DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “pump secured within a pump cavity…wherein a piston of said pump” of claim 1; “cavity of the inner barrel” of claims 2 and 10; “chamber plate” of claims 4 and 12, “air intake valves” of claims 4 and 12 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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(s) 4 and 12 is/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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claims 4 and 12: each of these claims recites “wherein said pump is an airless pump configured to force a chamber plate to move towards a top end of said reservoir due to a vacuum created by said pump when ejecting styling product…” in combination with “a pump secured within a pump cavity and at least partially within said cavity of said main grip, wherein a piston of said pump removes styling product from said reservoir” of claims 1 and 10 as required by claims 4 and 12. It is unclear how a piston of the pump removes the product from the reservoir, but also works in combination with a chamber plate that moves towards a top end of said reservoir when styling product is removed by said vacuum, wherein air intake valves located at a bottom end of said reservoir allow air to enter said reservoir between said chamber plate and said bottom end. There is no illustration of a piston or of a pump nor a chamber plate or any air intake valves making it impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine how these components would work together or interact as claimed. There is undue burden of experimentation with these claim limitations because as discussed during the interview with applicant’s representative on 6/9/25, applicant appears to be attempting to claim a series of different pumps but in combination without clear support or explanation on how these things would be capable of working together as claimed. Therefore the disclosure is not enabling for these claims because there is a lack of explanation to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention. While chamber plates and vacuum valves are known, pumps with a piston are known, and airless pumps are known, applicant appears to be attempting to combine features from different types of pumping mechanisms without illustration or explanation thereby precluding one of ordinary skill in the art from making and/or using the invention. This is an enablement rejection. Applicant can cancel the claim or amend the claim to clearly recite only one type of known pump and its components to overcome this rejection. Rewording the limitations of the claim to set forth a combination of pump features functionally that are not known to be combine-able will not overcome this rejection.
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(s) 2 and 10-17 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 2 and 10: this claim recites “wherein said hair accessories may extend within a barrel cavity of said main barrel”; however, based on a review of applicant’s disclosure the only “barrel cavity” is the “slots” and there is no additional cavity making it unclear what is being claimed. Applicant is respectfully reminded to use one term consistently throughout the claims to refer to a single feature in order to avoid confusion. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “wherein said hair accessories may extend within the slots”. Nowhere does applicant illustrate a female connector on the head, slots on the head, and an additional cavity on the head for storing hair accessories. There is no support for these limitations and it makes the metes and bounds of the claim unclear because it is unclear what exactly applicant is trying to claim. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claims 4 and 12: each of these claims recites “wherein said pump is an airless pump configured to force a chamber plate to move towards a top end of said reservoir due to a vacuum created by said pump when ejecting styling product…” in combination with “a pump secured within a pump cavity and at least partially within said cavity of said main grip, wherein a piston of said pump removes styling product from said reservoir” of claims 1 and 10 as required by claims 4 and 12. It is unclear how a piston of the pump removes the product from the reservoir, but also works in combination with a chamber plate that moves towards a top end of said reservoir when styling product is removed by said vacuum, wherein air intake valves located at a bottom end of said reservoir allow air to enter said reservoir between said chamber plate and said bottom end. There is no illustration of a piston or of a pump nor a chamber plate or any air intake valves making it impossible to determine how these components would work together or interact as claimed. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “wherein the pump is an airless pump”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-7, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malm (US 9247805) in view of Rennette (US 20190142148).
Claims 1 and 6: Malm discloses a system for styling hair comprising: a hairbrush handle (12) having a main grip (exterior of 12, see Fig 1) an end cap (20), a reservoir (18), and a pump (22, see Figs 1-2). A cavity of the main grip (interior of 12) is configured to hold the reservoir therein (see Fig 2), the end cap secures to a bottom end of the main grip and the reservoir and conceals the cavity (see Fig 1). The reservoir is configured to hold a styling product therein (Col 3, 25-40) that is ejected by the pump and the pump is secured within a pump cavity at least partially within the cavity the main grip (see Figs 1-2). A piston (Col 3, 55-67) of the pump removes the styling product from the reservoir when a switch (14) of the pump is manipulated by the user wherein the product is ejected by the pump via at least one nozzle (30). The system includes a removable head (16) comprising a main barrel (16) including a top section and a bottom section with a plurality of bristles (32) connected to an inner barrel (core to which bristles 32 are attached) and these bristles extend through a lattice of an outer barrel (36) of the main barrel and top section (see Fig 1) is attached to a top end of the main barrel and the bottom section is secured to a bottom end of the main barrel forming a male/female snap connector for removably connecting the removable head to the handle (Col 4, 45-60). Malm discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for specifics about the removable connection between the handle and the removable head and the outer barrel being formed of a heat conductive material.
