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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, Species A in the reply filed on 11/22/2024 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “weight the scalp cover” in line 8 wherein “weight” should be revised to read “weigh” as it seems to be a misspelling.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gleeson (US 6808175 B1).
Re. Claim 1, Gleeson discloses a device (Fig. 1-2) is capable of being a scalp protector (It is found that the cord 6 can be used to protect the part line where it can be weighed down by weights 4) comprising:
a flexible, elongate scalp cover (6; Col. 2, lines 11-15) defining a first end and a second end opposite the first end (ends can be denoted by element 10 and is found to be opposing one another in Fig. 1-2), the scalp cover configured to cover and protect at least a portion of a part line of a user (It is found that the cord 6 can be used to protect at least a portion of a part line where it can be weighed down by weights 4; It should be noted that the claimed limitation is functional language); and
a retaining device (4) coupled to the scalp cover (Fig. 1-2), the retaining device comprising a first weight (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1) coupled to the first end of the scalp cover (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1) and a second weight (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1) coupled to the second end of the scalp cover (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1), the first weight and second weight configured to weigh the scalp cover down against the part line (Annotated Figure A of Fig. 1 where it is found that the footballs have greater weight than the tether and as such is fully capable to weigh the scalp cover down against the part line; It should be noted that the claimed limitation is functional language).
PNG
media_image1.png
225
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure A
Re. Claim 2, Gleeson discloses the scalp protector of claim 1, wherein the scalp cover comprises a cord (Fig. 2 shows that the cover is a cord) configured to contour to a head of the user (It should be noted that the claimed limitation is functional language; It is fully capable of being configured to contour to a head of the user).
Re. Claim 3, Gleeson discloses the scalp protector of claim 1, wherein at least one of the first weight and the second weight comprises a decorative design (Fig. 1 where they are footballs which can be considered a decorative design).
Re. Claim 4, Gleeson discloses the scalp protector of claim 2, wherein the first weight and the second weight are substantially equivalent in size and shape (Fig. 1-2).
Re. Claim 5, Gleeson discloses the scalp protector of claim 1, wherein the scalp cover is at least one of washable and wipeable to remove residue therefrom (It should be noted that the claimed limitation is functional language; It is fully capable of being washable and wipeable).
Re. Claim 6, Gleeson discloses the scalp protector of claim 1, wherein: the scalp protector is configurable in a first configuration and a second configuration; in the first configuration, the scalp cover covers and protects a first part section of the part line; and in the second configuration, the scalp cover covers and protects a second part section of the part line (It should be noted that the claimed limitation is functional language and that the scalp protector can be configurable to a first and second configurations depending on where the user would like to part the hair).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clyburn (US 5383480 A) in view of Lujan-Puckett (US 9022043 B1).
Re. Claim 1, Clyburn discloses a device that is fully capable of being a scalp protector (Fig. 10) comprising:
A flexible, elongate scalp cover (Fig. 10; 106; Col. 5, lines 52-58 where it is disclosed that it is a hollow, flexible tube), defining a first end (58”) and a second end (60”) opposite to the first end (Fig. 10), the scalp cover configured to cover and protect at least a portion of part line of a user (Col. 5, lines 49-52 discloses that the device is intended to form waves using elements 102, 104, and 106. By forming the waves, it is also sectioning hairs, creating part lines between sections. As such, it would be fully capable to cover and protect at least a portion of part line of a user); and
A retaining device (56” and 58”) coupled to the scalp cover (Fig. 10), the retaining device comprising a first weight (56” where the Velcro would have a weight) coupled to the first end of the scalp cover (Fig. 10) and a second weight (58” where the Velcro would have a weight) coupled to the second end of the scalp cover (Fig. 10).
However, Clyburn is silent to the first weight and second weight configured to weigh the scalp cover down against the part line.
Lujan discloses a hair holder in the analogous art of hair devices and further discloses varying attachment means which include a hook and loop fastener (i.e. Velcro), a button and magnet connection (Col. 10, lines 47-62).
Lujan-Puckett discloses a retaining device which is disclosed to attach to one another and strap around the user’s chin (Col. 5, lines 38-58). Lujan discloses varying attachment means known to the art including the usage of magnets.
It would have been obvious to someone skilled in the art to substitute the Velcro of Clyburn to be magnets as taught by Clyburn provide a different attachment means to the device.
Because magnets are made of metal, they would weigh more than the rest of the headband itself and as such would “weigh” the headband down onto you head as the magnets would be found strapped to the chin. Thus, the combination of Clyburn and Lujan-Puckett provides teaching of the first weight and second weight configured to weigh the scalp cover down against the part line.
Re. Claim 5, Clyburn and Lujan-Puckett discloses the scalp protector of claim 1 and Clyburn further discloses the scalp cover is at least one of washable and wipeable to remove residue thereform (It should be noted that the claimed limitation is functional language; It is fully capable of being washable and wipeable).
Re. Claim 6¸ Clyburn and Lujan-Puckett discloses the scalp protector of claim 1 and Clyburn further discloses the scalp protector is configurable in a first configuration and a second configuration; in the first configuration, the scalp cover covers and protects a first part section of the part line; and in the second configuration, the scalp cover covers and protects a second part section of the part line (It should be noted that the claimed limitation is functional language and that the scalp protector can be configurable to a first and second configurations depending on where the user would like to part the hair).
Re. Claim 7, Clyburn and Lujan-Puckett discloses the of claim 1 and Clyburn further discloses comprising an annular shielding headband (98 where when the two weights are attached to one another, would make the shielding headband annular) configured to wrap around a circumference of a head of the user and to cover and protect at least a portion of a forehead of the user (Col. 5, lines 49-52 discloses that it would be strapped around the chin and as such would wrap around a circumference of a head of the user. Further the band is fully capable of covering and protecting at least a portion of a forehead of the user by positioning the device closer to the forehead where the headband cover’s a portion of the forehead; It should be noted that the limitation is functional language).
Re. Claim 8, Clyburn and Lujan-Puckett discloses the scalp protector of claim 7, wherein Clyburn further discloses the annular shielding headband comprises a stretchable material and is configured to accommodate heads of varying sizes (Col. 5, lines 49-52 discloses that it is a strap which would wrap around the patient’s head and as such would be made of a stretchable material. Further, it is fully capable of accommodating heads of varying sizes).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See Form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOLLY T TO whose telephone number is (571)272-0719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:30 - 4:30.
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, Jacqueline Johanas can be reached on (571)270-5085. 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.
/HOLLY T. TO/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /JACQUELINE T JOHANAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772