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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the exhaust holes must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “ 10 ” has been used to designate seemingly 3 different areas of the main comb body (reference character 1), in figures 2, 7, and 8 . In figure 2, ref. 10 appears to be pointing to the cavity formed in ref 1. In figure 7, ref. 10 appears to be pointing to the clamping groove (reference character 102). In figure 8, ref. 10 appears to be pointing to the mating surface of the annular groove (reference character 24). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 , 2 , 4 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Thoma et al. (DE 3927728 A1) . Regarding claim 1, Thoma discloses an air bag comb (element 1, fig. 1) , comprising: an air bag body ( element 6 , fig. 1 ) , a surface of the air bag body ( element 7, fig. 1) protruding outward for formation of an arc-shaped working surface ( see annotated fig. 2 below ) capable of generating elastic deformation ( para. [0002]) , wherein a circular clamping portion ( see annotated fig. 1 & 2 below ; examiner notes , clamping section depicted in Thoma is generally circular in same manner as circular clamping portion is shown in applicant’s Figures 1 & 2 ) is provided along a contour of a side edge of the arc-shaped working surface ( see annotated fig. 2 ) , and a cavity with an open lower end is formed between the clamping portion ( element 5, fig. 2 ) and a lower surface of the arc-shaped working surface ( element 10, fig. 2 ); -9525 4394835 247650 0 combing wires ( element 8, fig. 1 ) , configured to comb hair, the combing wires being installed on the arc-shaped working surface ( element 8, 9 & 10; para. [0025] ) ; and a main comb body ( element 2, fig. 1 ) , wherein the main comb body is provided with an installing groove ( see annotated fig. 2 ) having a same contour shape as a contour shape of the clamping portion ( see annotated fig. 2 ) , a side wall of the installing groove ( see annotated fig. 2 ) is provided with a clamping groove ( see annotated fig. 2 ) for accommodating the clamping portion to be clamped in to achieve fixation, a sealed chamber is formed between the cavity ( element 5, fig. 2 ) and the installing groove, the sealed chamber provides a space for the elastic deformation of the arc-shaped working surface ( para. [0002]) , and exhaust holes ( element 2 0 , 22, fig. 1 ) are reserved in a side wall ( fig. 1 ; para. [0031] ) of the sealed chamber. Regarding claim 2, Thoma discloses the air bag comb of claim 1, wherein the exhaust holes are reserved in the air bag body ( element 2 0 , fig. 1 ; para. [0031] ) . Regarding claim 4, Thoma discloses the air bag comb of claim 1, wherein the air bag body is made of rubber ( para. [0020] ) . Regarding claim 10, Thoma discloses the air bag comb of claim 1, wherein the air bag body is circular, elliptical or rectangular with rounded corners ( fig. 1 & 5-7 ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim s 3 & 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoma . Regarding claim 3 , Thoma discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches, wherein diameters of the exhaust holes are greater than or equal to 1.5 mm and less than or equal to 2 mm. T he examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing that the diameters of the exhaust holes are greater than or equal to 1.5 mm and less than or equal to 2 mm or that this particular range provides any u nexpected r esult and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ, 233. In this situation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the diameters of the exhaust holes to be greater than or equal to 1.5 mm and less than or equal to 2 mm , since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, Thoma discloses a substantially identical air bag comb to that of applicant where the only difference is Thoma does not indicate the specific diameters of the exhaust holes are greater than or equal to 1.5 mm and less than or equal to 2 mm . Modifying the diameter of the exhaust hole of Thoma , to be equal, is well within the level of skill in the art , and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of the Thoma device. Regarding claim 6, Thoma discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches, wherein a protrusion height of the air bag body is greater than or equal to 15 mm and less than or equal to 25 mm. T he examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing that the protrusion height of the air bag body is greater than or equal to 15 mm and less than or equal to 25 mm or that this particular range provides any u nexpected r esult and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ, 233. In this situation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the protrusion height of the air bag body to be greater than or equal to 15 mm and less than or equal to 25 mm. , since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” MPEP 2144.04 IV A. In the instant case, Thoma discloses a substantially identical air bag comb to that of applicant where the only difference is Thoma does not indicate the specific protrusion height of the air bag body is greater than or equal to 15 mm and less than or equal to 25 mm . Modifying the diameter of the exhaust hole of Thoma , to be equal, is well within the level of skill in the art , and it appears that the modification would not substantially change the operation of the Thoma device. Claim s 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoma in view of Sun ( US 20200297094 A1 ) . Regarding claim 5, Thoma discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to disclose: wherein a thickness of the air bag body is greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 2 mm. Sun teaches an air bag comb ( fig. 10 ) comprising an air bag body (element 2 , fig. 3 ) , a main body (element 7 , fig. 9 ) and a clamping groove (element 8 , fig. 9 ) , wherein a thickness of the air bag body is greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 2 mm ( para. [0039]) . Sun teaches “i n general, the thickness H1 of the center of the body portion of the rubber 2 (i.e. except for the outer edge for rubber fixing) is 1-3 mm ” ( para. [0039]). Sun further teaches that a gradually increasing thickness from the middle of the air bag body facilitate s the restoration of the deformed rubber by gradually increasing the elastic force ( para. [0039]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sun into the air bag comb of Thoma to provide a thickness of the air bag body of greater than or equal to 1 mm and less than or equal to 2 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit offered by Sun in the improved resilience of the air bag body and its overlap with the claimed range. Regarding claim 7, Thoma discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to disclose: wherein a cross section of the clamping portion is a right-angled trapezoid. Sun teaches an air bag comb (fig. 10) comprising an air bag body (element 2, fig. 3) , a main body (element 7, fig. 9) and a clamping groove (element 8, fig. 9) , wherein a cross section of the clamping portion is a right-angled trapezoid (see annotated fig. 9 below) . Sun teaches “ the engaging slot 9 and the engaging block 10 are tooth-shaped or triangular ” ( para. [0043]). However, Sun further teaches “a surface of the engaging slot toward a back side of the comb handle is provided with a second inclined surface 12 which is toward the front side and inclined toward the center of the rubber 2, and the engaging block 10 contacts the second inclined surface 12”, as shown in Fig . 