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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “the first portion of” should be “the first portion of the shield”.
Claim 33 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, “wherein the first flange portion included” should be “wherein the first flange portion includes”.
Claim 34 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 2-3, “the shield frictionally engages the first side of the first side of the flange” should be “the shield frictionally engages the first side of
Claim 40 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “being reversible first and second flange positions” should be “being reversible between first and second flange positions”.
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.
Claims 37 and 44 are 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.
Regarding claim 37, lines 2 recites that the gasket is positioned equidistant from the first and second ends; however, the specification does not explicitly recite this relationship and the specification explicitly discloses that the drawings may not be to scale and “should not be considered as limiting the scope” (see Paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 44, lines 1-2 recite “wherein each segment of the plurality of radially offset segments include a linear portion circumferentially positioned adjacent to a curved portion”, which is not supported by the originally filed specification since only curved portions are depicted in the radially offset segments (see at least Figure 7B, wherein the segments, 326, as shown to be curved about their entirety). Thus, the limitation “wherein each segment of the plurality of radially offset segments include a linear portion circumferentially positioned adjacent to a curved portion” presents new matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 10-11, 30, 32, 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitehill (US 2781047).
Regarding claim 1, Whitehill discloses a hair pod (Figures 1-9), comprising:
a cap (12) having a central opening (inner diameter of circular rib, 49, as best shown in Figure 3; where opening is defined by Oxford Languages as “a gap”) and a shield (42 + 41 + 43) arranged around the central opening (refer to Figure 3), the shield having a first portion (42) extending radially outward from the central opening (refer to Figures 1 and 3) and a second portion (41 + 43) extending substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis (not labeled, but is an axis passing vertically through a center of 12 with respect to Figure 3) of the central opening such that the first and second portions define an entrapment area (referring to Figure 3, a void/volume is defined by the top wall, 42 and cylindrical wall 41 of the cap, thereby defining an entrapment area);
a base (10) having an annular collar (25 + 30) with an irregular shaped central opening (26 + 27 + 32, best shown in Figures 3 and 4; referring to Figure 3, the central opening has a stepped configuration from bottom to top, defined by a larger diameter at opening 32, then reduced diameter at 26, then finally a larger diameter at 27, thereby providing an irregular/non-constant sized central opening) therein and a flange (14 + 16 +21, Figure 1) extending radially (refer to Figures 1 and 3) from a mid-portion (referring to referring to Figure 3, the flange 14 is spaced apart from both a bottom terminal surface of the collar and a top terminal surface, thereby providing the flange to be disposed at a mid-portion/portion located between the ends) of the annular collar, the flange configured to mate with the shield (see Figures 3 and 7-9) such that the base and the cap enclose the entrapment area and such that the central opening in the cap is aligned with the central opening in the base (refer to Figure 3).
Regarding claim 4, Whitehill discloses the hair pod of claim 1, wherein the cap includes a cylindrical housing (49) defining the central opening, the cylindrical housing extending into the entrapment area (best shown in Figure 3).
Regarding claim 8, Whitehill discloses the hair pod of claim 1, wherein the shield is configured to extend around (referring to Figure 3, the shield extends around an inner diameter of portion 16 of the flange) and frictionally engage (refer to Figure 3, wherein portion 43 of the first side/exterior side of the shield is depicted as being in contact with a groove disposed in portion 21 of the second flange portion and wherein the shield and cap are rotatably coupled to one another as described in Column 2, lines 18-21, thereby providing a frictional engagement; additionally refer to Column 4, lines 17-22, “The maximum diameter of the shell to the edge of the flange 43 is approximately equal to the diameter of the area defined by the rib 16 and the flanged end of the shell is designed to position within the rib against the top side of the base 14 when the units 10 and 12 are assembled for use”, i.e. the outer diameter of the cap is substantially the same as that of the inner diameter of the flange, thereby providing the two to be frictionally engaged during a rotational motion) an outer surface (exterior surface) of the flange (portion 16 or the groove of portion 21).
Regarding claim 10, Whitehill discloses the hair pod of claim 1, wherein the irregular shaped central opening in the base includes a plurality of adjoining segments (referring to Figure 3, each of the stepped diameters define an individual segment, these segments being next to one another/adjoining one another).
