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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 04/23/2026. As directed by the amendment, no claims were canceled, claims 1-8 and 11-17 were amended, and claims 19-20 were newly added. Thus, claims 1-20 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an air guide part” of claim 1 line 3
Corresponding structure disclosed as “Referring to FIG. 5, the air guide part 30 includes a plurality of air baffles 31 arranged at intervals” in specification page 8, lines 5-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-5, 7-9, 11-14, and 16-18 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.
Regarding claim 11 line 2, the term “a direction far away” is unclear as to if the term is the same or different than “a direction far away” of claim 1 line 8.
Regarding claim 4 line 2 and claim 13 line 2, the terms “the end surface” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5 lines 6-7 and claim 14 line 6-7, the term “outlets of same air outlet ducts” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 7 and 16 line 3, the term “the inside” is indefinite because it lacks proper antecedent basis.
Any remaining claims are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 10-11, 13-14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truchet et al. (US 5,671,547; hereinafter “Truchet”) in view of Dancheva et al. (US 2025/0072576; hereinafter “Dancheva”).
Regarding claim 1, Truchet discloses a massage comb head (see Truchet accessory 9 as in Fig. 3a-3b embodiment), comprising:
a comb housing provided with an air outlet (see Truchet body of accessory 9 provided on end 8, the air outlet).
Truchet is silent as to an air guide part installed in the comb housing, the air guide part being provided with an air outlet end provided towards the air outlet. However, Dancheva teaches an air guide part installed in the comb housing (see Dancheva internal vanes 44), the air guide part being provided with an air outlet end provided towards the air outlet (see Dancheva air outlets between vanes 44; [0177] airflow in the attachment 10 passes through passageway 19 and is turned/directed through outlets between vanes 44). 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 inside of the comb housing of Truchet with the addition of an air guide part as taught by Dancheva so as to improve airflow, directing to the air outlets in a linear flow.
Modified Truchet discloses a comb teeth part, comprising a soft support (see Truchet wall 30; Col 4 lines 20-22 wall 30 is flexible, made of an elastomer), the soft support being arranged at the air outlet (see Truchet wall 30 is the outlet end of accessory 9, arranged in the end 8),
wherein the soft support is configured to deform towards the air outlet end by its own elasticity and be limited and supported by the air outlet end (see Truchet Fig. 3b wall 30 made to deform on impact by the user, wherein vanes 44 modified into the body of accessory 9 are placed in a way to be the stopping ends of the deforming wall 30. And Truchet Col 4 lines 20-22 wall 30 is flexible, made of an elastomer, which is inherently able to reform to original shape post-force) and elastically recover its deformation in a direction away from the air outlet end (see Truchet Fig. 3a wall 30 returning to the convex shape at rest; as stated above elastomer is inherently able to reform to original shape post-force); and
the air outlet end of the air guide part has a dual function of guiding airflow to the air outlet and limiting and supporting the deformation of the soft support (see modified Truchet including vanes 44 directs air flow, and vanes 44 are within accessory 9 walls 21 behind the wall 30, and thus would limit the push-back from the elastomeric wall 30).
Regarding claim 2, modified Truchet discloses the soft support bulges in a direction away from the air outlet end (see Truchet Fig. 3a wall 30 is convex in a direction away from the interior of accessory 9), and a gap is formed between the soft support and the air outlet end for forming the deformation of the soft support (see Truchet Fig. 3a wall 30 is convex, and interior of accessory 9 is modified by Dancheva to include vanes 44, wherein between the wall 30 and vanes 44 there would be a gap).
Regarding claim 4, modified Truchet discloses the air guide part comprises a plurality of air baffles arranged at intervals (see Dancheva internal vanes 44 modified into the body of Truchet’s accessory 9. See Dancheva Fig. 1B for vanes 44 arranged at intervals, as would be modified in), the end surface of each air baffle towards the air outlet is the air outlet end (see Dancheva vane 44 end closest to the end 8 of Truchet), and a plurality of the air outlet ends collectively limit and support the soft support (see Truchet Fig. 3b wall 30 made to deform on impact by the user, wherein vanes 44 modified into the body of accessory 9 are placed in a way to be the stopping ends of the deforming wall 30).