Rennette, however, teaches a system (see Fig 7) for styling hair comprising a hairbrush handle (120) having a main grip and a removable head (110) wherein the handle includes a male connector (121) comprises a body having a length and a width smaller than the length and width of the main grip (see Fig 2) and the male connector includes prongs (127, Fig 5) connected to at least two depressible actuators (125, Fig 5) configured to move inwards (see Fig 5B). The removable head comprises a main barrel with a top section and a bottom section, wherein a plurality of bristles (215) are described as extending through the illustrated bristle openings [0040], so this is interpreted to mean the bristles are connected to an inner barrel of the main barrel and extend through a lattice of an outer barrel of the main barrel (see annotations). The outer barrel (111) is at least partially composed of a heat conductive material [0041] and the bottom section is secured to a bottom end of the main barrel (see annotations) with the bottom section including a female connector (113) having a connector cavity extending from the bottom end towards the top section to a back wall (see Figs 3B & 5). Sidewalls of the cavity are shaped such that the body of the male connector securely fits within the connector cavity (see Fig 5A) and prong slots of the sidewalls (152) are configured to interlock with the prongs of the male connector (see Fig 5A) in order to allow for rapid, consistent, and efficient means for engaging and separating the brush handle from the brush head and providing for easy single-handed operation [0018]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the hair styling system of Malm by providing the detachable connection between the brush head and the handle as prescribed by Rennette and by providing the outer barrel of a heat conductive material in order to allow for rapid, consistent, and efficient detachment and re-attachment of the brush head and handle and to allow for faster drying of the hair with the barrel being heat conductive, respectively.
PNG
media_image1.png
270
315
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 7: Modified Malm discloses the invention of claim 1 and Malm further discloses the handle can be textured to increase grip, which constitutes the main grip being at least partially coated with a “high friction material”. So since Malm teaches this limitation, modified Malm teaches this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-3, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malm (US 9247805) in view of Rennette (US 20190142148) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Baker (US 20220232965).
Claim 2: Modified Malm discloses the invention of claim 1 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the brush head including a plurality of slots about the top section that can hold hair accessories, which can extend within the slots.
Baker, however, teaches providing hairbrushes with the top section of the brush head including a plurality of slots (6) that elastic hair ties can be secured within in order to allow a user to hold hair accessories on the hairbrush if so desired [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the hairbrush system of modified Malm by providing the top section of the brush head with a plurality of slots in view of Baker in order to allow a user to secure hair accessories therein if so desired.
Claim 3: Modified Malm discloses the invention of claim 1 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the brush head top section including a magnet.
Baker, however, teaches providing hairbrushes with the top section of the brush head including a magnet (13) in order to allow for holding spilled or dropped metallic hair accessories [0027]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the hairbrush system of modified Malm by providing the top section of the brush head with a magnet in view of Baker in order to allow for holding spilled or dropped metallic hair accessories.
Claim(s) 4, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malm (US 9247805) in view of Rennette (US 20190142148) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Young (KR 20160114247).
Claim 4: Modified Malm discloses the invention of claim 1 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the pump being an airless pump configured to force styling product out of the reservoir by vacuum and with the correspondingly necessary valves.
Young, however, teaches providing dispensing brushes with airless pumps (see abstract) for the common-sense reason that airless pumps prevent dehydration of the contents being dispensed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the system of modified Malm to include an airless pump in view of Young in order to help prevent dehydration of the contents to be dispensed.
Claim(s) 5, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malm (US 9247805) in view of Rennette (US 20190142148) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Thorpe (US 20100003066).
Claim 5: Modified Malm discloses the invention of claim 1 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the male connector including a first magnet and the female connector including a second magnet, wherein the first magnet and second magnet can be oriented such that their magnetic fields oppose each other creating an ejection force between the male and female connector.
Thorpe, however, teaches a brush system including a handle (408) and a removable brush head (402) wherein the brush head includes a male connector (portion from which 602 extends, see Fig 6) and the handle includes a female connector (interior of 404) and these connectors can include first and second magnets [0029] such that these magnets can attract each other to hold the handle and brush head together and they can be rotated in order to repel one another and provide an ejection force [0029]. In other words, Thorpe teaches providing removable connectors between brush heads and handles with magnets that can provide an attractive force when rotated in a first orientation and which can provide an ejection repelling force when rotated in a second direction in order to provide more automated detachment of the brush head and the handle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the brush system of modified Malm by providing the male and female connectors each with at least one magnet as prescribed by Thorpe in order to automate the detachment of the brush heads.