Regarding claim 11, Whitehill discloses the hair pod of claim 1, wherein the plurality of adjoining segments form a circumference of the irregular shaped central opening (the opening is bound by the segments, as best shown in Figure 3; thus, the segments define the circumference/outer boundary of the central opening).
Regarding claim 30, Whitehill discloses the hair pod of claim 1, wherein the central opening is configured to receive an end of a hair curling apparatus (the limitation “wherein the central opening is configured to receive an end of a hair curling apparatus” is interpreted as an intended use/functional limitation; that is, the central opening defines a void, that is fully capable of, without modification, receiving a portion of a hair curling apparatus if one such apparatus was provided. It is noted that in the instant application, the central openings accept a hair curling apparatus when the cap and the base are separated from one another. Thus, Whitehill’s hair pod may similarly have the cap and base separated from one another such that a hair curling apparatus of some shape may be inserted into the central opening).
Regarding claim 32, Whitehill discloses the hair pod of claim 1, wherein the shield comprises a first side (left half side with respect to Figure 3) including the central opening (referring to Figure 3, approximately ½ of the central opening is disposed on a right side/first side of the shield), and a second side (right half with respect to Figure 3) opposite the first side (left and right are opposites) of the shield and facing the entrapment area (refer to Figure 3), and the flange includes a first side (top side with respect to Figure 3) facing the entrapment area (see Figure 3), a second side (bottom side with respect to Figure 3) opposite the first side of the flange (refer to Figure 3), a first flange portion (14) extending from the annular collar (best shown in Figures 1 and 3), and a second flange (16 and/or 21) portion extending from the first flange portion (refer to Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 34, Whitehill disclose the hair pod of claim 32, wherein the second portion (41 + 43) of the shield is received within the second flange portion (21 + 16; refer to Figure 3) such that the first side of the shield frictionally engages the first side of the flange (refer to Figure 3, wherein portion 43 of the first side/exterior side of the shield is depicted as being in contact with a groove disposed in portion 21 of the second flange portion and wherein the shield and cap are rotatably coupled to one another as described in Column 2, lines 18-21, thereby providing a frictional engagement; additionally refer to Column 4, lines 17-22, “The maximum diameter of the shell to the edge of the flange 43 is approximately equal to the diameter of the area defined by the rib 16 and the flanged end of the shell is designed to position within the rib against the top side of the base 14 when the units 10 and 12 are assembled for use”, i.e. the outer diameter of the cap is substantially the same as that of the inner diameter of the flange, thereby providing the two to be frictionally engaged during a rotational motion).
Regarding claim 35, Whitehill discloses the hair pod of claim 32, wherein the second flange portion is reversibly configurable with respect to a rotational configuration of a hair curler configured to receive the hair pod thereon (the limitation “reversibly configurable with respect to a rotational configuration of a hair curler configured to receive the hair pod thereon” is interpreted as an intended use limitation; that is, the hair pod comprises an opening in both the base and the cap, these openings being fully capable of receiving some portion of a hair curler therein. The hair pod of Whitehill is reversible, as either the base or the cap can be disposed on either side of a hair curler; it is noted that in the instant application, in order to accept a hair curler, the cap and the base are separated from one another).
Regarding claim 36, Whitehall discloses a hair curling apparatus (Figures 1-9), comprising:
a cap (12) releasably mateable (“separation of the two parts”, refer to Column 2, line 10) with a base (10) to form an entrapment area therein (referring to Figure 3, a void/volume is defined by the top wall, 42 and cylindrical wall 41 of the cap, thereby defining an entrapment area) for curling hair (“a hair curling device”, refer to Column 1, line 15), the cap including a shield (42 + 41 + 43) defining the entrapment area and a cylindrical sleeve (48 + 49) extending from the shield and disposed within the entrapment area (best shown in Figure 3), the cylindrical sleeve having a first end (top end with respect to Figure 3) including a central opening (inner diameter of circular rib, 49, as best shown in Figure 3; where opening is defined by Oxford Languages as “a gap”) and a second end (bottom end of 48 with respect to Figure 3) received within an interior (27) of an annular collar (25 + 21) of the base (see Figure 3), the annular collar positioned centrally (refer to Figures 1 and 3 wherein the collar is depicted as being substantially centered about the flange) within a flange (14 + 16) of the base and including a plurality of radially offset segments extending circumferentially around the annular collar (referring to Figure 1, the radially offset segments are disposed about an outside circumference of the collar, similar to that of the instant application) and configured to slidably engage a shaft of a hair curler (the limitation “configured to slidably engage a shaft of a hair curler” is interpreted as an intended use limitation; that is, Whitehall discloses a plurality of radially offset segments that have a gap disposed therein, as best shown in Figure 3, this gap is fully capable of being used to slidably engage a shaft of a hair curler, if one such hair curler is supplied).
