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
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II directed to a method of cutting hair, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/24/2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 8, “present” should read “preset”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitations “wherein the first end of each arm is pivotally coupled to the plate top face, each arm being selectively positionable and lockable at a plurality of discrete angular orientations relative to the plate such that the send of each arm is adjustable to a desired hair cutting angle” and “a locking assembly associated with each arm and configured to releasably secure the arm at the plurality of discrete angular orientations”. There is insufficient support for each arm being positionable at a plurality of discrete angular orientations relative to the plate and each one of them having a locking assembly. Applicant refers to Figures 6c-6d, 8a-8e and pages 9 and 12 for support. However, Figures 6c-6d, 8a-8d and the referenced paragraphs of the specification only disclose a single arm being pivotable relative to the plate and only one locking mechanism (e.g., a hinge, etc…) being associated with a single arm. Figure 8e shows a plurality of arms each being angled relative to the plate and the arrows indicate that they can move in both directions. However, this does not provide enough support for the claimed limitations, such that it does not necessarily show each arm having a locking mechanism that allows it to be fixed at a plurality of angles. Figure 8 merely shows that each arm is movable in both directions, such that they can be moved out of the way of the other arms or moved relative to the other arms but not explicitly locking at any desired angular orientation.
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 1-2, 8, 21 are 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 1 recites the limitation “such that the send end of each arm is adjustable”. It is unclear what is meant by the “send end”. It was assumed that “the send end” is referring to “the second end”. Clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein each arm is independently adjustable in angle relative to the plate between a plurality of preset angular positions”. It is unclear whether the arms are pivotable in preset angular positions or in a plurality of angular positions that are random (i.e., any angle) and if they are preset positions, how exactly are they pivotable in a plurality of positions as recited in claim 1 from which claim 8 depends. It is unclear whether the arms are each movable into their preset angular positions (i.e., they can fold and be extended into a preset position relative to the plate having a discrete angle relative to the other arms) or if they can be adjusted into any possible angle along the plate. Clarification is required and proper support for the clarification is required to avoid introducing new matter. It was understood that the arms are adjustable (i.e., such as during manufacture).
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein the angle of the arm is permanently positioned relative to the plate”. It is unclear and contradictory how the arm can be permanently positioned at an angle relative to the plate AND be pivotally adjustable relative to the plate. Clarification is required. It was understood that each arm can optionally be permanently fixed to the plate after being placed into its angular position.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “wherein each of the plurality of devices includes a unique combination of components selected from a fastener, a plate, a plurality of arms having distinct angular configurations, and an indicator guide, such that at least one of the components differs in structure, number, or angular arrangement from the corresponding component of another device”. It is unclear how the plate, indicator guide can be different if the plurality of devices are all the same as the device of claim 1. Additionally, it has been claimed that the components may differ in structure, and therefore it is unclear how that can be since the claimed device is the same, just multiplied. For examining purposes, it was understood that the kit comprises a variety of fasteners configured to be interchangeable with the device.
Claims 5-7, 10 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of dependency.
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, 5-10, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatchett (US 5,575,297), in view of Silva (US 6,267,119 B1), and further in view of Ward (US 2007/0235054 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hatchett et al. teaches a haircutting guide device (the device is fully capable of being used for cutting hair), comprising:
a plate (10) comprising a top face and an opposed bottom face (see annotated Fig. below),
a plurality of arms (11a-11e) defined by a first end and a second end,
wherein the first end of each arm is pivotally coupled to the plate top face (see Fig. 1), and
each arm being selectively positionable and lockable at a plurality of discrete angular orientations relative to the plate such that the send end of each arm is adjustable to a desired hair cutting angle and a locking assembly associated with each arm and configured to releasably secure the arm at the plurality of discrete angular orientations (Col. 4 ll. 22-29, 66-68 and Col. 5 ll. 1-3, 33-37, 65-66; such that the arms are resilient and flexible as to allow conveniently inserting hair into the slots. Therefore, the arms can pivot or have varying angles and will be fixed at said angle depending on how much hair is inserted therebetween),
an indicator guide (14a-14e) mounted to the plate and extending between adjacent arms (see Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
365
726
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hatchett is silent to a fastener configured to releasably attach to a user's hair, the fastener defined by a support and a closure, the fastener support including a support top face and an opposed support bottom face and the plate bottom face positioned adjacent to and attached to the support top face.
Silva teaches a hair cutting guide comb having a plurality of arms and having a first end of the arms attached to a fastener/clip (see Fig. 5a). The device can be clipped to the hair as to serve as a tool for one to use unassisted (Col. 1 l. 36-42).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Hatchett to include a fastener, such as a clip, as taught by Silva, as it would allow the user to clip the guide to the hair and use both hands unassisted. It would have also been obvious to have a top face of the fastener receive the bottom surface of the plate, because it would achieve the same orientation of the arms of Hatchett, such that the first end of the arms is attached to the fastener through the plate and are oriented upward relative to the plate.
Hatchett is further silent to the indicator guide comprising visible indicia, markings, or angular graduations corresponding to the discrete angular orientation of the arms relative to the plate and being visually perceptible when each arm is locked at a selected angular orientation, thereby providing a visual representation of the selected haircutting angle and of the angular relationship of the arms relative to the plate.