Regarding claim 5, modified Truchet discloses the plurality of air baffles are arranged at intervals along a longitudinal direction (see Dancheva Fig. 1B vanes 44 arrangement), and air outlet ducts are formed between each adjacent two air baffles (see Dancheva Fig. 1B space between the vanes 44; specifically between two adjacent vanes); and the soft support is provided with a plurality of air outlet holes arranged at intervals in a longitudinal and lateral direction (see Truchet wall 30 spans laterally and longitudinally; Col. 4 lines 40-41 “the flexible wall 30 has openings through which air passes”), wherein each air outlet hole in the longitudinal direction respectively corresponds to an outlet of each air outlet duct (see Truchet all openings through which air passes in wall 30 correspond to the air output through the space between the vanes 44 of Dancheva); and the plurality of air outlet holes in the lateral direction all correspond to the outlets of the same air outlet ducts (see Truchet all openings through which air passes in wall 30 correspond to the air output through the space between the vanes 44 of Dancheva).
Regarding claim 7, modified Truchet discloses the massage comb head further comprises a ring mounting part (see Truchet stiff circular frame 31), an outside of the ring mounting part is arranged around the air outlet (see Truchet frame 31 within end 8), and the inside of the ring mounting part surrounds the soft support (see Truchet wall 30 is held by circular frame 31).
Regarding claim 8, modified Truchet discloses the ring mounting part comprises an outer ring connecting part (see Truchet wall 21) and an inner ring connecting part (see Truchet circular frame 31), the outer ring connecting part and the inner ring connecting part are installed in an involution manner, and the outer ring connecting part and/or the inner ring connecting part are fixed to the comb housing (see Truchet wall 21 fixed as the housing of accessory 9); and an edge of the soft support protrudes outward and is provided with a connecting portion (see Truchet plurality of spokes 32), and the connecting portion is clamped between the outer ring connecting part and the inner ring connecting part (see Truchet Fig. 3a spoke 32 connecting circular frame 31 and wall 21; Col. 4 lines 22-27).
Regarding claim 10, Truchet discloses an electrical massage comb (see Truchet hair dryer appliance 1), comprising a host for providing airflow (see Truchet handle 2 and body 3; attached to an electrical cord in Fig. 1; powering motor 6 to provide air flow pulling in via inlet grid 4) and the massage comb head according to claim 1 (see rejection to claim 1 via modified Truchet above), and the massage comb head is installed on the host (see Truchet accessory 9 removably attached to end 8 of body 3).
Regarding claim 11, modified Truchet discloses the soft support bulges in a direction away from the air outlet end (see Truchet Fig. 3a wall 30 is convex in a direction away from the interior of accessory 9), and a gap is formed between the soft support and the air outlet end for forming the deformation of the soft support (see Truchet Fig. 3a wall 30 is convex, and interior of accessory 9 is modified by Dancheva to include vanes 44, wherein between the wall 30 and vanes 44 there would be a gap).
Regarding claim 13, modified Truchet discloses the air guide part comprises a plurality of air baffles arranged at intervals (see Dancheva internal vanes 44 modified into the body of Truchet’s accessory 9. See Dancheva Fig. 1B for vanes 44 arranged at intervals, as would be modified in), the end surface of each air baffle towards the air outlet is the air outlet end (see Dancheva vane 44 end closest to the end 8 of Truchet), and a plurality of the air outlet ends collectively limit and support the soft support (see Truchet Fig. 3b wall 30 made to deform on impact by the user, wherein vanes 44 modified into the body of accessory 9 are placed in a way to be the stopping ends of the deforming wall 30).
