DETAILED ACTION
Summary
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments submitted on September 26, 2025 are entered into the file. Currently claims 1 and 4 are amended and claims 6-7 are cancelled, resulting in claims 1-5 and 8-20 pending for examination.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandran (US 5589545)1 in view of Natman (US 3739419)1.
With respect to claims 1-4, 8-9, and 15, Ramachandran teaches molded polymer blends comprising a polyolefin (water-insoluble polymer), polyethylene oxide, and a polylactone which become lubricious when exposed to water (col. 1, lines 7-11). The polyethylene oxide has a molecular weight from about 200,000 to 4,000,000 grams/gram mole (high molecular weight) (col. 3, lines 25-33). The polymer blends have a variety of end uses where lubricious-when-wet properties are desired, such as personal care applications (col. 4, lines 54-60).
Ramachandran further teaches the concentration of the polyethylene polymer in the polymer blend ranges from about 20 to 80 weight percent, preferably from about 40 to 60 weight percent based on the total weight of the polymer blend (col. 2, lines 56-60). The concentration of the polyethylene oxide polymer in the polymer blend ranges from about 15 to 75 weight percent, preferably from about 20 to 50 weight percent based upon the total weight of the polymer blend (col. 3, lines 34-38).
The molecular weight of polyethylene oxide range and ratio range of Ramachandran substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claims 1-3. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ramachandran, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Ramachandran is silent as to the polymer blend being used as the protrusions on a styling device for hair.
Natman teaches hairbrushes molded from polypropylene containing about ten percent oleic acid by weight to produce a smooth “lubricated” surface which facilitates the bristles slipping past snags and knots (col. 2, lines 32-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the polymer blend of Ramachandran as bristles in a hairbrush in order to provide a hairbrush that is lubricious when wet, thus facilitating the bristles slipping past snags and knots,
With respect to claim 5, Ramachandran in view of Natman teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Ramachandran further teaches the polyolefin may be polyethylene or polypropylene and is preferably polyethylene (col. 2, lines 23-25).
With respect to claim 10, Ramachandran in view of Natman teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As can be seen in the figures of Natman the hairbrush includes a handle.
With respect to claim 13, Ramachandran in view of Natman teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Ramachandran further teaches the polylactone has a molecular weight from about 30,000 to about 70,000 grams/gram mole (additional high molecular weight material) (col. 4, lines 7-8).
With respect to claim 17, Ramachandran teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Ramachandran further teaches that one preferred method for manufacturing the polymer blends is by extrusion molding the polymers (col. 4, lines 42-53).
Claim(s) 1-5, 8-10, 13-14, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandran (US 5589545)2 in view of Gueret (US 4549559)1.
With respect to claims 1-4, 8-9, and 14, Ramachandran teaches molded polymer blends comprising a polyolefin (water-insoluble polymer), polyethylene oxide, and a polylactone which become lubricious when exposed to water (col. 1, lines 7-11). The polyethylene oxide has a molecular weight from about 200,000 to 4,000,000 grams/gram mole (high molecular weight) (col. 3, lines 25-33). The polymer blends have a variety of end uses where lubricious-when-wet properties are desired, such as personal care applications (col. 4, lines 54-60).
Ramachandran further teaches the concentration of the polyethylene polymer in the polymer blend ranges from about 20 to 80 weight percent, preferably from about 40 to 60 weight percent based on the total weight of the polymer blend (col. 2, lines 56-60). The concentration of the polyethylene oxide polymer in the polymer blend ranges from about 15 to 75 weight percent, preferably from about 20 to 50 weight percent based upon the total weight of the polymer blend (col. 3, lines 34-38).
The molecular weight of polyethylene oxide range and ratio range of Ramachandran substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claims 1-3. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ramachandran, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Ramachandran is silent as to the polymer blend being used as the protrusions on a styling device for hair.
Gueret teaches a combing device where the body may comprise any plastic material having good moulding characteristics, including polypropylene, and has exceptional antistatic properties has lubricating contact as well as a low coefficient for friction with hair (col. 2, lines 36-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the polymer blend of Ramachandran as the body and teeth in a comb in order to provide a comb that is lubricious when wet, thus facilitating lubricating contact with hair.
With respect to claim 5, Ramachandran in view of Gueret teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Ramachandran further teaches the polyolefin may be polyethylene or polypropylene and is preferably polyethylene (col. 2, lines 23-25).
With respect to claim 10, Ramachandran in view of Gueret teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. As can be seen in the figures of Gueret the comb includes a handle.
With respect to claim 13, Ramachandran in view of Gueret teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Ramachandran further teaches the polylactone has a molecular weight from about 30,000 to about 70,000 grams/gram mole (additional high molecular weight material) (col. 4, lines 7-8).
With respect to claim 17, Ramachandran teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above. Ramachandran further teaches that one preferred method for manufacturing the polymer blends is by extrusion molding the polymers (col. 4, lines 42-53).
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandran (US 5589545)3 in view of Natman (US 3739419)1 and Ramachandran (US 5589545)1 in view of Gueret (US 4549559)1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wright (US 3908679)1.
With respect to claims 11-12, Ramachandran in view of Natman and Ramachandran in view of Gueret teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Ramachandran in view of Natman and Ramachandran in view of Gueret is silent as to the protrusions comprising at least one water soluble active in addition to the polyethylene oxide, wherein the water soluble active is selected from the group consisting of an anti-static active, a friction reduction active, a lubrication active, an emollient, an combinations thereof.