9 ( para. [0043]). Sun teaches that this geometry “ increas es the connection strength between the engaging block and the engaging block, so that the rubber is not easy to fall off ” ( para. [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sun into the air bag comb of Thoma to provide a clamping portion, wherein the cross section of the clamping portion is a right-angle trapezoid. As previously described, Sun teaches that the use of the two inclined surfaces of the right-angled trapezoid increase the connection strength. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand the benefit in the improved functionality of a stronger connection between the air bag body and the comb body. Claim 8 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoma in view of Sze ( US 10271635 B2 ) . Regarding claim 8, Thoma discloses all the limitations of claim 1, but fails to disclose: wherein the side edge of the arc-shaped working surface is provided with an arc-shaped surface protruding outward and tangent to the arc-shaped working surface, a radius of the arc-shaped surface is smaller than a radius of the arc-shaped working surface, and the clamping portion is provided on a side edge of the arc-shaped surface. Sze teaches an air bag comb (element 32 , fig. 4 ) comprising an air bag body (element 44 , fig. 5 ), a main body (element 38 , fig. 4 ) and a clamping groove (element 54 , fig. 8a ), -19050 2600325 wherein the side edge of the arc-shaped working surface ( element 44, fig. 8a ) is provided with an arc-shaped surface ( see annotated fig. 5 below ) protruding outward and tangent to the arc-shaped working surface (see annotated fig. 5) , a radius of the arc-shaped surface ( see annotated fig. 5 ) is smaller than a radius of the arc-shaped working surface ( see annotated fig. 5 ) , and the clamping portion ( element 54, fig. 5 ) is provided on a side edge of the arc-shaped surface (fig. 5) . Sze teaches the main body (element 38) is made of a stiff polymeric material for providing rigidity to the overall brush (col. 4, line 32-58). Further, the air bag body (element 42, 44) is fitted with the main body, along the bottom wall (element 50 ), such that the air bag body flexes outwardly to create a cavity. Sze teaches that the air bag body therefore acts to support the bristles in a floating manner, and that t his arrangement causes the air bag body to deform and move into the cavity and toward the base member when the brush is in use (col. 4, line 59-67; col. 5, line 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sze into the air bag comb of Thoma to provide the radius of the arc-shaped surface that is smaller than a radius of the arc-shaped working surface . One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the flexure and variable radius of the air bag body offers improved support and cushioning of the bristles while the brush is in use , as described in Sze (col. 4, line 59-67; col. 5, line 1-4). Regarding claim 9, Thoma discloses all the limitations of claim 8, but fails to disclose: wherein a radius ratio of the arc-shaped working surface to the arc-shaped surface is 50-65. Sze teaches an air bag comb (element 32, fig. 4) comprising an air bag body (element 44, fig. 5), a main body (element 38, fig. 4) and a clamping groove (element 54, fig. 8a), wherein a radius ratio of the arc-shaped working surface ( see annotated fig. 5 ) to the arc-shaped surface ( see annotated fig. 5 ) is 50-65. While Sze discloses a substantially identical air bag brush to that of applicant , having an arc-shaped working surface and an arc-shaped surface having different radii, Sze does not indicate the specific radius ratio of the arc-shaped working surface to the arc-shaped surface i s 50-65 . However, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sze into the air bag comb of Thoma to provide a radius ratio of the arc-shaped working surface to the arc-shaped surface of 50-65. T he examiner notes that the applicant fails to provide any criticality in providing the radius ratio of the arc-shaped working surface to the arc-shaped surface as 50-65 or that this particular range provides any u nexpected r esult and where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed by the prior art discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine optimization and experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller , 105 USPQ, 233. In this situation, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the radius ratio of the arc-shaped working surface to the arc-shaped surface , since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” MPEP 2144.04 IV A. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haung (US 6547750 B2) teaches a massage device having a main body, a flexible member having a plurality of protrusions and a locking ring to secure the flexible member to the main body. White et al. ( US 20040255967 A1 ) teaches a vent brush having flexible bristle support having a main body, a panel for securing and supporting the bristles, and a retaining lip for securing the panel to the main body. Additionally, the panel and main body have ventilation holes to allow air to pass through the brush. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KEEGAN T. MARTIN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-7452 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30 am - 5:00 pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Brian Keller can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-8548 . 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. /KEEGAN T MARTIN/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /LAURA C GUIDOTTI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723