Regarding claim 14, modified Truchet discloses the plurality of air baffles are arranged at intervals along a longitudinal direction (see Dancheva Fig. 1B vanes 44 arrangement), and air outlet ducts are formed between each adjacent two air baffles (see Dancheva Fig. 1B space between the vanes 44; specifically between two adjacent vanes); and the soft support is provided with a plurality of air outlet holes arranged at intervals in a longitudinal and lateral direction (see Truchet wall 30 spans laterally and longitudinally; Col. 4 lines 40-41 “the flexible wall 30 has openings through which air passes”), wherein each air outlet hole in the longitudinal direction respectively corresponds to an outlet of each air outlet duct (see Truchet all openings through which air passes in wall 30 correspond to the air output through the space between the vanes 44 of Dancheva); and the plurality of air outlet holes in the lateral direction all correspond to outlets of same air outlet ducts (see Truchet all openings through which air passes in wall 30 correspond to the air output through the space between the vanes 44 of Dancheva).
Regarding claim 16, modified Truchet discloses the massage comb head further comprises a ring mounting part (see Truchet stiff circular frame 31), an outside of the ring mounting part is arranged around the air outlet (see Truchet frame 31 within end 8), and the inside of the ring mounting part surrounds the soft support (see Truchet wall 30 is held by circular frame 31).
Regarding claim 17, modified Truchet discloses the ring mounting part comprises an outer ring connecting part (see Truchet wall 21) and an inner ring connecting part (see Truchet circular frame 31), the outer ring connecting part and the inner ring connecting part are installed in an involution manner, and the outer ring connecting part and/or the inner ring connecting part are fixed to the comb housing (see Truchet wall 21 fixed as the housing of accessory 9); and an edge of the soft support protrudes outward and is provided with a connecting portion (see Truchet plurality of spokes 32), and the connecting portion is clamped between the outer ring connecting part and the inner ring connecting part (see Truchet Fig. 3a spoke 32 connecting circular frame 31 and wall 21; Col. 4 lines 22-27).
Regarding claim 20, modified Truchet discloses the massage comb head comprises a ring mounting part (see Truchet stiff circular frame 31), the ring mounting part comprises an outer ring connecting part (see Truchet wall 21) and an inner ring connecting part (see Truchet circular frame 31), and a connecting portion of the soft support (see Truchet plurality of spokes 32 on edge of wall 30) is clamped between the outer ring connecting part and the inner ring connecting part (see Truchet Fig. 3a spoke 32 connecting circular frame 31 and wall 21; Col. 4 lines 22-27).
Claims 3 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truchet in view of Dancheva as applied to claims 2 and 11 respectively above, and further in view of Sze (US 2018/0103748), as best understood.
Regarding claim 3, modified Truchet is silent as to the soft support is silica gel, and the softness of the silica gel is defined by Shore hardness. However, Sze teaches the soft support is silica gel (see Sze brush 2 with finishing layer 22 attaching the bristles 22; finishing layer 22 made of a second material [Claim 4] selected from a group consisting of silicone), and the softness of the silica gel is defined by Shore hardness (see Sze material silicone is measurable on the Shore hardness scale). 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 flexible material for the soft support of modified Truchet with the silica material as taught by Sze as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of soft material for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. act as a soft, flexible support on the comb head.
Regarding claim 12, modified Truchet is silent as to the soft support is silica gel, and the softness of the silica gel is defined by Shore hardness. However, Sze teaches the soft support is silica gel (see Sze brush 2 with finishing layer 22 attaching the bristles 22; finishing layer 22 made of a second material [Claim 4] selected from a group consisting of silicone), and the softness of the silica gel is defined by Shore hardness (see Sze material silicone is measurable on the Shore hardness scale). 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 flexible material for the soft support of modified Truchet with the silica material as taught by Sze as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of soft material for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. act as a soft, flexible support on the comb head.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truchet in view of Dancheva as applied to claim 1 and 10 respectively above, and further in view of Sze.
Regarding claim 6, modified Truchet discloses the comb teeth part further comprises comb teeth (see Truchet elements 11, 12; such as fingers 12 or stiff bristles 11), the soft support comprises an inner side towards an inside of the comb housing and an outer side facing away from the inner side (see Truchet outside and inside of wall 30), and the soft support is provided with via holes that run through the inner side and outer side (see Truchet Col. 4 lines 40-41 “the flexible wall 30 has openings through which air passes”).
