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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the recited structure is “not an obvious variation of the structure of Gorelick.” The Examiner has fully considered the argument but has not found it to be persuasive. Applicant specifically argues that the “examiner improperly applies hindsight, or ignores that Applicant’s unique sidewall structure provides a new an nonobvious positioning for light elements.” The Examiner notes that the disclosure of Kirschner was relied upon in combination with Gorelick to teach the positioning of light elements. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In regard to the argument of improper hindsight, 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). The Examiner holds that no improper hindsight was used as the Examiner only takes into account knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the invention was made.
Applicant further argues that the combination of Gorelick and Kirschner would not render Applicant’s claims obvious as light elements which are optimally directed are not disclosed by the prior art. The Examiner has fully considered the argument but has not found it to be persuasive. The Examiner holds that no evidence of new or unexpected results of the recited V-Shaped sidewall, or any other structural feature of the apparatus, has been provided. Therefore, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have formed the inner sidewall arrangement forming the inner chamber region of the apparatus of Gorelick out of reflective panels which form the recited sidewall configuration without producing any new or unexpected results as the reflective panels would function in the same manner to direct UV light back onto the hair brush workpiece and to circumscribe the interior of the chamber. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04). Further, it is noted that Kirschner discloses that the boards of disinfection lights can be placed on each side of the hair appliance. See [0147]-[0150]. Therefore, the prior art clearly acknowledges that “UV light emitting elements in a direction manner” can be utilized.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5, 7-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gorelick (US 10,058,169) in view of Kirschner (US 2021/0322591).
In regard to claims 1-4 and 18, Gorelick discloses a portable sanitation device (hair brush sanitizing and disinfecting device of Figures 1-3) for sanitizing treatment of hair grooming utensils (such as a hair brush), comprising: a housing (housing 30) having an outer sidewall arrangement and an inner sidewall arrangement (defined by the at least one reflective panel 50) partially surrounding an elongated inner chamber region (chamber 40), said housing having an opening (proximal numeral 40 in Figure 2) formed in said outer sidewall and said inner sidewall arrangement, said opening being configured to allow passage of a grooming utensil (a hair brush) into said elongated inner chamber region such that a portion of the utensil is capable of residing within the inner chamber and a portion of the utensil is capable of extending radially outward of the housing (the hair brush is capable of extending out of the opening in the chamber) without the need to open any portion of the housing; said inner sidewall arrangement comprising a sidewall (opposing reflective panels), a plurality of ultra-violet light emitting elements (UV lamps 70) positioned within the inner chamber to emit ultra-violet light within the inner chamber. See Figures 1-3; col. 4, line 48 through col. 6, line 21.
It is noted that Gorelick depicts wherein the internal sidewall of the at least one reflective panel 50 is in a cylindrical configuration. Gorelick is silent in regard to the shape of the sidewalls of the inner chamber wherein at least two substantially opposed elongated sidewall are each formed of two elongated wall segments joined together at an obtuse angle to form a generally V-shaped elongated sidewall. Therefore, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have formed the inner sidewall arrangement forming the inner chamber region out of reflective panels which form the recited sidewall configuration without producing any new or unexpected results as the reflective panels would function in the same manner to direct UV light back onto the hair brush workpiece and to circumscribe the interior of the chamber. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
It is also noted that Gorelick does not explicitly depict wherein a portion of the hair brush extends radially outward of the housing. However, the Courts have held that “[e]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115). As the hair brush is capable of extending out of the opening in the chamber, the device of Gorelick anticipates the apparatus claim as the structure is capable of performing the intended use. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Gorelick is silent in regard to an array of a plurality of lighting elements which are evenly spaced along the length of the sidewalls of the chamber in rows and wherein the elements are in a staggered arrangement. Gorelick discloses wherein said plurality of light emitting elements (UV lamps 70) are spaced along the circumference of the inner chamber but not along the sidewalls. See figure 3.
Kirschner discloses a UV disinfection device for hair appliances comprising UV sanitisation and disinfection lights 223 which are comprised of UV LEDs that are provided in a row evenly spaced along the length of the sidewall of an inner chamber for receiving the hair appliance. See Figures 2A-2B and [0147]-[0153].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the UV LEDs formed into rows for the conventional UV lamps of Gorelick without producing any new or unexpected result as the structures are functionally equivalent as they both produce UV light for providing a sanitizing effect. In regard to the recited staggered arrangement, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arranged the UV LEDs of the combined device of Gorelick and Kirschner as claimed without creating any new or unexpected results. The Courts have held that the mere rearrangement of parts, without any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
In regard to claims 5, 7 and 11, Gorelick discloses wherein the inner chamber comprises an elongated space (defined by the chamber 40 or the space within the reflective panels 50) which is capable of receiving an elongated grooming comb. See Figures 1-3.