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 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehill in view of Sumner (US6363946).
Regarding claim 29, Whitehill discloses the hair pod of claim 4, as applied above. Whitehill does not disclose wherein the cylindrical housing comprises a gasket positioned on an inner wall of the cylindrical housing; however, the use of gaskets between mating cylindrical parts of a hair pod is known in the art as demonstrated by Sumner.
Sumner discloses a hair pod (400, Figure 4) comprising a cap (130) and a base (120) wherein the cap comprises a cylindrical housing (hollow interior of cylindrical portion of 130 comprising grooves 420 disposed therein) and the base comprises a collar (cylindrical portion of 120 that comprises o-rings 410 disposed thereabout) that fits within an opening of the cylindrical housing (“inner rod 120 to be fixed in longitudinal position relative to outer rod 130”, refer to Column 6, lines 64-65) and a gasket (410) is disposed at the mating portion between the two. Where providing gaskets in an engaging portion between the cap and base prevents any hair solutions from passing that area, thereby preventing the solution from entering the central opening (refer to Column 6, lines 53-58) and/or to account for any tolerance between the parts to ensure they are substantially aligned longitudinally. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitehill to include a gasket between the collar of the base and the cylindrical housing of the cap, as taught by Sumner, since such a modification would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of engaging two mating components of a hair pod.
The combination does not disclose that the gasket is on an inner wall of the cylindrical housing; rather, the combination discloses that the gasket to be on an outer wall of the collar, for engagement with an inner wall of the cylindrical housing. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the hair pod of the combination of Whitehill and Sumner such that the gasket is disposed on an inner wall of the cylindrical housing for engagement with an outer surface of the collar, instead of being disposed on an exterior of the collar for engagement with an interior of the cylindrical housing, since such a modification would have involved rearranging of parts and it has been held that rearranging of parts is within the level of ordinary skill.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehill in view of Moon et al. (KR20170129458A).
Regarding claim 31, Whitehill discloses the hair pod of claim 1, as applied above does not disclose wherein the first portion of the shield has a concave cross-sectional profile relative to the longitudinal axis of the central opening. Rather, Whitehill discloses the first portion to have an angular cross-section, as best shown in Figure 3.
Moon discloses a similar hair pod (Figures 1-2) comprising a shield (10) having a central opening (referring to Figure 1, the central opening is disposed in cylindrical body 12), and a base (20), wherein the shield couples to the base to define an entrapment area therebetween (S, Figure 2), where the shield has a first portion (portion of 13 coupled to 12, refer to Figure 1) and a second portion (portion of 13 coupled to 11, refer to Figure 1), and wherein the first potion has a concave cross-sectional profile (refer to Figures 1 and 2) relative to the longitudinal axis of the central opening (axis extending through a center of cylinder 12, lengthwise). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Whitehill’s hair pod such that the first portion of the shield has a concave cross-sectional profile relative to the longitudinal axis of the central opening, as taught by Moon, since such a modification would have involved a change in shape of a component of an invention, and it has been held that a change in shape is within the level of one of ordinary skill.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whitehill.
Regarding claim 33, Whitehill discloses the hair pod of claim 32, as applied above. Whitehill discloses the claimed invention except for the teaching of the first flange portion includes a rigid material and the second flange portion includes a flexible material. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the first flange portion includes a rigid material and the second flange portion includes a flexible material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim 36 and 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon et al. (KR20170129458A) in view of Gregory (US2430766).