Modified Truchet is silent as to wherein the comb teeth pass through the via holes, and the comb teeth are provided with a first end part connected to the inner side and a second end part connected to the outer side. However, Sze teaches the comb teeth pass through the via holes (see Sze Fig. 2 bristles 16 installed in recesses 26 of substrate layer 18), and the comb teeth are provided with a first end part connected to the inner side (see Sze part of bristle 16 adapted to connect to the top surface of substrate 18, or the top surface of recess 26 via locking pin 30) and a second end part connected to the outer side (see Sze part of bristle 16 adapted to connect to the bottom surface of substrate 18, or the bottom surface of recess 26 via locking pin 30). 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 attachment of the comb teeth to the soft support of modified Truchet with the method of attachment of comb teeth as taught by Sze as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of attachment method for the bristles to the comb head for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. retain the comb teeth on the comb head.
Regarding claim 15, modified Truchet discloses the comb teeth part further comprises comb teeth (see Truchet elements 11, 12; such as fingers 12 or stiff bristles 11), the soft support comprises an inner side towards an inside of the comb housing and an outer side facing away from the inner side (see Truchet outside and inside of wall 30), and the soft support is provided with via holes that run through the inner side and outer side (see Truchet Col. 4 lines 40-41 “the flexible wall 30 has openings through which air passes”).
Modified Truchet is silent as to wherein the comb teeth pass through the via holes, and the comb teeth are provided with a first end part connected to the inner side and a second end part connected to the outer side. However, Sze teaches the comb teeth pass through the via holes (see Sze Fig. 2 bristles 16 installed in recesses 26 of substrate layer 18), and the comb teeth are provided with a first end part connected to the inner side (see Sze part of bristle 16 adapted to connect to the top surface of substrate 18, or the top surface of recess 26 via locking pin 30) and a second end part connected to the outer side (see Sze part of bristle 16 adapted to connect to the bottom surface of substrate 18, or the bottom surface of recess 26 via locking pin 30). 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 attachment of the comb teeth to the soft support of modified Truchet with the method of attachment of comb teeth as taught by Sze as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of attachment method for the bristles to the comb head for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. retain the comb teeth on the comb head.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truchet in view of Dancheva as applied to claim 8 and 17 respectively above, and further in view of Yang (US 2017/0231380).
Regarding claim 9, modified Truchet discloses the connecting portion is provided with a through hole (see Truchet airflow is possible between spokes 32, implying a through hole; Col. 4 lines 24-27 “air can flow around said wall 30, between the frame 31 and the wall 21, between the spokes 32”), but is silent as to one side of the outer ring connecting part towards the inside of the comb housing is provided with a clip, the inner ring connecting part is provided with a slot, and the clip is connected to the slot through the through hole in a buckling manner.
However, Yang teaches the connecting portion is provided with a through hole (see Yang through hole for accepting latching 51 or embedding 52 structures described below), one side of the outer ring connecting part towards the inside of the comb housing is provided with a clip (see Yang cover frame comprising both latching pillar 51 and embedding slot 52), the inner ring connecting part is provided with a slot (see Yang end 42 comprising engaging hole 43 and embedding plate 45, corresponding to their respective buckle in 51 or 52), and the clip is connected to the slot through the through hole in a buckling manner (see Yang [0024] latching pillar 51 clamps to engaging holes 43, and embedding slot 52 buckles to engaging hole 43). 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 connecting portion of modified Truchet with the buckling connecting portion as taught by Yang as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of connecting part fastening structure for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. connect the outer and inner ring connecting parts.
Regarding claim 18, modified Truchet discloses the connecting portion is provided with a through hole (see Truchet airflow is possible between spokes 32, implying a through hole; Col. 4 lines 24-27 “air can flow around said wall 30, between the frame 31 and the wall 21, between the spokes 32”), but is silent as to one side of the outer ring connecting part towards the inside of the comb housing is provided with a clip, the inner ring connecting part is provided with a slot, and the clip is connected to the slot through the through hole in a buckling manner.