Gorelick is silent in regard to the dimensions of the inner chamber. However, the Courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have dimensioned the components of the device of Gorelick to have the recited relative dimensions without creating any new or unexpected results.
In regard to claims 8-9, Gorelick discloses wherein the inner sidewall comprises reflective surface (at least one reflective panel 50) configured to reflect the ultra violet light emission from said light emitting elements (UV lamps 70), at least an extend of said reflective surface comprising a generally concave region as the panel 50 is depicted to have a cylindrical configuration which is concave. Further, Gorelick teaches that the reflective panel 50 can be present to circumscribe the interior of the chamber 40 which necessitates a generally concave region. See col. 4, lines 48-62. Gorelick further discloses wherein the at least one reflective panel can be formed of a metal such as aluminum. See col. 8, lines 2-7.
In regard to claim 10, Gorelick discloses wherein said opening of the housing is comprised of a void area (proximal numeral 40 in Figure 2) of the outer wall at an end of the housing.
In regard to claim 14, Gorelick discloses wherein the device further comprises a rechargeable battery (col. 5, lines 18-21) positioned adjacent between the outer sidewall arrangement and said inner sidewall (within the base 60), said battery being electrically connected to a control module (the power button 90 optical scanning mechanism to cause activation of the UV lamp; see col. 5, lines 23-29) configured to selectively activate said plurality of elements. See Figures 1-3 and col. 5, lines 18-29.
In regard to claim 18, Gorelick discloses a portable device (hair brush sanitizing and disinfecting device of Figures 1-3) for sanitizing treatment of hair grooming utensils (such as a hair brush), comprising: a housing (housing 30) formed of an outer sidewall arrangement and an inner sidewall arrangement (defined by the at least one reflective panel 50) within the housing with an inner chamber (chamber 40) residing between the sidewall arrangement; an opening (proximal numeral 40 in Figure 2) of the housing and inner sidewall located at a first end of the portable device, said opening configured to provide a passageway into said inner chamber from outside the housing, wherein said opening is dimensioned to provide open access for receiving an elongated portion of a hair grooming utensil within the inner chamber and open access for removal of the utensil from within the housing without the need to open any portion of the housing; an array of light emitting elements (UV lamps 70) configured to direct ultra-violet light towards the inner chamber to disinfect surfaces of a utensil residing within the inner chamber, said array comprising elements positioned on the substantially opposed inner sidewall (at least one reflective panel 50), wherein said elements are configured to direct ultra-violet light toward each other. See Figures 1-3; col. 4, line 48 through col. 6, line 21.
It is noted that Gorelick depicts wherein the internal sidewall of the at least one reflective panel 50 is in a cylindrical configuration. Thus, only one internal sidewall can be stated to be present as only a single wall is needed to form the cylindrical shape. Nonetheless, it would have been an obvious engineering design to have formed the inner sidewall arrangement forming the inner chamber region out of reflective panels which form a polygonal shape without producing any new or unexpected results as the reflective panels would function in the same manner to redirect UV light back toward the opposing UV lamp. The change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Gorelick is further silent in regard to the relative spacing of the sidewalls of the of the inner chamber. However, the Courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Further, the size of an article is not a matter of invention. See In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (see MPEP § 2144.04).
Therefore, it would have been within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have dimensioned the components of the device of Gorelick to have the recited relative dimensions without creating any new or unexpected results.
In regard to claim 19, Gorelick discloses wherein said opening (proximal numeral 40 in Figure 2) is configured to provide a passageway for a portion of an elongated utensil body (hair brush) extending into the inner chamber from outside the housing such that the UV lamps are configured to direct ultra violet light toward the outer surface of the utensil body residing within the inner chamber. See Figures 1-3.
Gorelick does not explicitly depict wherein a portion of the hair brush is extending outward of the housing. However, the Courts have held that “[e]xpressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115). As the hair brush is capable of extending out of the opening in the chamber, the device of Gorelick anticipates the apparatus claim as the structure is capable of performing the intended use. The Courts have held that if the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967); and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
In regard to claims 12-13 and 20, Gorelick is silent to wherein the housing comprises a ventilated grill portion.
Kirschner discloses a ventilated grill portion (fan cover 221 for cooling air fan 222) on the opposite end of the housing from the opening in the upper cover 204 of the system which receives the hair appliance for UV irradiation treatment. See [0128], [0145]-[0146] and Figure 2A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the ventilation opening of Kirschner to the opposite end as the opening of the device of Gorelick for the purpose of providing air cooling to the internal components of the device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:30.
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, Claire Wang can be reached at (571) 270-1051. 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.
/TIMOTHY C CLEVELAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774