Regarding claim 36, Moon discloses a hair curling apparatus (Figures 1-2), comprising:
a cap (10) releasably mateable (“the first main body 10 and the second main body 20 are separated from each other”, refer to the last paragraph of Page 3) with a base (20) to form an entrapment area therein (S) for curling hair (“to shape hair with perfect waves”, refer to the Abstract), the cap including a shield (13 OR 13 + 12) defining the entrapment area and a cylindrical sleeve (12 OR 12 and/or 12a) extending from the shield and disposed within the entrapment area (refer to Figure 2), the cylindrical sleeve having a first end (referring to Figure 1, the first end is the left end) and a second end (referring to Figure 1, the second end is the right end) received within an interior (refer to Figure 2) of an annular collar (22 OR 22 + 23) of the base, the annular collar positioned centrally within a flange (21 OR 23 or 23 + 21) of the base and including a plurality of radially offset segments (23; segments 23 are offset radially since they are spaced apart from a center of the collar; OR 23 + arcuate surface of 21 disposed between adjacent segments 23 OR (4) segments extending around, where around is defined by Oxford Languages as situated on all sides, an inner diameter of the collar, refer to annotated Moon Figure 1, below) extending circumferentially around (referring to Figure 2, the segments are disposed all about the circumference of the collar) the annular collar and configured to slidably engage a shaft of a hair curler (the limitation “configured to slidably engage a shaft of a hair curler” is interpreted as a functional limitation; that is, Moon provides a plurality of segments, wherein a pair of adjacent segments define a space therebetween that is fully capable of, without modification, engaging a shaft of a hair curler if one such hair curler was provided).
PNG
media_image2.png
619
1019
media_image2.png
Greyscale
While Moon appears to disclose an opening through at least a portion of the cylindrical sleeve, as best shown in Figure 1, Moon is silent to the sleeve including a central opening at a first end thereof.
Gregory discloses a similar hair pod (Figures 1-7), comprising a cap (12) and a base (10), wherein the cap comprises a cylindrical sleeve (14) having a first end (referring to Figure 2, the first end is the left end) and a second end (referring to Figure 2, the second end is the right end), wherein the first end comprises a central opening (refer to Figure 2 wherein the cylindrical sleeve comprises a through hole such that the opening extends an entirety of the cylindrical sleeve). Where providing the cylindrical sleeve with a central opening throughout the length thereof provides less material of construction. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s hair pod such that the sleeve comprises a through hole, as taught by Gregory, such that the first end includes a central opening at a first end thereof, since such a modification provides the advantage of requiring less material to construct the sleeve.
Alternatively, regarding claim 36, Moon discloses a hair curling apparatus (Figures 1-2), comprising:
a cap (10) releasably mateable (“the first main body 10 and the second main body 20 are separated from each other”, refer to the last paragraph of Page 3) with a base (20) to form an entrapment area therein (S) for curling hair (“to shape hair with perfect waves”, refer to the Abstract), the cap including a shield (13) defining the entrapment area and a cylindrical sleeve (12, 12a) extending from the shield and disposed within the entrapment area (refer to Figure 2), the cylindrical sleeve having a first end (referring to Figure 1, the first end is the left end) and a second end (referring to Figure 1, the second end is the right end) received within an interior (refer to Figure 2) of an annular collar (22 + 23) of the base, the annular collar positioned centrally within a flange (21) of the base and including a plurality of radially offset segments (23; segments 23 are offset radially since they are spaced apart from a center of the collar OR 23 + arcuate surface of 21 disposed between adjacent segments 23) extending circumferentially around (referring to Figure 2, the segments are disposed all about the circumference of the collar) the annular collar and configured to slidably engage a shaft of a hair curler (the limitation “configured to slidably engage a shaft of a hair curler” is interpreted as a functional limitation; that is, Moon provides a plurality of segments, wherein a pair of adjacent segments define a space therebetween that is fully capable of, without modification, engaging a shaft of a hair curler if one such hair curler was provided).
