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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 11/07/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8-14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rollat-Corval et al. (US2011/0120487) and Mock (WO2007/062536).
Regarding claim 1, Rollat-Corval discloses a process (“a cosmetic treatment method for hair”, refer to the Abstract) for hair dyeing and/or bleaching (“compounds used in hair treatment, such as coloring agents, oxidants”, refer to Paragraph [107], where coloring agents are for dyeing hair and oxidants are for bleaching hair), comprising the step consisting in applying, to the head of hair (“a jet of solid particles may be projected into the hair under propulsion from a liquid or gaseous vector fluid”, refer to Paragraph [0091]; wherein the jet of particles under propulsion of a vector fluid may further comprise not only the solid particles but also “coloring agents, oxidants”, i.e. dye or bleach, refer to Paragraph [0103]), at least one hair dyeing or bleaching compound (“coloring agents, oxidants”, i.e. dye or bleach, refer to Paragraph [0103]) using a device (100 Figure 33) comprising at least two nozzles (205, Figure 25; 212, Figures 26-33; “the number of inlet [nozzles] and outlet channels may be greater [than one inlet and one outlet]”, refer to Paragraph [0345] “the jet of particles may be delivered by a nozzle”, refer to Paragraph [0114] and “a plurality of jets [via a plurality of nozzles] may be sent towards the hair. These jets may be…converging. The impact zones of the jets may optionally overlap, e.g. substantially touching” (refer to Paragraph [0099]; the jet(s) are delivered by nozzle(s), wherein a plurality of jets requires at least two nozzles), at least one of which is supplied with at least one pressurized liquid (“the jet of particles optionally associated with a fluid may be delivered under pressure…in the range of 2 bars to 50 bars”, refer to Paragraph [0093]) containing said compound (“optionally associated with a fluid”, refer to Paragraph [0093]; wherein the fluid comprises the compound, refer to Paragraph [0103]), the liquid containing the composition being ejected at a speed of at least 8 m/s (the speed of the particles/liquid fluid may be in the range of 0.01m/s to 100m/s (refer to Paragraph [0095]), which overlaps the claimed range of at least 8m/s), the device comprising a hand piece (220, Figure 33) comprising a cavity (referring to Figure 33, the cavity is the hollow interior bound by walls) opened towards the outside (referring to Figure 33, the bottom of the cavity is open; as shown, the user’s hair extends across the opening).
While Rollat-Corval discloses a process for dyeing and/or bleaching hair using a device that comprises two nozzles, wherein the jets of the nozzles may overlap and be substantially touching, Rollat-Corval does not illustrate this configuration in the figures and therefore does not explicitly disclose the nozzles being arranged such that their respective jets collide with one another and form a resultant stream that is dispensed to the hair and that the jets emitted by the nozzles encounter one another within the handpiece.
Mock discloses a similar fluid delivery device, fully capable of being used for applying a composition to a user’s hair (Mock’s device may be used for dispensing liquids that contain cosmetic ingredients, refer to Page 3 of the translation; additionally, Mock explicitly discloses that “other water-based liquids can be sprayed” with this device, refer to Page 3 of the translation), the device comprising at least two nozzles (3, refer to Figures 1-2, 4, 6-7, and 9-11) arranged such that their respective jets (21) collide with one another and form a resultant stream (referring to Figure 7, the resultant stream is the substantially vertical stream beginning at point 20) so that the liquid being delivered via this resultant stream “is atomized and thus unfolds a high wetting affect”, (refer to Page 9 of the translation), thereby improving the application to the target surface/user’s hair. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device used in Rollat-Corval’s process for applying a hair dye and/or bleach such that the nozzles are arranged to have that their respective jets collide with one another and form a resultant stream for contacting the user’s hair, as taught by Mock, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods in order to yield the predictable result of using a device comprising nozzles to apply a hair treatment composition to a user’s hair; additionally such a modification provides the advantage of improving the application of the hair treatment composition onto the user’s hair.
Per the modification addressed above, the plurality of jets of Rollat-Corval’s device were modified such that the two streams collide to form a resultant stream to be delivered to the target surface/user’s hair. In the case of Rollat-Corval’s device (see Figure 33), this resultant stream is the stream that contacts the user’s hair. In Rollat-Corval’s device, the user’s hair forms a “closure” of the handpiece (refer to Figure 33 wherein the user’s hair, C, extends across the bottom opening of the handpiece), in other words, the resultant stream, which is what contacts the user’s hair, must occur before leaving the handpiece, otherwise this resultant stream would not contact the user’s hair when the device is used as intended, i.e. when the user’s hair is extended across the opening of the device. Thus, the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock provides a configuration wherein the jets encounter one another within the cavity of the handpiece and the combination therefore teaches all the limitations of amended claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock discloses the process as claimed in claim 1, as applied above. Rollat-Corval further discloses that a total flow rate sprayed by said nozzles being between 0.1 and 3 L/min (“The volume flow rate of the…fluid…may lie within the range 50 microliters per second…to 4 liters per second”, refer to Paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock discloses the process as claimed in claim 1, as applied above. Rollat-Corval further discloses wherein supply of the nozzles is varied in order to vary the result obtained (“The mass flow rate and/or the section of the jet may be modulated simultaneously or independently”, refer to Paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock discloses the process as claimed in claim 1, as applied above. The combination does not thus far disclose wherein supply pressure of the nozzles is varied in order to vary a resulting color obtained.