However, Yang teaches the connecting portion is provided with a through hole (see Yang through hole for accepting latching 51 or embedding 52 structures described below), one side of the outer ring connecting part towards the inside of the comb housing is provided with a clip (see Yang cover frame comprising both latching pillar 51 and embedding slot 52), the inner ring connecting part is provided with a slot (see Yang end 42 comprising engaging hole 43 and embedding plate 45, corresponding to their respective buckle in 51 or 52), and the clip is connected to the slot through the through hole in a buckling manner (see Yang [0024] latching pillar 51 clamps to engaging holes 43, and embedding slot 52 buckles to engaging hole 43). 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 connecting portion of modified Truchet with the buckling connecting portion as taught by Yang as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of connecting part fastening structure for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. connect the outer and inner ring connecting parts.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Truchet in view of Dancheva as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sze and Wallenius (US 2,108,184).
Regarding claim 19, modified Truchet discloses the comb teeth part comprises comb teeth (see Truchet elements 11, 12; such as fingers 12 or stiff bristles 11). Modified Truchet is silent as to the comb teeth pass through via holes of the soft support, each comb teeth has a thin middle portion and thick two end portions, and the two end portions are respectively connected to an inner side and an outer side of the soft support. However, Sze teaches the comb teeth pass through via holes of the support (see Sze Fig. 2 bristles 16 installed in recesses 26 of substrate layer 18), and the two end portions are respectively connected to an inner side and an outer side of the soft support (see Sze part of bristle 16 adapted to connect to the top surface of substrate 18, or the top surface of recess 26 via locking pin 30; and part of bristle 16 adapted to connect to the bottom surface of substrate 18, or the bottom surface of recess 26 via locking pin 30). 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 attachment of the comb teeth to the soft support of modified Truchet with the method of attachment of comb teeth as taught by Sze as this would have been an obvious substitution for one known type of attachment method for the bristles to the comb head for another and would yield predictable results, i.e. retain the comb teeth on the comb head.
Modified Truchet discloses each comb teeth has a thin middle portion and thick end portions (see Sze bristles 16 with thin middle and distal tip comprising a ball, thicker than the middle of the bristle 16), but is silent as to thick two end portions, only the distal end of the comb teeth is thick. However, Wallenius teaches each comb teeth has a thin middle portion and thick end portion (see Wallenius teeth 9; Fig. 3 within the base is the thicker end, tapered up to a thinner middle and tip of teeth 9; wherein the proximal end is thick in Wallenius). 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 comb teeth of modified Truchet with the two thick end portions as taught by Wallenius since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on pages 7-8 of the remarks, that “Truchet does not disclose any structure that limits or supports the flexible wall 30 during deformation”. Applicant argues that the wall 30 is deformed by the fan 13 vibration within the invention of Truchet. However, Examiner notes that the structure that limits or supports the wall is taught by Truchet in view of Dancheva. Truchet is not solely relied upon to teach this limitation, and thus the argument is moot. Additionally, the wall 30 of Truchet is an elastomer, which by definition is able to resume its original shape when a deforming force is removed. When elements 11, 12 contact the scalp, the wall 30 made of an elastomer inherently deforms. Thus, the rejection still stands.
Applicant argues, on pages 8-9 of the remarks, that “Neither Truchet nor Dancheva discloses a soft support that deforms by its own elasticity under scalp pressure, or an air outlet end that limits and supports such elastic deformation”. However, Examiner disagrees that the wall 30 cannot deform in elasticity under scalp pressure, since the wall 30 is an elastomer as explained above. Additionally, the vanes 44 of Dancheva as modified into the housing of Truchet would stop the wall 30 from deformation once the wall 30 is elastically deforming into the housing of Truchet by a force. Thus, the rejection still stands.