While Moon appears to disclose an opening through at least a portion of the cylindrical sleeve, as best shown in Figure 1, Moon is silent to the sleeve including a central opening at a first end thereof.
Gregory discloses a similar hair pod (Figures 1-7), comprising a cap (10) and a base (12), wherein the cap comprises a cylindrical sleeve (11) having a first end (referring to Figure 2, the first end is the right end) and a second end (referring to Figure 2, the second end is the left end), wherein the first end comprises a central opening (refer to Figure 2 wherein the cylindrical sleeve comprises a through hole such that the opening extends an entirety of the cylindrical sleeve). Where providing the cylindrical sleeve with a central opening throughout the length thereof provides less material of construction. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Moon’s hair pod such that the sleeve comprises a through hole, as taught by Gregory, such that the first end includes a central opening at a first end thereof, since such a modification provides the advantage of requiring less material to construct the sleeve.
Regarding claim 43, the combination of Moon and Gregory disclose the hair curling apparatus of claim 36, as applied above. Moon further discloses wherein the plurality of radial offset segments (refer to cropped and annotated Moon Figure 1 below) of the annular collar protrude below the flange (23). Since Moon does not show the top side of the collar, Moon does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of radially offset segments protrude above the flange; however, it would be obvious to have the segments extend an entire length of the collar, in order to ensure a proper fit of the mating component/cylindrical sleeve of the cover, which is depicted in Moon Figure 1 as having a constant diameter. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the hair curling apparatus of the combination of Moon and Gregory such that the plurality of radial offset segments extend the entire length of the collar, since such a modification would have involved choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, those solutions being the radial offset segments extend less than the height of the collar, greater than the height of the collar, or exactly the height of the collar, with a reasonable expectation of success of mating two components; additionally, such a modification provides the advantage of ensuring proper alignment of the cap with the base. Modifying the collar to have the plurality of radially offset segments to extend through an entirety of the collar provides the configuration wherein the radial offset segments extend above a lower periphery of portion 23 of the flange (it’s noted that the claim does not require that the plurality of radially offset segments extend above an entirety of the flange).
PNG
media_image3.png
911
1500
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Moon and Gregory discloses the hair curling apparatus of 36, as applied above. Moon further discloses wherein each segment (23 + arcuate surface of 21 disposed between adjacent segments 23) of the plurality of radially offset segments include a linear portion (23) circumferentially positioned adjacent to a curved portion.
PNG
media_image4.png
1014
1360
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claims 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Moon and Gregory as applied to claim 36 above, and further in view of
Barradas (US5033487).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Moon and Gregory discloses the hair curling apparatus of claim 36, as applied above. Moon further discloses wherein the cap includes a concave first portion (refer to rotated and annotated Moon Figure 2, below) and a second portion (refer to rotated and annotated Moon Figure 2, below) positioned distally to (referring to the rotated and annotated Moon Figure 2, below, the proximal direction is upward and the distal direction is downward) the concave first portion.
PNG
media_image5.png
791
1117
media_image5.png
Greyscale
While the second portion is depicted as tending toward a linear, vertical direction at distal ends thereof, no sideview is provided and therefore the combination is silent regarding the second portion being linear and therefore the combination also does not disclose that the linear second portion extends parallel to the cylindrical sleeve.
Barradas discloses a similar hair pod (Figures 1-25) comprising a cap (16, Figures 1-6; 56, Figure 20) and a base (12, Figures 1-6; 72, Figure 20), wherein the cap has different configurations including one embodiment wherein the first portion (referring to Figures 3-4, the first portion is that horizontal portion of the cap) and second portions (referring to Figures 3-4, the second portions are those vertical portions of the cap) of the cap is substantially angular with respect to one another (best shown in Figures 1-6), or alternatively wherein the cap comprising a concave first portion (58), and a second linear portion (not labeled, refer to annotated Barradas, Figure 20, below), thereby demonstrating that the shape of the cap can be changed as a matter of design choice based on a user’s preferences. Therefore it would have been an obvious matter of design choice, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair pod of the combination of Moon and Gregory such that the second portion is linear, as taught by Barradas, since such a modification would have involved a change in shape and it has been held that a change in shape is within the level of ordinary skill in order to meet a user’s preferences. Modifying the hair pod of the combination of Moon and Gregory such that the second portion is linear provides the configuration wherein the second portion is parallel to the cylindrical sleeve.
