The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim 6, and therefore dependent Claims 7-12, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 6 is dependent upon itself making the scope of the claim indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6, and therefore dependent Claims 7-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 is dependent upon itself. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 14, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by To CA 3012257 A1 (hereafter To).
Regarding Claim 1, To anticipates:
1. A powered rotary hairbrush (h1air styling device 101) for creating curls or a wavy pattern in thick texture hair comprising:
a housing (upper shell 109 and lower shell 111) being ergonomically designed to be held by a hand of a user (with handle as shown in Figure 1);
said housing comprising a brush side (lower shell 111) and a gripping side (upper shell 109);
brush heads (rotating plate 137 and 137’ with styling elements 135 and 135’) being disposed partially in said housing at said brush side (shown in Figures 1 and 7);
each of said brush heads comprising a brush face (exposed surface 149) disposed essentially parallel to said brush side (Figure 10) and brush projections (styling elements 135 and 135’ and projection forming socket 187) projecting out from said brush face (Figure 10);
each of said brush projections being rotatable either individually or in groups (as shown in Figure 9, three rotating plates 137 and 137’ are rotated as a group in response to motor 163 rotation);
a rotation arrangement (drive system 161 assembly of gears comprising drive sprocket 173, transmission gear 177, rotating plate gears 179, and idler gears 181) being disposed in said housing and configured to impart rotational movement (through connection to motor 163) to said brush projections;
a power source (internal batteries 167) being disposed in said housing and configured to power said rotation arrangement (power source for motor 163); and
a button (switch 165) being disposed on said housing and operatively connected to said power source to permit a user to activate and deactivate said rotation arrangement to permit a user to start and stop styling thick texture hair with said brush projections (“the switch 165 preferably powers up the motor 163 to activate the drive system 161 when the switch is depressed by the user, and shuts down the motor to drive the drive system 161 as soon as the user releases the switch”).
Regarding Claim 2, To anticipates:
2. The powered rotary hairbrush of claim 1, wherein each of said brush projections (styling elements 135 and 135’ and projection forming socket 187) has a conical or tubular shape (combination of a tubular shape shown in Figure 10) or a combination thereof.
Regarding Claim 14, To anticipates:
14. The powered rotary hairbrush of claim 1, wherein:
each of said brush heads (rotating plate 137 and 137’ with styling elements 135 and 135’) comprises a disk-shaped structure rotatable (rotating plate 137 and 137’) in a clockwise or counterclockwise (idler rotates clockwise making rotating plates rotate counterclockwise) manner about a center axis (axis of rotation 139); and
said brush projections (styling elements 135 and 135’ and projection forming socket 187) are mounted in a stationary manner on their corresponding brush head (shown in Figure 10) such that each of said brush projections is moved along a circular path upon rotation of its corresponding brush head.
Regarding Claim 17, To anticipates:
17. The powered rotary hairbrush of claim 1, wherein:
each of said brush heads (rotating plate 137 and 137’ with styling elements 135 and 135’) comprises a disk-shaped structure (rotating plate 137 and 137’) mounted in a stationary manner in said housing (upper shell 109 and lower shell 111) and comprising a plurality of brush head apertures (labeled 141, Figure 7) therein one for each of said brush projections (styling elements 135 and 135’ and projection forming socket 187);
each of said brush projections comprises a brush projection axle (projection forming socket 187); and
each of said brush projection axles is disposed to pass through a corresponding brush head aperture and be operatively connected to (through spindle 185) said rotation arrangement (drive system 161 assembly of gears comprising drive sprocket 173, transmission gear 177, rotating plate gears 179, and idler gears 181) to rotate each of said brush projections individually about said brush projection axle.
Regarding Claim 20, To anticipates:
20. A method of using a powered rotary hairbrush (hair styling device 101) to create curls or a wavy pattern in thick texture hair comprising the steps of:
manually holding a housing (upper shell 109 and lower shell 111) being ergonomically designed (with handle as shown in Figure 1) and comprising a brush side (lower shell 111) and a gripping side (upper shell 109);
placing brush heads (rotating plate 137 and 137’ with styling elements 135 and 135’) disposed partially in said housing at said brush side facing thick texture hair of a person to be styled with a brush face disposed essentially parallel to said brush side (shown in Figures 1 and 7);
inserting brush projections (styling elements 135 and 135’) projecting out from said brush face into the thick texture hair;
pushing a button (switch 165) being disposed on said housing and operatively connected to a power source (internal batteries 167) in said housing and thereby activating a rotation arrangement (assembly of gears comprising drive sprocket 173, transmission gear 177, rotating plate gears 179, and idler gears 181) disposed in said housing;
imparting rotational movement (through rotation of motor 163) from said rotation arrangement to each of said brush projections and thereby rotating said brush projections either individually or in groups in a clockwise and/or counterclockwise manner (three rotating plates 137 and 137’ with styling elements 135 and 135’ rotate as a group counterclockwise);
creating curls or waves with said moving brush projections (styling elements 135 and 135’) in a portion of the thick texture hair (used to curl human hair);
moving the powered rotary hairbrush from one portion of the thick texture hair to the next until all desired portions have been styled in a desired manner with curls or a wavy pattern (used to curl human hair); and
pushing said button and deactivating said rotation arrangement (“the switch 165 preferably powers up the motor 163 to activate the drive system 161 when the switch is depressed by the user, and shuts down the motor to drive the drive system 161 as soon as the user releases the switch”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 3-5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over To CA 3012257 A1 (hereafter To) in view of Stanton WO 2014/037693 A1 (hereafter Stanton).