Applicant argues, on page 9 of the remarks, that “Truchet's flexible wall 30 relies on fan stop for reset, while the amended claim 1's soft support resets autonomously by its own elasticity”. However, Examiner disagrees because wall 30 is an elastomer, which by definition is able to resume its original shape when a deforming force is removed. Whichever force is applied to the wall 30, whether is be vibratory fan forces or tactile scalp contact forces, the elastomeric properties of wall 30 would reset the material to an original shape. Thus, the rejection still stands.
Applicant argues, on pages 9-11 of the remarks, that “Truchet (col. 4, 11. 20-27, Figs. 3a-3b) discloses a rigid circular frame 31 that supports the flexible wall 30, but the frame 31 has no airflow guiding function”. However, Truchet is not relied upon to teach the air outlet end being argued in the remarks, making the argument moot. Thus, the rejection still stands.
Applicant argues, on pages 9-11 of the remarks, that “Dancheva (para. [0177], Fig. 1B) discloses vanes 44 that only guide airflow, with no supporting or limiting function for any flexible member. Applicant respectfully submits that Neither Truchet nor Dancheva discloses a single structural member that combines airflow guidance and limiting/supporting functions”. However, the rejection of claim 1 states that the vanes 44 are modified into the housing 9 of Truchet, and that the wall 30 of Truchet is elastomeric and deformable towards/into the housing 9. Upon deformation of the wall 30 back into the housing 9, a limiting “stop” of the vanes 44 would be met. The wall 30 would stop deformation upon contact with the added vanes 44, providing both a limiting and supporting function against the soft support. Thus, the rejection still stands.
Applicant argues, on page 12 of the remarks, that “claim 2 defines a preconfigured deformation gap that enables the soft support to deform elastically under scalp pressure, which is entirely different from the vibratory structure of Truchet”. However, the Figs. 3a-b of Truchet show a clear wall 30 convex shape of the structure. The wall 30 is made of an elastomer, and can achieve a deformed shape upon application of force. The vanes 44 modified into the housing 9 would not touch the convex shape of wall 30 as shown in Truchet, as is claimed in claim 2. Thus, the rejection still stands.
Applicant argues, on pages 12-13 of the remarks, that “claim 6 discloses a through-hole, dual-end anchored structure that firmly retains comb teeth without fasteners, which is structurally distinct” from Truchet, Dancheva, and Sze. However, the claim language as written in claim 6 is met by the rejection above. The additional language in the remarks of a “dual-end anchored structure and prevention of teeth from falling out during long-term use is not a part of the claim 6 language as written. Thus, the rejection still stands.
Applicant argues, on page 13 of the remarks, that “Truchet (col. 4, 11. 22-27, Figs. 3a-3b) discloses a flexible wall 30 connected to a frame 31 via spokes 32, with no clamping between inner and outer rings. Truchet uses spoke-based connection… In contrast, claim 8 limits sandwich clamping between inner and outer rings to secure the soft support. This is a non-equivalent, non-obvious structural difference”. However, the claim language 8 as written claims merely discloses “the connection portion is clamped between the outer ring connecting part and the inner ring connecting part”. This is not a “limited sandwich clamping”, and the term “clamp” can be interpreted broadly. Clamp refers to any of various devices used to join, grip, support, or compress mechanical or structural parts. The rejection of claim 8 teaches a joining of structural parts as claimed. Thus, the rejection still stands.
Applicant argues, on pages 13-14 of the remarks, that “Examiner relies on Yang to disclose related features of claim 9. However, Yang (para. [0024]) discloses a clip-slot structure in an ultrasonic imaging device, with no application to a comb or soft support clamping”. However, Examiner uses Yang (US 2017/0231380) with title “Hair brush with double-sided comb teeth” which does not mention ultrasonic imaging. The relevance of the reference Yang in regards to a comb is clear. Thus, the rejection still stands.
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 GWYNNETH L HOWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-4742. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-4:30 M-F.
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, Tim Stanis can be reached at (571) 272-5139. 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.
/GWYNNETH L HOWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/RACHEL T SIPPEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3785
Prosecution Insights