DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 6/12/26; these drawings are accepted and overcome the previous objection(s).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over James (US 8671957) in view of Serrat (US 3747610).
Claims 1-5: James discloses a flexible (Col 1, 40-50) hair curling device (10, see Figs 1-5) comprising: a hollow stem (12) having a central bore (see Fig 2), a top end and a bottom end with an opening (22) at the bottom end providing access to the bore (see Fig 2). A bowl portion (14) having a frusto-conical wall (18) extending upwardly from the top end of the stem (see Figs 1-2) in an open position (see Fig 2) with the frusto-conical wall having a top edge (30) and a flange (32) extending from the top edge (see Figs 1-2). The curling device also includes a flexible (Col 1, 40-50) flat base portion (20) having an outer edge and a bottom (see Figs 1-2). The frusto-conical wall is adapted to be folded over in position around the stem so as to enclose the stem and the base portion in a folded position where the flange extends around the outer edge of the base portion and is aligned with the bottom of the base portion (see Figs 1-5). The thickness of the frusto-conical wall is greater adjacent to the stem than along the rest of the wall (Col 3, 30-55). The bowl portion has a transition region between its bottom and the top end and a concavity (40, Fig 2 & 34, Fig 3) is defined adjacent to the transition region (see Figs 1-3). The thickness of the wall adjacent the transition region is less than the thickness of the wall adjacent to the top of the bowl (Col 3, 50-55, see Fig 4). The curler can be impregnated with a phosphorescent pigment (Col 2, 60-67).
James discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the flexible base being a separate second piece and having a circular hub/projection extending from its center and having an annular neck receiving an annular ridge to removably snap fit the base to the rest of the curler via a bore of the stem.
Serrat, however, teaches a hollow hair curling device, or curler (see Figs 1-2) including a hollow stem (1+11) including a hollow central bore (interior of 1) housing an endcap (11) and having a removable flat base (6) detachably connected to the hollow stem via a circular hub/projection (8) extending upward from a center of the base removably joined to an opening (9) of the hollow stem (see Figs 1-2). The circular hub (8) extends through the opening at the bottom of the hollow stem via the endcap (11) and is completely received within the bore of the stem via the stem’s endcap (11). The circular hub (8) is provided with an annular recessed neck (see Figs 1-2) which receives an annular ridge from an inner wall inside the bore to form the snap fit (see Figs 1-2). In other words, both Serrat and James disclose spool shaped hair curlers having enlarged ends for holding hair on the curler. Serrat teaches that making the bases of spool shaped curlers with enlarged bases removable via a snap fitting annular ridge and annular neck arrangement is old and well-known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the curler of James by providing the flexible base removable from the central bore via the snap fit arrangement taught by Serrat since Serrat teaches this to be old and well-known in hair curlers.
Claim 6: James discloses a hair curling device (10, see Figs 1-5) comprising: a first piece having a hollow stem (12) having a central bore (see Fig 2), a top end and a bottom end with an opening (22) at the bottom end providing access to the bore (see Fig 2). A bowl portion (14) having a frusto-conical wall (18) extending upwardly from the top end of the stem (see Figs 1-2) in an open position (see Fig 2) with the frusto-conical wall having a top edge (30) and a flange (32) extending from the top edge (see Figs 1-2). The curling device also includes a flexible (Col 1, 40-50) flat base portion (20) having an outer edge and a bottom (see Figs 1-2). The frusto-conical wall is adapted to be folded over in position around the stem so as to enclose the stem and the base portion in a folded position where the flange extends around the outer edge of the base portion and is aligned with the bottom of the base portion (see Figs 1-5). The thickness of the frusto-conical wall is greater adjacent to the stem than along the rest of the wall (Col 3, 30-55). The bowl portion has a transition region between its bottom and the top end and a concavity (40, Fig 2 & 34, Fig 3) is defined adjacent to the transition region (see Figs 1-3). The thickness of the wall adjacent the transition region is less than the thickness of the wall adjacent to the top of the bowl (Col 3, 50-55, see Fig 4). The curler can be impregnated with a phosphorescent pigment (Col 2, 60-67).
James discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the flexible base being a separate second piece and having a circular hub/projection extending from its center and having an annular neck receiving an annular ridge to removably snap fit the base to the rest of the curler via a bore of the stem.
Serrat, however, teaches a hollow hair curling device, or curler (see Figs 1-2) including a hollow stem (1+11) including a hollow central bore (interior of 1) housing an endcap (11) and having a removable flat base (6) detachably connected to the hollow stem via a circular hub/projection (8) extending upward from a center of the base removably joined to an opening (9) of the hollow stem (see Figs 1-2). The circular hub (8) extends through the opening at the bottom of the hollow stem via the endcap (11) and is completely received within the bore of the stem via the stem’s endcap (11). The circular hub (8) is provided with an annular recessed neck (see Figs 1-2) which receives an annular ridge from an inner wall inside the bore to form the snap fit (see Figs 1-2). In other words, both Serrat and James disclose spool shaped hair curlers having enlarged ends for holding hair on the curler. Serrat teaches that making the bases of spool shaped curlers with enlarged bases removable via a snap fitting annular ridge and annular neck arrangement is old and well-known. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the curler of James by providing the flexible base removable from the central bore via the snap fit arrangement taught by Serrat since Serrat teaches this to be old and well-known in hair curlers.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/12/26 have been fully considered but amount to asserting that the newly presented limitations are allowable, which is not persuasive. The new limitations have been addressed above.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Gill whose telephone number is (571)270-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, can be reached on 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER GILL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