Claim(s) 8-9, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malm (US 9247805) in view of Rennette (US 20190142148) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Hurwitz (US 20070193597).
Claims 8-9: Modified Malm discloses the invention of claim 1 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for a transparent window on the reservoir of the main grip allowing a user to determine the amount of remaining product.
Hurwitz, however, teaches a dispensing hairbrush wherein the handle and main grip for the reservoir and the reservoir includes a transparent window (164) [0081] in order to enable a user to easily determine the amount of product remaining in the reservoir. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the hairbrush system of modified Malm by providing the reservoir of the main grip with a transparent window in view of Hurwitz in order to allow a user to see the amount of product remaining in the reservoir.
Claim(s) 10-11 and 14-15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malm (US 9247805) in view of Rennette (US 20190142148) and Baker (US 20220232965).
Claims 10 and 14: Malm discloses a system for styling hair comprising: a hairbrush handle (12) having a main grip (exterior of 12, see Fig 1) an end cap (20), a reservoir (18), and a pump (22, see Figs 1-2). A cavity of the main grip (interior of 12) is configured to hold the reservoir therein (see Fig 2), the end cap secures to a bottom end of the main grip and the reservoir and conceals the cavity (see Fig 1). The reservoir is configured to hold a styling product therein (Col 3, 25-40) that is ejected by the pump and the pump is secured within a pump cavity at least partially within the cavity the main grip (see Figs 1-2). A piston (Col 3, 55-67) of the pump removes the styling product from the reservoir when a switch (14) of the pump is manipulated by the user wherein the product is ejected by the pump via at least one nozzle (30). The system includes a removable head (16) comprising a main barrel (16) including a top section and a bottom section with a plurality of bristles (32) connected to an inner barrel (core to which bristles 32 are attached) and these bristles extend through a lattice of an outer barrel (36) of the main barrel and top section (see Fig 1) is attached to a top end of the main barrel and the bottom section is secured to a bottom end of the main barrel forming a male/female snap connector for removably connecting the removable head to the handle (Col 4, 45-60). Malm discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for specifics about the removable connection between the handle; the removable head and the outer barrel being formed of a heat conductive material; and the brush head including a plurality of slots about the top section that can hold hair accessories, which can extend within the slots.
Rennette, however, teaches a system (see Fig 7) for styling hair comprising a hairbrush handle (120) having a main grip and a removable head (110) wherein the handle includes a male connector (121) comprises a body having a length and a width smaller than the length and width of the main grip (see Fig 2) and the male connector includes prongs (127, Fig 5) connected to at least two depressible actuators (125, Fig 5) configured to move inwards (see Fig 5B). The removable head comprises a main barrel with a top section and a bottom section, wherein a plurality of bristles (215) are described as extending through the illustrated bristle openings [0040], so this is interpreted to mean the bristles are connected to an inner barrel of the main barrel and extend through a lattice of an outer barrel of the main barrel (see annotations). The outer barrel (111) is at least partially composed of a heat conductive material [0041] and the bottom section is secured to a bottom end of the main barrel (see annotations) with the bottom section including a female connector (113) having a connector cavity extending from the bottom end towards the top section to a back wall (see Figs 3B & 5). Sidewalls of the cavity are shaped such that the body of the male connector securely fits within the connector cavity (see Fig 5A) and prong slots of the sidewalls (152) are configured to interlock with the prongs of the male connector (see Fig 5A) in order to allow for rapid, consistent, and efficient means for engaging and separating the brush handle from the brush head and providing for easy single-handed operation [0018]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the hair styling system of Malm by providing the detachable connection between the brush head and the handle as prescribed by Rennette and by providing the outer barrel of a heat conductive material in order to allow for rapid, consistent, and efficient detachment and re-attachment of the brush head and handle and to allow for faster drying of the hair with the barrel being heat conductive, respectively.
Modified Malm discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the brush head including a plurality of slots about the top section that can hold hair accessories, which can extend within the slots.
Baker, however, teaches providing hairbrushes with the top section of the brush head including a plurality of slots (6) that elastic hair ties can be secured within in order to allow a user to hold hair accessories on the hairbrush if so desired [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the hairbrush system of modified Malm by providing the top section of the brush head with a plurality of slots in view of Baker in order to allow a user to secure hair accessories therein if so desired.
Claim 11: Modified Malm discloses the invention of claim 10 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the brush head top section including a magnet.