Mock discloses the use of pumps for increasing pressure at the nozzles (“a pump for increasing the pressure”, refer to Page 6 of the translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the process of the combination of Rollat-Corval such that the supply pressure of the nozzles is varied, as taught by Mock, since such a modification permits a user to have more control over the output of the nozzles. The limitation “in order to vary a resulting color obtained” is interpreted as a functional limitation, that is, the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock discloses varying the supply pressure of the nozzles, wherein varying the nozzles has an effect on the amount of dye or bleach compound which then affects/varies the resulting color obtained on the user’s hair.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock discloses the process as claimed in claim 1, as applied above. Rollat-Corval further disclose wherein said compound is a dyeing oxidant (“oxidants”, refer to Rollat-Corval Paragraph [0107]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock discloses the process as claimed in claim 1, as applied above. Rollat-Corval further discloses wherein said at least one hair dyeing or bleaching compound is an oxidation dye (“oxidation dyes”, refer to Rollat-Corval Paragraph [0160]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock discloses the process as claimed in claim 1, as applied above. Rollat-Corval further discloses said at least one hair dyeing or bleaching compound is a direct dye (“direct…dyes”, refer to Rollat-Corval Paragraph [0160]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock discloses the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein an oxidizing composition is applied manually to the head of hair, then at least one oxidation dye is applied using said device, or an oxidizing composition is applied using said device then at least one oxidation dye is applied manually (refer to Rollat-Corval Paragraph [0007] which states that the cosmetic treatment composition may be applied to the hair, before, after, and/or during” the use of the device, i.e. the cosmetic such as an oxidation dye which is an oxidation composition may be applied to the user’s hair both during use of the device and after use of the device; or before use of the device and during the use of the device; or before use of the device, during use of the device and after use of the device, thereby providing a step of applying the dye after the step of applying the oxidation dye/oxidation composition with the device and/or a step of applying the oxidation dye/oxidation composition; Rollat-Corval Paragraph [0188] further discloses “a second treatment composition may be applied after the abrasion”, and a “post-treatment composition [where the composition] may be selected from…a coloring composition, or a bleaching composition”, refer to Paragraph [0243]).
Rollat-Corval further discloses that it is known to treat hair using either the user’s hands (refer to Rollat-Corval Paragraph [0206]) or to treat the user’s hair with the assistance of a device (any of the devices shown in Rollat-Corval Figures 3,19,22-34,37). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the process of the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock such that the oxidation composition is applied by hand, since Rollat-Corval discloses that treating a user’s hair with a user’s hand is known in the art and since such a modification provides the advantage of simplifying the application step.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock discloses the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
a. wherein the at least one hair dyeing or bleaching compound is a hair dyeing compound (per the rejection to claim 1, at least one hair dyeing or bleaching compound was applied to the user’s hair),
b. the dispensing is stopped (refer to Paragraph [0173] which states that the hair-care composition may be delivered in doses, i.e. a finite volume where a finite volume requires and end/stop to the dispensing) and the hair dyeing compound is allowed to run by gravity (it is understood that the user would be treating their hair at atmospheric conditions on Earth, and therefore gravity is acting on the user; since the compound is a fluid, gravity will act on this fluid and will tend to pull the fluid toward a position of lower potential energy, i.e. the compound would be permitted to run),
c. optional wiping is carried out (the office is construing this as an optional step, i.e. the step is not carried out)
d. steps a) to c) are optionally carried out again with the same compound or a different compound (the office is construing this as an optional step, i.e. the step is not carried out),
e. rinsing with water is optionally carried out (the office is construing this as an optional step, i.e. the step is not carried out).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock discloses the process as claimed in claim 1, as applied above. The combination does not thus far disclose wherein the nozzles are oriented relative to the hair such that the at least one hair dyeing or bleaching compound is directed onto the roots of the hair. Rollat-Corval further discloses that the hair may be treated “from the roots” (refer to Paragraph [0210]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the process of the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock such that the at least one hair dyeing or bleaching compound is directed onto the roots of the hair, as taught by Rollat-Corval, since such a modification provides the advantage of ensuring that the entirety of the hair strand is treated. Since the nozzles deliver the hair product, the nozzles must be oriented relative to the hair in order to deliver the product to the roots of the hair, i.e. the jets are a vector, wherein the vector originates from the nozzles.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock discloses the process as claimed in claim 1, as applied above. The combination does not thus far disclose wherein the nozzles are oriented such that the compound is directed to skim the head of hair. Rollat-Corval further discloses wherein treating the hair using the hair-care composition may be performed tangentially (refer to Paragraph [0210], where applicant’s disclosure recites that skimming the head of hair refers to treating the hair in a tangential motion, refer to Page 16, line 15 of Applicant’s originally filed specification). