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 § 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) 1-3, 14, 15, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merino et al (US 20090126757 A1) and in view of Devulapalli (US 20110017225 A1) and further in view of Oh et al (US 20130247933 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 21 and 22, Marino discloses a hairstyling apparatus comprising: a barrel 124 (figure 6) defining a hairstyling surface and a central axis, wherein the barrel has a first end and a second end; a heating element 60 in thermal communication with the hairstyling surface (paragraphs 0049 and 0050); and an arm (34 and/or 26) having a styling feature 28 and a toggle 36; wherein the arm is attached near the barrel first end and wherein the arm is repositionable with respect to the hairstyling surface (paragraph 0061), creating variable amount of contact between the styling feature and the hairstyling surface of the barrel (no contact, light contact, complete contact as it is moved closer and closer together); and wherein the styling feature comprises a plurality of extensions 114 (figures 9A-9B) extending towards the barrel (figures 9A; see arrow in annotated image below).
PNG
media_image1.png
389
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Marino discloses the brush head may be adapted to receive and secure an interchangeable bristle blade 31, allowing users to choose from a variety of blades having, for example, different widths, different bristle densities and different bristle textures (paragraph 0047). However, Marino is silent regarding the styling features being a comb with comb teeth. However, Devulapalli teaches interchangeable styling features including brushes (figures 11, 13, 15, 18) and combs with comb teeth (figures 10, 14, 15, 17; distinct rigid teeth serve as comb teeth). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Marino by having the styling feature be a comb with comb teeth, as taught by Devulapalli, for the purpose of providing a desired type of styling depending on user preference and hair type.
Marino is silent regarding guide supports extending from the sides of the arm and contacting the barrel; Re. claim 21, wherein the guide supports extend perpendicularly from the sides of the arm; Re. claim 22, wherein the guide supports are in constant contact with the barrel.
Oh teaches a hair styling device comprising guide supports 706/708 extending from the sides of an arm and contacting a second arm (analogous to the barrel)(figures 6 and 7; wherein arms 702 and 704 of Oh are considered part of the second arm/barrel); Re. claim 21, wherein the guide supports extend perpendicularly from the sides of the arm (figures 6 and 7; supports have an extension vertically perpendicular to a plane of the top/bottom sides of arm and an extension horizontally perpendicular to a plane of the left/right sides of the arm). Re. claim 22, wherein the guide supports are in constant contact with the second arm (analogous to the barrel) (wherein 702 and 704 are considered part of the second arm/barrel and wherein 706 and 708 are in constant contact with 702 and 704 respectively; paragraph 0032).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to further modify Marino by providing guide supports extending from the sides of the arm and contacting the barrel; Re. claim 21, wherein the guide supports extend perpendicularly from the sides of the arm. Re. claim 22, wherein the guide supports are in constant contact with the barrel, as taught by Oh, for the purpose of hair being prevented from entering the handle end when the hair straightening apparatus is in use and to ensure that the device is guided to open and close along a single plane of motion without moving transversely (see paragraph 0033 of Oh).
Regarding claim 2, the arm includes a lengthwise aperture 131(figures 9A-9B; paragraph 0054).
Regarding claim 3, said lengthwise aperture includes a comb (device made obvious above includes a comb in the form of the brush head with comb features substituted for the brush features).
Regarding claim 14, said guide supports extending from the sides of the arm and contacting the barrel arm comprises a contoured shaped tip on an end opposite of the toggle (figure 4, 9A, 9B).
Regarding claim 15, said contoured shaped tip is adapted to direct hair towards an interior surface of the arm (necessarily would occur because of disclosed shape).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merino et al (US 20090126757 A1), in view of Devulapalli (US 20110017225 A1), in view of Oh et al (US 20130247933 A1), and further in view of Barrett (US 2009/0126751 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Merino/Devulapalli/Oh discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Merino/Devulapalli/Oh is silent regarding said comb feature is integrally molded into the arm, wherein the arm having the comb feature is replaceable.
Claim 4, Barrett teaches wherein said comb feature is integrally molded into the arm [0043 final sentence].
Claim 5, Barrett teaches the hairstyling apparatus of claim 4, wherein the arm having the comb feature is replaceable [0048 third sentence-end] (Figs. 11-18).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Merino/Devulapalli/Oh by providing the comb feature integrally molded into the arm, wherein the arm having the comb feature is replaceable, as taught by Barrett, for the purpose of allowing for different types of hair treatment using another known method of replacement of parts.
Note that Merino discloses “[0010] The brush head can have a removable blade” setting forth that the removability of the blade from the brush head is an option and that having the brush/comb head molded with the arm would not teach away from or destroy the invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merino et al (US 20090126757 A1), in view of Devulapalli (US 20110017225 A1), in view of Oh et al (US 20130247933 A1) and further in view of Marcel (US 1,875,069).
Claim 6, Merino/Devulapalli/Oh discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for claim 1. Merino/Devulapalli/Oh is silent regarding a movement limiter (see 112f interpretation) which changes freedom of movement for position of the arm.
Marcel teaches a curling iron (Fig. 1) which pivots [pg. 2 lines 70-76](Fig. 1) with a movement limiter (18, Figs. 4 and 5) which changes freedom of movement for position of the arm (As described in [pg. 2 lines 94-119, pg. 3 lines 26-40 and 49-90 and 68-76], the screw 18 alters how much the arm and barrel can move away from one another).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, to include a screw as taught by Marcel to the device of Merino/Devulapalli/Oh for the purpose of further controlling the movement of the curling iron to create the desired hair appearance. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification for the purpose of adjusting the curling iron to a user’s particular taste or method of use [Marcel col. 1 lines 43- col. 2 line 56].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1/15/2026, have been fully considered and are persuasive since the previously cited prior art does not disclose the claimed guide supports. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the teaching of Oh.
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 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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-2180. 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