Baker, however, teaches providing hairbrushes with the top section of the brush head including a magnet (13) in order to allow for holding spilled or dropped metallic hair accessories [0027]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the hairbrush system of modified Malm by providing the top section of the brush head with a magnet in view of Baker in order to allow for holding spilled or dropped metallic hair accessories.
Claim 15: Modified Malm discloses the invention of claim 10 and Malm further discloses the handle can be textured to increase grip, which constitutes the main grip being at least partially coated with a “high friction material”. So since Malm teaches this limitation, modified Malm teaches this limitation.
Claim(s) 12, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malm (US 9247805) in view of Rennette (US 20190142148) and Baker (US 20220232965) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Young (KR 20160114247).
Claim 12: Modified Malm discloses the invention of claim 10 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the pump being an airless pump configured to force styling product out of the reservoir by vacuum and with the correspondingly necessary valves.
Young, however, teaches providing dispensing brushes with airless pumps (see abstract) for the common-sense reason that airless pumps prevent dehydration of the contents being dispensed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the system of modified Malm to include an airless pump in view of Young in order to help prevent dehydration of the contents to be dispensed.
Claim(s) 13, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malm (US 9247805) in view of Rennette (US 20190142148) and Baker (US 20220232965) as applied to claim 10 above and further in view of Thorpe (US 20100003066).
Claim 13: Modified Malm discloses the invention of claim 10 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the male connector including a first magnet and the female connector including a second magnet, wherein the first magnet and second magnet can be oriented such that their magnetic fields oppose each other creating an ejection force between the male and female connector.
Thorpe, however, teaches a brush system including a handle (408) and a removable brush head (402) wherein the brush head includes a male connector (portion from which 602 extends, see Fig 6) and the handle includes a female connector (interior of 404) and these connectors can include first and second magnets [0029] such that these magnets can attract each other to hold the handle and brush head together and they can be rotated in order to repel one another and provide an ejection force [0029]. In other words, Thorpe teaches providing removable connectors between brush heads and handles with magnets that can provide an attractive force when rotated in a first orientation and which can provide an ejection repelling force when rotated in a second direction in order to provide more automated detachment of the brush head and the handle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the brush system of modified Malm by providing the male and female connectors each with at least one magnet as prescribed by Thorpe in order to automate the detachment of the brush heads.
Claim(s) 16-17, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Malm (US 9247805) in view of Rennette (US 20190142148) and Baker (US 20220232965) as applied to claim 10 and further in view of Hurwitz (US 20070193597).
Claims 16-17: Modified Malm discloses the invention of claim 10 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for a transparent window on the reservoir of the main grip allowing a user to determine the amount of remaining product.
Hurwitz, however, teaches a dispensing hairbrush wherein the handle and main grip for the reservoir and the reservoir includes a transparent window (164) [0081] in order to enable a user to easily determine the amount of product remaining in the reservoir. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the hairbrush system of modified Malm by providing the reservoir of the main grip with a transparent window in view of Hurwitz in order to allow a user to see the amount of product remaining in the reservoir.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Examiner used improper hindsight reasoning to reach a conclusion of obviousness, the Applicant is advised that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. However, so long as it takes into account only the knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only by the applicant’s disclosure, such reconstruction is proper. In the instant case, Rennette teaches hairbrush heads removable from their handles with a particular mechanism in order to make swapping out brush heads of different sizes easier. Malm discloses a dispensing hairbrush where the brush head can be removable by a coupling system (Col 6, 55-67) including a slot (163) and protrusion (162). So it does not take a leap of inventiveness, more like common sense, to modify the brush of Malm to include the particular release mechanism of Rennette since Rennette teaches this release mechanism allows for rapid, consistent, and efficient means for engaging and separating the brush handle from the brush head and providing for easy single-handed operation [0018]. So no hindsight was necessary or used in the proposed combination. The motivation to combine these references is within both references as outlined above, rendering this argument moot and unpersuasive.
Applicant’s argument that providing the head of Malm removable would “destroy” Malm is not persuasive at least because Malm discloses this to be an option (Col 6, 55-67) and even illustrates it (163 & 162, see Fig 4). Applicant provides no evidence that modifying the device of Malm to include the detachment mechanism prescribed by Renette would “destroy” either reference. This appears to simply be applicant’s opinion. Applicant has provided no evidence to establish an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art, but rather has merely argued such alleged difference. Mere arguments cannot take the place of evidence.
This appears to be applicant’s only argument against the references as the other pages of “arguments” appear to be describing the various other references and not actually attacking the proposed combination itself. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Gill whose telephone number is (571)270-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, can be reached on 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER GILL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772