Regarding Claim 3, To teaches:
3. The powered rotary hairbrush of claim 2, wherein said brush projections (styling elements 135 and 135’ and projection forming socket 187) comprise foam, sponge, or plastic material (see discussion below).
To discloses in Figure 10, styling elements 135 and 135’ that appear to be integrally formed with the rotating plate 137 and 137’ from a plastic material. To, however, does not disclose a material for the styling elements. The reference Stanton disclose a hair brushing device with bristles 12 and 14 formed from “a substantially flexible plastics material, for example polypropylene such that the bristles will flex on encountering tangles in a manner which mimics the action of natural bristles (e.g. boar bristles), as these are known to be gentler and to minimise damage to the hair on brushing”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the To device, if necessary, to fabricate the styling elements of the To device from a flexible plastic, as claimed, with the motivation to mimic the action of natural bristles and be capable of minimizing damage to the hair or scalp during brushing.
Regarding Claim 4, To teaches:
4. The powered rotary hairbrush of claim 3, wherein said brush heads (rotating plate 137 and 137’ with styling elements 135 and 135’) comprise foam, sponge, or plastic material and said brush projections (styling elements 135 and 135’ and projection forming socket 187) are formed integrally with said brush heads.
To discloses in Figure 10, styling elements 135 and 135’ that appear to be integrally formed with the rotating plate 137 and 137’ from a plastic material. To, however, does not disclose a material for the styling elements. The reference Stanton disclose a hair brushing device with bristles 12 and 14 formed from “a substantially flexible plastics material, for example polypropylene such that the bristles will flex on encountering tangles in a manner which mimics the action of natural bristles (e.g. boar bristles), as these are known to be gentler and to minimise damage to the hair on brushing”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the To device, if necessary, to fabricate the styling elements of the To device from a flexible plastic, as claimed, with the motivation to mimic the action of natural bristles and be capable of minimizing damage to the hair or scalp during brushing.
Although the bristles styling elements 135 and 135’ appear to be integrally formed with the rotating plate 137 and 137’, To does not specifically disclose that they are integrally formed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the parts as a single part with the motivation to reduce the complexity of separately joining the bristles to the rotating plates, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Regarding Claim 5, To teaches:
5. The powered rotary hairbrush of claim 4, wherein:
said power source (internal batteries 167) comprises a rechargeable battery (see discussion below);
said housing (upper shell 109 and lower shell 111) comprises a charging port (see discussion below) to permit a user to charge said rechargeable battery; and
said housing comprises an ergonomic knob-style handle (handle 105 of lower shell 111) detachably connected (Figure 7) to said gripping side (upper shell 109).
To discloses two internal batteries 167 shown in Figure 7. Based in the inclusion of spring contacts in Figure 7, it appears that To is disclosing the use of primary batteries that would need to be replaced after they are spent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the replacement of batteries as shown in Figure 7 would require significant disassembly to gain access to the spent batteries. It is common knowledge that batteries are available in both primary and rechargeable form. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the To device to replace the primary batteries with rechargeable batteries with the motivation to eliminate the need to open the device to replace batteries. That being said, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the To device to include a charging port to permit a user to charge the rechargeable batteries without disassembly.
Regarding Claim 13, To teaches:
13. The powered rotary hairbrush of claim 1, wherein at least one of (i)-(v):
(i) said brush projections (styling elements 135 and 135’ and projection forming socket 187) comprise foam, sponge, or plastic material (see discussion below);
(ii) said brush heads (rotating plate 137 and 137’ with styling elements 135 and 135’) comprise foam, sponge, or plastic material and said brush projections are formed integrally with said brush heads (see discussion below);
(iii) said power source (internal batteries 167) comprises a rechargeable battery (see discussion below); and said housing (upper shell 109 and lower shell 111) comprises a charging port (see discussion below) to permit a user to charge said rechargeable battery;
(iv) said housing comprises an ergonomic knob-style handle detachably connected to said gripping side (not selected); or
(v) said housing comprises a compartment configured to store a pick or similar handheld hair styling tool and accessible via a slidable cover in said gripping side (not selected).
To discloses in Figure 10, styling elements 135 and 135’ that appear to be integrally formed with the rotating plate 137 and 137’ from a plastic material. To, however, does not disclose a material for the styling elements. The reference Stanton disclose a hair brushing device with bristles 12 and 14 formed from “a substantially flexible plastics material, for example polypropylene such that the bristles will flex on encountering tangles in a manner which mimics the action of natural bristles (e.g. boar bristles), as these are known to be gentler and to minimise damage to the hair on brushing”. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the To device, if necessary, to fabricate the styling elements of the To device from a flexible plastic, as claimed, with the motivation to mimic the action of natural bristles and be capable of minimizing damage to the hair or scalp during brushing.
Although the bristles styling elements 135 and 135’ appear to be integrally formed with the rotating plate 137 and 137’, To does not specifically disclose that they are integrally formed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the parts as a single part with the motivation to reduce the complexity of separately joining the bristles to the rotating plates, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
To discloses two internal batteries 167 shown in Figure 7. Based in the inclusion of spring contacts in Figure 7, it appears that To is disclosing the use of primary batteries that would need to be replaced after they are spent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the replacement of batteries as shown in Figure 7 would require significant disassembly to gain access to the spent batteries. It is common knowledge that batteries are available in both primary and rechargeable form. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the To device to replace the primary batteries with rechargeable batteries with the motivation to eliminate the need to open the device to replace batteries. That being said, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the To device to include a charging port to permit a user to charge the rechargeable batteries without disassembly.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but it would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure can be found in form PTO-892 Notice of References Cited. Specifically, the prior art references include pertinent disclosures of brushes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC CARLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9963. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, BRIAN KELLER can be reached on (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.
/MARC CARLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723