodes 25a and 25b. On the outer surface of the plates, Moore ‘174 teaches using a ceramic or plastic coating. Thus, the excerpt from Moore ‘174 that the Applicant is referencing is actually about the plastic material of the plates. Specifically, the statement that “the plates 6 a, 6 b typically only heat up to a temperature of about 70° C” is in the context of where “the opposing surfaces of the electrodes 25 a, 25 b (against which the hair comes into contact) may be coated in a plastics material” (paragraph 0067). In summary, while Moore teaches that the plates heat to a temperature of about 70° C, Moore does not explicitly disclose a temperature for the electrodes 25a and 25b.
Page 13 of the arguments states that “MOORE '174 specifies that the electrodes do not heat up to any significant extent and that the plates typically only heat up to about 70°C when heating hair.” The examiner disagrees that Moore ‘174 teaches that “the electrodes do not heat up to any significant extent.” The examiner could not find this statement in the Moore ‘174 reference. However, the examiner agrees that Moore ‘174 teaches that “the plates typically only heat up to about 70°C when heating hair.”
Pages 13-14 of the arguments contrast the RF heating taught by Moore ‘174 with the conventional resistive heating taught by Moore ‘120. Specifically, the Applicant argues that “the rejection improperly equates a conventional resistive heater-plate temperature with the claimed RF-electrode heating of hair.”
The disagrees with the Applicant and considers these two types of heating (resistive heating and RF heating) to be different. Presupposing that the Applicant is correct that the examiner is treating resistive heating and RF heating as being the same, then it is not clear why the Applicant is making this point and how it supports a determination of nonobviousness. For the purpose of advancing the prosecution, the examiner is assuming that the Applicant is making the argument that Moore ‘120 is non-analogous art and therefore cannot be combined with Moore ‘174 because Moore ‘120 does not teach RF heating.
The examiner agrees that the RF heating, which Moore ‘174 teaches, of using a dielectric material is different from the resistive heating where the plate comes into contact with the hair (as taught by Moore ‘120). However, the examiner was persuaded by the Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-11 of the arguments filed 1 July 2026 that the Applicant’s claimed invention is directed to electrodes that use “contact resistive RF heating,” which conduct heat “through direct electrical contact,” as well as “RF electrode heating.” Thus, based on these arguments, Moore ‘120 appears to be an analogous reference, because the Applicant is using “contact resistive” heating, as taught by Moore ‘120, as well as RF heating, as taught by Moore ‘174. The determination for the “field of endeavor” is based on the “claimed invention” (MPEP 2141.01.a) and not based on the references. As a result, based on the claimed invention, Moore ‘120 is analogous art, and the examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s underlying argument that Moore ‘120 cannot be used as a modifying reference for Moore ‘174.
Page 14 of the arguments states that the rejection uses “improper mixing of incompatible heating mechanisms.” However, respectfully submit that the proposed modification to Moore ‘174 was to use a “a plasma electrolytic oxide (PEO) coating 320, as taught by Moore ‘120, instead of a plastic coating, as taught by Moore ‘174” (page 8 of the Office action filed 1 April 2026). As a result, the rejection does not propose “mixing” heating mechanisms. Instead, the rejection proposes a replacement of coatings.
Page 14 of the arguments refers to Boudouris and states that the “frequency selection lacks technological fit.” The examiner respectfully submits that “technological fits” is not a term that is used in the MPEP. As a result, the examiner is not sure what is meant in arguing that a reference “lacks technological fit.”
Page 14 of the arguments also states that the “rejection does not explain why a frequency disclosed in that distinct architecture would be applied to MOORE '174's electrode-based system, particularly in combination with MOORE '120's resistive heating plate temperatures” and that “the rejection does not properly explain why a skilled person would apply BOUDOURIS' resonator/jacket frequency to MOORE '174's opposed-electrode dielectric heating architecture, particularly in combination with MOORE '120's conventional resistive plate operating temperature, to arrive at the claimed RF-electrode heating device.”
The examiner disagrees with these statements. Instead, page 9 of the Office action filed 1 April 2026 provides a motivation for combining Boudouris with Moore ‘174 for the rejection in claim 1.
Page 15 repeats this argument stating that the rejection does not “provide an articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill would combine these features to arrive at the claimed configuration.”
Again, the examiner disagrees with these statements. Page 9 of the Office action filed 1 April 2026 provides a motivation for combining Boudouris with Moore ‘174 for the rejection in claim 1. The Applicant’s arguments would have been more persuasive had they acknowledged what was provided in the actual rejection from the Office action.
Claim 2
Page 15 of the arguments states that because Moore ‘174 teaches using a voltage of 50 V AC, then Moore ‘174 does not teach the limitation from claim 2: “wherein a voltage of the radio-frequency signal does not exceed 30 V.”
However, line 19 of page 1 of the Specification in the Instant Application discloses that “a voltage of around 50 V AC is used.” Thus, if the Applicant’s specification discloses that a voltage of “around 50 V AC” is used, then it is not clear why the teaching by Moore ‘174 of using 50 V AC would cause the limitations of claim 2 to not be met.
Page 15 of the arguments questions how batteries with a DC voltage of 7-15 V can be used up-convert this DC voltage to 50 V AC for the radio signal. Respectfully submit that paragraphs 0082-0083 and 0093-0094 of Moore ‘174 describe how these DC voltages can be used to up-convert to an alternating voltage that is used by the FET signal generator 23 to generate a signal for the microprocessor 22. Based on the combined teachings of Moore ‘174 with Moore ‘120, the examiner respectfully submits that making voltage adjustments is well-known in the art.
Claim 12
Page 16 of the arguments references Varghese (WO-2017080957-A1). The arguments appear to make the same argument as that applied to Moore ‘120. Specifically, the argument is that “because VARGHESE lacks any RF-based heating system, it provides no teaching that preheating could enable reduced-voltage RF electrode operation.” As explained previously, because the Applicant’s invention is directed to one that uses “contact resistive RF electrodes” (see page 11 of the arguments), then the Varghese reference is analogous. This reference uses hot plates to preheat the hair. These hot plates make direct contact with the hair. Similarly, the Applicant describes their invention as “electrodes” that make “direct electrical contact (resistive coupling)” with the hair (page 11 of the arguments). Thus, the examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s underlying argument that Varghese is a non-analogous reference.
Pages 16-17 of the arguments dispute the limitation “wherein a voltage of the radio-frequency signal does not exceed 10 V” as not being taught by the prior art. The examiner maintains the same response to a similar argument that was provided regarding claim 2. Specifically, paragraphs 0082-0083 and 0093-0094 of Moore ‘174 teach how the 7-14 V DC batteries can be used to up-convert to an alternating voltage that is used by the FET signal generator 23 to generate a signal for use by the microprocessor 22.
Independent claim 16
In response to the Applicant's argument on page 17 that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Referring to claim 16, the motivations for combining Moore ‘174 and Boudouris with Varghese were provided by the Moore ‘174 and the Boudouris references and were not based on the Applicant’s disclosure (see pages 19-20 of the Office action filed 1 April 2026). Thus, the rejection for claim 16 is not based on hindsight reasoning, as alleged by the Applicant. Instead, it based on reasoning from references that were published prior to the effective filing date of the Instant Application.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/22/2026
Prosecution Insights