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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/19/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 21-35 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US20130123973 to Saranow et al. (hereinafter “Saranow”), in view of US20140118521 to Conti et al. (hereinafter “Conti”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 27 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the stylist’s method of applying dye formulation" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20130123973 to Saranow et al. (hereinafter “Saranow”), in view of US20140118521 to Conti et al. (hereinafter “Conti”).
As for claim 21, Saranow substantially discloses a method in a dye dispensing system for determining the amount of dye formulation to apply to a client (Saranow, see Fig. 13 and its corresponding paragraphs), comprising one or more controllers programmed to perform a method (Saranow, see Fig. 3 and its corresponding paragraphs) comprising:
receiving a client request for a color service from a stylist (Saranow, see Fig. 13, its corresponding paragraphs and [0155]);
receiving information from a computer memory comprising stylist information comprising collected data correlating the stylist with an amount of dye formulation used by the stylist on client hair (Saranow, see [0010], [0277]-[0278], [0094]-[0119], Fig. 13, Fig. 14, [0158] and [0181], “The stylist may also weigh the receptacle on the scale, when the receptacle holds a remaining amount of colorant and/or dye blending material (e.g., after use). The remaining weight is defined to include only a portion of the colorant and/or dye blending material previously prepared in accordance with the instructions. In this instance, the control system is capable of revising the stored instructions based on the remaining amount of colorant and/or dye blending material in the receptacle compared to an amount of colorant and/or dye blending material previously prepared” shows that amount that is actually used is received by the control system in order for it to revise the stored instructions);
electronically dispensing a desired amount of formulation into the receptacle based on the collected data (Saranow, see [0058], [0067], [0079], [0084], [0094]-[0119], [0277]-[0278], [0341], Fig. 13, Fig.14, Fig. 28F, Fig. 30A, [0158] and [0181], it is noted that “the system maintains customer histories, so customer formulations can be precisely repeated time after time” shows that the precise amount of formulations are dispensed into the receptable based on the customer history record);
measuring an amount of unused formulation remaining in the receptacle and associating the unused amount with the identification (Saranow, see [0158] and [0181]),
updating client information and the stylist information in the computer memory with the measured amount of unused formulation (Saranow, see [0094]-[0110], [0158] and [0181]).
Saranow does not explicitly disclose detecting the identity of a receptacle placed in the dye dispensing system, wherein the receptacle comprises an identification; dispensing formulation based on the identity of the receptacle, associating the amount with the identification.
However, Conti in an analogous art discloses detecting the identity of a receptacle placed in the dye dispensing system, wherein the receptacle comprises an identification (Conti, see [0071]-[0073]), electronically dispensing formulation based on the identity of the receptacle, associating the amount with the identification (Conti, see [0063], [0071]-[0073] and [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Conti into the method of Saranow. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a method for improving the outcome and consistency of hair coloring by having a bowl that includes an identifier associated with guest information (Conti, see abstract and [0072]).
Claim 30 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 21, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 21. Conti further discloses a processor configured perform a method (Conti, see [0026], [0063], [0071]-[0073] and [0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Conti into the system of Saranow. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a method for improving the outcome and consistency of hair coloring by having a bowl that includes an identifier associated with guest information (Conti, see abstract and [0072]).
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Saranow further discloses dispensing a desired amount of formulation for the client based on the updated client information (Saranow, see Fig. 13, Fig.14 and [0094]-[0110], [0158] and [0181]).
As per claim 23, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Saranow further discloses dispensing an additional amount of formulation prior to measuring an amount of unused formulation and subsequent to dispensing a desired amount of formulation (Saranow, see [0094]-[0110], [0158] and [0181]).
Claim 32 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 23, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 23.
As per claim 24, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Saranow further discloses the information is received from a mobile device (Saranow, see [0123], [0201], Fig. 13 and [0094]-[0110]).
Claim 33 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 24, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 24.
As per claim 25, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Saranow further discloses the stylist information comprises a stylist identifier (Saranow, see Fig. 30A, [0238], [0149] and [0129]).
As per claim 26, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Saranow further discloses the received information comprises client information, and the client information comprises client formulation (Saranow, see [0079], Fig. 13, Fig. 14, Fig. 28F, Fig. 30A, [0290]-[0291] and [0322]-[0323]).
Claim 34 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 26, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 26.
As per claim 27, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Saranow further discloses the stylist information comprises a formulation code, wherein the formulation code is used to track information related to the stylist’s method of applying dye formulation to the client (Saranow, see [0238], [0149] and [0129]).
As per claim 28, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Saranow further discloses the stylist’s information comprising at least an initial desired amount of formulation and at least one additional amount of formulation needed to complete the color service (Saranow, see [0321], [0094]-[0119], Fig. 13, Fig. 14, Fig. 28F, Fig. 30A, [0290]-[0291] and [0322]-[0323]).
As per claim 29, the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated, Conti further discloses wherein detecting the identity of the receptacle comprises detecting an RFID code associated with the receptacle (Conti, see [0071]-[0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Conti into the method of Saranow. The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skill in the art would want to provide a method for improving the outcome and consistency of hair coloring by having a bowl that includes an identifier associated with guest information (Conti, see abstract and [0072]).
Claim 35 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 29, it is therefore rejected under similar reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 29.
As per claim 31, the rejection of claim 30 is incorporated, Saranow further discloses dispensing a desired amount of formulation for the client based on a measured amount of unused formulation from one or more prior hair treatment (Saranow, see [0158] and [0094]-[0110]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. PST.
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, Robert E. Fennema can be reached on (571)272-2748. 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.
/JASON LIN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117