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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 25 August 2025 has been entered.
New Specification objections have been added in the present Office action.
New Claim objections have been added in the present Office action.
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 35 USC 112 rejections. Accordingly, the previous 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.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 25 August 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, additional references were identified, which teach the amended portions of the claims. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as obvious in view of the prior art.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 27 January 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 12, and 16 have been amended. Claims 21-25 are new.
Claims 1-2, 4, and 10-20 are pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending line 35 of page 2 of the Specification: “…dry hair D for frequencies..” Appropriate correction is required.
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 to include the incorporation by reference 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
Claims 10, 14, 16, 19, 21 and 23-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 10, 14, and 19, recommend amending the claims to recite: “…properties of the hair measured by the conductivity sensor.”
In claim 16, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…a first heat source in the first jaw is different from the first…” and “…a second heat source in the second jaw is different…”
In claims 21 and 23-24, recommend identifying what the abbreviation “RF” is short for within the claims, e.g., “…contact resistive radio frequency (RF) electrodes…
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 21 and 23-24 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.
The “contact resistive RF electrodes” of claims 21 and 23-24 are not mentioned in the original Specification nor in the original set of claims. Although the Specification discloses that “contact resistive RF heating is preferred over non-contact capacitive RF heating,” there is no disclosure of any contact restive RF electrodes in the Specification. 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.
Claims 21 and 23-24 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.
Claims 21 and 23-24 recite “contact resistive RF electrodes.” However, it is not clear what the metes and bounds are for electrodes that provide both contact resistance (presumably in contact through electrical current) as well as radio-frequency signals (presumably remotely through radio-frequency waves). Furthermore, there is no mention of “contact resistive RF electrodes” in the Specification. As a result, one of ordinary skill would not know what these electrodes are and whether they were infringing on the limitations required by the claims. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the term “contact resistive RF electrodes,” 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 21-22 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 21, the combination of Moore ‘174 in view of Moore ‘120 and Boudouris as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 21. Specifically, Moore ‘174 teaches wherein the electrodes (electrodes 25a and 25b, fig. 2) are contact (the electrodes make contact with the hair through the plates 6a and 6b, fig. 1) RF (“dielectric heating,” para 0061) electrodes configured to be in contact with hair. Additionally, Moore ‘120 teaches wherein the electrodes are resistive (“resistive electrodes,” para 0094; “for a thin PEO layer the resistance to the layer,” para 0076; construed such that by adding the layer of PEO, as taught by Moore ‘120, to the plates 6a and 6b, as taught by Moore ‘174, the electrodes become resistive).
Regarding claim 22, Moore ‘174 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a voltage of the radio-frequency signal does not exceed 10 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 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 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).
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 measures 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 and 23 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).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Moore ‘174 in view of Moore ‘120, Boudouris, and Varghese as set forth above regarding claim 12 above teaches the invention of claim 23. Specifically, Moore ‘174 teaches wherein the electrodes (electrodes 25a and 25b, fig. 2) are contact (the electrodes make contact with the hair through the plates 6a and 6b, fig. 1) RF (“dielectric heating,” para 0061) electrodes configured to be in contact with hair. Additionally, Moore ‘120 teaches wherein the electrodes are resistive (“resistive electrodes,” para 0094; “for a thin PEO layer the resistance to the layer,” para 0076; construed such that by adding the layer of PEO, as taught by Moore ‘120, to the plates 6a and 6b, as taught by Moore ‘174, the electrodes become resistive).
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 measures 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 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) and 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) and 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 measures 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 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).
Claims 24-25 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-20150335120-A1; hereinafter Moore ‘120).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Varghese in view of Moore ‘174 and Boudouris as set forth above regarding claim 16 above teaches the invention of claim 23. Specifically, Moore ‘174 teaches wherein the electrodes (electrodes 25a and 25b, fig. 2) are contact (the electrodes make contact with the hair through the plates 6a and 6b, fig. 1) RF (“dielectric heating,” para 0061) electrodes configured to be in contact with hair.
Varghese/Moore ‘174 do not explicitly disclose wherein the electrodes are resistive.
However, in the same field of endeavor of hair styling devices, Moore ‘120 teaches wherein the electrodes are resistive (“resistive electrodes,” para 0094; “for a thin PEO layer the resistance to the layer,” para 0076; construed such that by adding the layer of PEO, as taught by Moore ‘120, to the plates 6a and 6b, as taught by Moore ‘174, the electrodes become resistive).
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 plasma electrolytic oxide (PEO) coating 320,as taught by Moore ‘120, instead of a plastic coating for the plates 6a and 6b, 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 (Moore ‘120, paras 0002, 0074, and 0077; Moore ‘174, paras 0002 and 0005).
Regarding claim 25, Moore ‘174 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a voltage of the radio-frequency signal does not exceed 10 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 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 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).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 27 January 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Moore ‘174 combined with Moore ‘120 and Boudouris.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wandke et al. (US-20130306100-A1) teach a hair treatment apparatus that uses dielectric heating.
Wandke et al. (US-9038645-B2) teach a hair treatment apparatus that uses dielectric heating.
Carlyle et al. (US-12507779-B2) teach a hair treatment apparatus that uses dielectric heating.
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 3/27/2026
Prosecution Insights