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the process of the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock such that the nozzles are oriented such that the compound is directed to skim the head of hair, as taught by Rollat-Corval, since such a modification provides the advantage of treating the substantial length of the hair.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock discloses the process as claimed in claim 1, as applied above. The combination does not disclose wherein the cavity diverges toward the outside. Rather, the combination discloses that the cavity converges toward the outside (see Rollat-Corval Figure 33); however, Rollat-Corval discloses another embodiment (see Figure 34) wherein the cavity diverges toward the outside, thereby demonstrating that for devices used for treating hair, having a cavity to either converge or diverge works equally well for distributing hair treating fluid to the hair. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the process of the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock such that the cavity diverges toward the outside, as taught by Rollat-Corval, since Rollat-Corval teaches both configurations for the same purpose and it therefore appears that either configuration works equally well.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sofer (US6053177).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock discloses the process as claimed in claim 1, wherein at least two different dyeing products may be applied (refer to Rollat-Corval Paragraph [0160] which lists a number of dyeing products); however, the combination does not disclose wherein the at least one hair dyeing or bleaching compound is at least two different dyeing compounds.
Sofer discloses a similar device (44, Figures 7-8) for dispensing hair dye, the device comprising a first compartment (46) for storing a first hair dye component and a second compartment (48) for storing a second hair dyeing component, and a reservoir (10) for storing a mixture of the first and second hair dye components which are then subsequently dispensed onto a user’s hair via nozzles (18, 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of the combination of Rollat-Corval and Mock such that the device has a first and second compartment for storing and dispensing the two different dyeing products, as taught by Sofer, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of providing a method that uses a device capable of storing two hair dyeing components for adequately supplying a mixture of two hair dyeing components to a user’s hair.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Rollat-Corval, Mock, and Sofer discloses the process as claimed in claim 5, the two different hair dyeing compounds being mixed upstream of the nozzles (per the modification addressed in claim 5, the first and second compartments that feed hair dye components into a common reservoir for mixing the two components, 10, as taught by Sofer, was incorporated into the method of the combination of Rollat-Corval, wherein Sofer’s reservoir is upstream of the nozzles, as best shown in Sofer, Figure 8).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Rollat-Corval, Mock, and Sofer discloses the process as claimed in claim 5, the two different hair dyeing compounds being dispensed by specific nozzles (specific is defined by Oxford Languages as “clearly defined or identified”, per the modification addressed in claim 1, the two nozzles of Mock were incorporated into the process of Rollat-Corval wherein a first of the two nozzles may be identified as nozzle 1 and a second of the two nozzles may be identified as nozzle 2; thereby providing identified/specific nozzles).
Response to Arguments
35 USC 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome all previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections. All previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
35 USC 103
Argument #1:
Rollat-Corval does not disclose that the respective jets collide.
Response #1:
Rollat-Corval explicitly states that the jets “substantially overlap”, where substantially is defined by Cambridge Dictionary as “by a considerable amount”, and overlap is defined by Merriam-Webster as “to cover part of the same space or edge as something else”; thus if two jets overlap by a considerable amount, they must make contact/collide to some extent.
Argument #2:
Abrasive particles will be changed when they strike an object; thus, modifying the two jets to collide would detrimentally change the abrasive properties of Rollat-Corval’s jet and make the resultant device unsuitable for its intended purpose/change its principle of operation.
Response #2:
It is known to reuse abrasive particles, i.e. abrasives that have already struck an object, for a certain number of uses. Thus, the argument that particles that have already collided with one another would render the device unsuitable is not persuasive. Further, the abrasives in Rollat-Corval are for the purpose of abrading a user’s hair and not for precision machining wherein a particular surface finish is required, thus, an abrasive that has already contacted a surface still has some abrading ability. Further, Rollat-Corval provides another embodiment (see Rollat-Corval Figure 34) wherein the abrasive particles are freely vibrated in a closed volume. In this closed volume, it is understood that the abrasive particles will encounter other abrasive particles while vibrating through the closed volume and this embodiment is presented as a functioning embodiment.
Argument #3:
Rollat-Corval contains no explicit teaching of fluid streams colliding with each other prior to striking the working surface. Rather, the jets overlapping may be done for surface coverage.
Response #3:
In order for the jets to provide surface coverage (assuming applicant is referring to surface coverage of the hair), the jets would have to converge prior to contacting the hair surface, as the hair surface is that surface that would need to have “coverage”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 19 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH WOODHOUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-5635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm.
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, EDELMIRA BOSQUES can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/SARAH WOODHOUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights