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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Centurelli (WO 2010000370 A2).
Regarding claim 17, Centurelli discloses a hair styling appliance (figures 1-2), comprising:
a handle 14; and
a plurality of mandrels (12 and 24) connected to the handle, including at least a first mandrel (first of 24 in figures 1-2), a second mandrel (second of 24 in figures 1-2) and a third mandrel 12;
wherein at least one of the first mandrel, the second mandrel and the third mandrel is moveable with respect to at least another of the first mandrel, the second mandrel and the third mandrel (page 7, lines 1-5); and
wherein a spacing between adjacent mandrels (first and second of 12 in figures 1-2) positioned in a same plane is less than a diameter of at least one of the first mandrel, the second mandrel and the third mandrel (24; see annotated figure 2 and zoomed in figure 2 below),
wherein, when viewed from a distal end of the hair styling appliance opposite the handle, the plurality of mandrels each have the same cross-sectional shape (cross-sectional shape is circular for each mandrel – note that shape is claimed and not size).
Regarding claim 20, the first mandrel (one 24 in figures 1-2) and the third mandrel 12 are moveable independently of one another (first mandrel can be moved by moving clip 26 relative to grip and keeping grip stationary; third mandrel 24 can be moved by moving grip relative to clip and keeping clip stationary; page 6, lines 24-25 also discloses that 12 can rotate).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 8, 21, 25 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centurelli (WO 2010000370 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Centurelli discloses a hair styling appliance (figure 1), comprising:
a handle (14 figure 1);
a first barrel (one of barrels 24) extending from the handle (at least indirectly extending from handle);
a second barrel (a second one of barrels 24) extending from the handle (at least indirectly extending from handle), the first barrel and the second barrel being disposed in a first plane (figure 2), the first barrel and the second barrel being non-moveable with respect to one another (page 7, line 16: the at least one bar 24 may be fixed relative to clip 26 such that when two bars are present and both are fixed to the clip they would then be fixed relative to each other); and
a third barrel 12 extending from the handle 14;
wherein in a closed position of the hair styling appliance, the third barrel 12 is disposed in a second plane spaced above the first plane (figure 2);
wherein the first barrel and the second barrel are spaced from one another by a first distance, the first distance being less than a diameter of the third barrel (figures 1 and 2; see annotated figure 2 and zoomed in annotated figure 2 below)
wherein the first barrel, the second barrel and the third barrel are cylindrical (figure 2).
Centurelli discloses that the first and second barrels are hingedly connected to the handle and moveable between a closed position and an open position (page 7, line 4: clip grip 26 hinged relative to grip 14 and first and second barrels are fixed to 26) but not that the third barrel is hingedly connected to the handle and moveable between a closed position and an open position.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Centurelli by having the positions of the first/second barrels and the third barrel switched such that the third barrel (instead of the first and second barrels) is hingedly connected to the handle and moveable between a closed position and an open position, since such a modification would involve a mere rearrangement or reversal or parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI(A) and (C)).
PNG
media_image1.png
319
231
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
86
102
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the device as made obvious above is such that an actuator 26 (device made obvious has third barrel attached to clip 26) operatively connected to the third barrel and being operable to selectively move the third barrel between the closed position and the open position (page 7, lines 1-15);
wherein in the closed position, the third barrel is parallel with the first barrel and the second barrel (figure 2); and
wherein in the open position, the third barrel is angled with respect to the first barrel and the second barrel (when rotated, it would be in a different position from that in figure 2 and moved relative to a fulcrum of rotation as set forth in page 7, lines 10-11 and thus angled).
Regarding claim 3, the device as made obvious above is such that the third barrel is spring biased to the closed position (page 7, lines 10-15; device made obvious has third barrel attached to clip 26 and returns to rest/closed position following pressing action).
Regarding claim 4, the third barrel is at least partially nested in a groove defined by the first barrel and the second barrel (figure 2).
Regarding claim 5, a horizontal midline of the third barrel is located vertically spaced from an imaginary horizontal line connecting upper tangent points of the first barrel and the second barrels (figure 2).
Regarding claim 7, in the closed position, the third barrel does not contact the first barrel and the second barrel (figure 2; page 7, lines 20-25).
Regarding claim 8, the first barrel, the second barrel, and the third barrel are arranged in a triangular configuration (figure 2).
Regarding claim 26, the first distance is fixed (page 7, line 16: the at least one bar 24 may be fixed relative to clip 26 such that when two bars are present and both are fixed to the clip they would then be fixed relative to each other).
Regarding claim 21, Centurelli discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 17. Centurelli does not specifically disclose that the plurality of mandrels includes a fourth mandrel. However, Centurelli discloses that there are “at least one compression bar 24” and gives as one example that there are “two compression bars” (page 7, lines 5-7).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Centurelli by providing a third compression bar such that there are four total mandrels (three compression bars 24 and one heating body 12) since such a modification would amount to a mere duplication of parts with no new or unexpected result produced (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B)).
Regarding claim 25, the device made obvious as set forth above would be such that the first mandrel (one of 24) and the third mandrel (12) are moveable independently of one another (first mandrel can be moved by moving clip 26 relative to grip and keeping grip stationary; third mandrel 24 can be moved by moving grip relative to clip and keeping clip stationary; page 6, lines 24-25 also discloses that 12 can rotate).
Claim(s) 21 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Centurelli (WO 2010000370 A2) and in view of Park (US 20050150511 A1).
Regarding claims 21 and 24, Centurelli discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 17. Centurelli does not specifically disclose that the plurality of mandrels includes a fourth mandrel wherein the first mandrel and the third mandrel are collectively moveable with respect to the second mandrel and the fourth mandrel.
However, Park teaches an analogous device with a fourth mandrel (second 880 or 860 in figure 8) wherein a first mandrel and a third mandrel (860 or 880) are collectively moveable with respect to a second mandrel and a fourth mandrel (860 or 880). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Centurelli by providing a fourth mandrel wherein the first mandrel and the third mandrel are collectively moveable with respect to the second mandrel and the fourth mandrel, as taught by Park, for the purpose of the device providing a desired wave pattern (paragraph 0039). Park is silent regarding the claimed shape of the mandrels. However, the device made obvious by Centurelli/Park, as set forth above, has the shapes disclosed by Centurelli and is modified in view of Park to have a double barrel upper portion and double barrel lower portion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/24/2026 in respect to Centurelli have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Centurelli discloses a third mandrel that is larger. However, the size of the mandrel has not been claimed. Only the shape has been claimed.
Applicant argues that Centurelli fails to disclose wherein the third barrel is hingedly connected to the handle and moveable between a closed and an open position. However, as set forth above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Centurelli by having the positions of the first/second barrels and the third barrel switched such that the third barrel (instead of the first and second barrels) is hingedly connected to the handle and moveable between a closed position and an open position, since such a modification would involve a mere rearrangement or reversal or parts (see MPEP 2144.04 VI(A) and (C)).
Applicant argues that this modification would not be possible. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. One of ordinary skill is also one of ordinary creativity. The modification may require some changes to the proportions of the device, but these changes would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art and be able to be made without undue experimentation or unexpected results.
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 ERIC J ROSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7855. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 930am-6pm.
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, Marivelisse Santiago-Cordero, can be reached at (571) 272-7839. 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.
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