Wright teaches a device for grooming or conditioning hair which may take the form of a conventional comb or brush having teeth or bristles associated with grooming or conditioning material which when moisturized will uniformly impart grooming or moisturizing material to the hair when the hair is combed or brushed (abstract). The conditioning material is in substantially solid form and is at least partially fluidized when in contact with water (col. 1, lines 46-53). In operation the comb or brush is moisturized by dipping it in water or immersing it in water to dissolve or fluidize the conditioning material such that when the comb is moved through the hair, conditioning material will be uniformly deposited on the hair shafts (col. 2, lines 25-31).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the polymer blend of Ramachandran in view of Natman and Ramachandran in view of Gueret to include a condition agent that dissolves or fluidizes in water in order to allow the conditioning material to be applied uniformly to hair when the hair is combed or brushed.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramachandran (US 5589545)4 in view of Natman (US 3739419)1 and Ramachandran (US 5589545)1 in view of Gueret (US 4549559)1 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carstairs (US 2806235)1.
With respect to claim 16, Ramachandran in view of Natman and Ramachandran in view of Gueret teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Ramachandran in view of Natman and Ramachandran in view of Gueret is silent as to the device comprising a motor for vibration of the protrusions.
Carstairs teaches a vibrator secured to the back of the bristle-bearing portion of a hair brush in order to loosen and remove dandruff while stimulating the scalp in the normal course of brushing one’s hair (col. 1, lines 36-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the devices of Ramachandran in view of Natman and Ramachandran in view of Gueret to include motors to vibrate the protrusions in order to loosen and remove dandruff while stimulating the scalp in the normal course of brushing one’s hair.
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murdock (US 2015/0296953)1,5 in view of Ramachandran (US 5589545)1.
With respect to claims 18-20, Murdock teaches hair treatment application devices comprising first and second plates (flat surface) (paragraph [0027]). Each plate (flat surface) may be independently manufactured from any known material such as a polyolefin (water insoluble polymer) (paragraph [0036]). The first and second plates (flat surface) may be coupled together by a connection that may be a hinge (paragraphs [0039], [0042]). The connection allows the plates (flat surface) to be in a closed state where the plates (flat surface) are in a juxtaposed relationship (pressed together) (paragraph [0040]).
Murdock is silent as to the plates (flat surface) comprising a blend of polyethylene oxide with a molecular weight from about 100,000 to about 300,000 and a polypropylene or polyethylene water insoluble polymer.
Ramachandran teaches molded polymer blends comprising a polyolefin, polyethylene oxide, and a polylactone which become lubricious when exposed to water (col. 1, lines 7-11). The polyethylene oxide has a molecular weight from about 200,000 to 4,000,000 grams/gram mole (high molecular weight) (col. 3, lines 25-33). The polymer blends have a variety of end uses where lubricious-when-wet properties are desired, such as personal care applications (col. 4, lines 54-60). Ramachandran further teaches the polyolefin may be polyethylene or polypropylene and is preferably polyethylene (col. 2, lines 23-25).
The molecular weight of polyethylene oxide range of Ramachandran substantially overlaps the claimed range in the instant claim 20. It has been held that obviousness exists where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by Ramachandran, because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified at least one of the plates (flat surface) of Murdock to include a polymer blend comprising polyethylene oxide with a molecular weight from 200,000 to 4,000,000 grams/gram mole, polylactone, and polypropylene or polyethylene as described by Ramachandran in order to provide the hair treatment application device with lubricious-when-wet properties.
Response to Arguments
Response – Claim Objections
The objection to the claims due to informalities is overcome by Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response received on September 26, 2025.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §112
The rejections of claims 6-7 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, are overcome by Applicants amendments to the claims in the response filed September 26, 2025.
Response – Claim Rejections 35 USC §103
Applicant’s arguments submitted on September 26, 2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On page 5 of the response Applicant submits that Example 2 of Ramachandran substantially teaches satisfactory results with a ratio of polyethylene oxide to water insoluble polymer ratio outside the claimed range of the present claims.
These arguments are not persuasive. Patents are relevant as prior art for all they contain. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123. In the instant case, the specific embodiment of Example 2 does not discredit the broader teachings of the amounts of polyethylene polymer and polyethylene oxide disclosed in col. 2, lines 56-60 and col. 3, lines 34-38 as described in the rejections above. It is also respectfully submitted Example 2 of Ramachandran teaches a PO:PE ratio of 34:66, which is within the claimed range.
On page 5 of the response Applicant submits that the present application demonstrates unexpected results in the combing force when the ratio of polyethylene oxide to water insoluble polymer is 50:50 versus when it is 80:20.
Overcoming a rejection based on unexpected results requires the combination of three different elements: (i) the results must fairly compare with the closest prior art in an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, (ii) the claims must be commensurate in scope, and (iii) the results must truly be unexpected. MPEP 716.02. Additionally, the burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b). To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, Applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. MPEP 716.02(d)(II).
With respect to (i), an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 comparing the results to the closest prior art has not been provided. With respect to (ii), the results are not commensurate in scope with the claims. For example, Example 2 has a specific ratio of 50/50, whereas a range of 30:70 to 50:50 is claimed, and uses polyethylene as the water-insoluble polymer which is unspecified in claim 1. With respect to (iii), any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. See MPEP 716.02. The burden rests with Applicant to establish the results are unexpected and significant. MPEP 716.02(b). Applicant has not established why the results are unexpected and significant.
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 Larissa Rowe Emrich whose telephone number is (571)272-2506. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am - 4:00pm EST.
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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
LARISSA ROWE EMRICH
Examiner
Art Unit 1789
/LARISSA ROWE EMRICH/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
1 Previously presented
2 Previously presented
3 Previously presented
4 Previously presented
5 Cited in IDS