Ward teaches a hair cutting guide having a plate (40) and a plurality of arms (38) extending in a direction parallel to the longitudinal axis of the plate (see Figures). Ward teaches the arms each have angle markings (36) which allow the user to angle the arms at the same and as to allow the user to cut symmetrically ([0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the indicators of Hatchett to have angle markings, as taught by Ward, because said angle markings can be used to facilitate achieving symmetry or desired angulation of each arm relative to the plate when used for hair cutting, braiding or other styling applications.
Regarding claim 5, Hatchett in view of Silva and Ward teaches the device of claim 1 (see rejection above). Hatchett teaches wherein a separate indicator is positioned between each arm (see 14a-14e in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 7, Hatchett in view of Silva and Ward teaches the device of claim 1 (see rejection above). Hatchett teaches wherein the plate is permanently attached to the fastener (the plate is fully capable of being permanently attached to the fastener such that by an adhesive or being integral).
Regarding claim 8, Hatchett in view of Silva and Ward teaches the device of claim 1 (see rejection above). Hatchett teaches the device is made to be easily manufacturable in different sizes, is configurable for use on the hair of virtually any size or age of person, provided their hair is of sufficient length (Col. 2 l. 59-62) and discusses different constructions of the arms (Col. 7 l. 3-18). Therefore, the arms are fully capable of being independently adjustable in angle relative to the plate between a plurality of present angular positions, thereby permitting the user to select and fix the angle of each arm relative to the plate (Col. 4 ll. 22-29, 66-68 and Col. 5 ll. 1-3, 33-37, 65-66; such that the arms are resilient and flexible as to allow conveniently inserting hair into the slots. Therefore, the arms can pivot or have varying angles and will be fixed at said angle depending on how much hair is inserted therebetween).
Regarding claim 9, Hatchett in view of Silva and Ward teaches the device of claim 1 (see rejection above). Hatchett teaches wherein the angle of the arm is permanently positioned relative to the plate (the arms are part of a skeletal frame made from a rigid plastic).
Regarding claim 10, Hatchett in view of Silva and Ward teaches the device of claim 1 but does not teach a kit having a plurality of said device and instructions for use.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device to be part of a kit having a plurality of said device and instructions for use because it is well known in the art and conventional for a standard and commercially available product to include instructions for use as to guide the user on how to use the product and to include a plurality of said device for purposes of simultaneous or disposable use, or other obvious reasons.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatchett (US 5,575,297), in view of Silva (US 6,267,119 B1), Ward (US 2007/0235054 A1) and further in view of Fani et al. (US 4,926,891).
Regarding claim 6, Hatchett in view of Silva and Ward teaches the device of claim 1 (see rejection above). Hatchett teaches the device is made to be easily manufacturable in different sizes as to be used with hair having, but is wherein each arm has a length of about 1-5 inches.
Fani teaches a hair cutting guide comprising legs/arms and a spine connecting the arms to form a unitary structure (see Figures). Fani teaches each arm has a length of about 1-5 inches (Col. 2 l. 58-62 and see Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the height of each arm to be between 1 and 5 inches, as taught by Fani, as it would be within a proper range to use for braiding or cutting hair.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hatchett (US 5,575,297), in view of Silva (US 6,267,119 B1), Ward (US 2007/0235054 A1), and further in view of Klung (US 6,688,316 B1).
Regarding claim 21, Hatchett in view of Silva and Ward teaches the kit of claim 10 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein each of the plurality of devices includes a unique combination of components selected from a fastener, a plate, a plurality of arms having distinct angular configurations, and an indicator guide, such that at least one of the components differs in structure, number, or angular arrangement from the corresponding component of another device in the kit.
Klung teaches a kit comprising interchangeable fasteners (see Fig. 1). The fasteners include a hair band (12), a hair comb (14) and a barrette (16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the kit to include a plurality of fasteners to use interchangeably with the device, because it would allow the user to select the most appropriate fastener based on hair type, location and overall preference.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-10, 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Hatchett does not teach the arms may pivot and lock. However, this is not found to be persuasive because Hatchett teaches the arms are resilient and flexible as to allow conveniently inserting hair into the slots (Col. 4 ll. 22-29, 66-68 and Col. 5 ll. 1-3, 33-37, 65-66). Hatchett further teaches that the pressure exerted by the adjacency of the arms is what grips the hair firmly (Col. 5 ll. 5-27). Therefore, the arms can pivot or have varying angles when flexed and will be fixed by the adjacency pressure at said angle depending on how much hair is inserted therebetween, such that a thicker hair section can create a larger angle of an arm relative to the plate and vice versa. Applicant references Hatchett’s disclosure that the arms each having equal height and diameter and being rigid. However, this does not interfere with their overall flexibility combined with the resilient members (14). In fact, Hatchett mentions that they do not extend into the tapered portions of the resilient elongated members as to offer more flexibility and convenience for insertion of the hair into the slots and therefore the rigidity or dimensions of the arms do not limit them from being able to allow insertion of different hair section thicknesses into the slot.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Silva is merely being used to teach a fastener. Fani is merely being used to teach a length of arms being used on hair. Klung is merely being used to teach a kit with variable combinations for desirable looks/outcome.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
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 LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. 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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799