PNG
media_image6.png
466
720
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Moon, Gregory, and Barradas discloses the hair curling apparatus of claim 38, as applied above. Moon further discloses wherein a distal end of the linear second portion of the cap includes a plurality of protrusions and recessions extending there along forming a scalloped edge of the linear second portion (refer to annotated Moon Figure 2, below).
PNG
media_image7.png
685
912
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Moon and Gregory and further in view of Solomon (US2713864).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Moon and Gregory disclose the hair curling apparatus of claim 36, as applied above. The combination does not disclose wherein the flange includes a first rigid portion adjacent to the annular collar and a second flexible portion adjacent to the first rigid portion, the second flexible portion being reversible first and second flange positions.
Solomon discloses a similar hair curling apparatus (Figures 1-3), comprising a base (20) and a cap (12), wherein the base comprises a flange (20, Figure 3) disposed about a collar (13’) such that one portion of the flange that is adjacent (where adjacent is defined as “in close proximity” by Merriam-Webster) to the collar is flexible (refer to Figure 3 wherein the flange is shown to pivot about a flexible area, while substantially maintaining a shape of the remaining length of the flange, thereby demonstrating that the portion of the flange that pivots is more flexible than the remaining length of the flange, thereby providing a first portion that is flexible, and another portion that is adjacent/in close proximity to the flexible portion is rigid, comparatively), the flexible portion permitting the flange to reverse between a first position (dashed line position of Figure 3) and a second position (solid line position of Figure 3) in order to adjust to different scalp shapes and sizes during use. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair curling apparatus of the combination of Moon and Gregory such that the flange includes a first rigid portion adjacent to the annular collar and a second flexible portion adjacent to the first rigid portion, the second flexible portion being reversible first and second flange positions, since such a modification provides the advantage of permitting the hair curling apparatus to adjust to different sizes and shapes of scalps while maintaining close proximity to the user’s scalp during use.
Regarding claim 41, the combination of Moon, Gregory, and Solomon discloses the hair curling apparatus of claim 40, wherein the first flange position corresponds to a first rotational orientation of a shaft of the hair curler and the second flange position corresponds to a second rotational orientation of the shaft of the hair curler opposite the first rotational orientation (the limitation “wherein the first flange position corresponds to a first rotational orientation of a shaft of the hair curler and the second flange position corresponds to a second rotational orientation of the shaft of the hair curler opposite the first rotational orientation” is interpreted as an intended use limitation, that is, the hair curling apparatus of the combination of Moon, Gregory, and Solomon discloses the flange being able to transition between a first and second position, where either of these first and second positions may be used in such a way so as to correspond to a first rotational orientation of a shaft of the hair curler and the second flange position corresponds to a second rotational orientation of the shaft of the hair curler opposite the first rotational orientation).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of Moon, Gregory, and Solomon discloses the hair curling apparatus of claim 40, wherein the first flange position is configured to curl hair within the entrapment area in a clockwise rotational direction and the second flange position is configured to curl hair within the entrapment area in a counter-clockwise rotational direction (the limitation “wherein the first flange position is configured to curl hair within the entrapment area in a clockwise rotational direction and the second flange position is configured to curl hair within the entrapment area in a counter-clockwise rotational direction” is interpreted as an intended use limitation; that is, the combination discloses the flange being able to transition between a first and second position, where either of these positions may be used in such a way so as to curl hair within the entrapment area in a clockwise rotational direction and the second flange position is configured to curl hair within the entrapment area in a counter-clockwise rotational direction).
Response to Arguments
Specification
Applicant’s amendments to the specification overcome all previous specification objections; all previous specification objections are withdrawn.
35 USC 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments to the claims overcome all previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections; all previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections are withdrawn.
35 USC 102
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 8, and 10-11 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.
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 SARAH WOODHOUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-5635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm.
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, EDELMIRA BOSQUES can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/SARAH WOODHOUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights