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 .
Status of Application, Status and Claims
The response filed 04 March 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending and claims 1 and 3-9 are amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 16 September 2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but foreign patent documents JP 2017501166 and JP 2017500937 referred to therein have not been considered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 March 2026 with respect to claims 1-7 and 10-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues the soft polymer bristles taught by Houle are located on the tip/head of the applicator and not on the handle. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites “at least one fiber extends from the handle.” Houle disclose fibers extending from the handle is as much as applicant discloses fibers extending from the handle. Applicant’s Figure 6 shows a handle 602 including a proximal side onto which a hand is placed to hold the brush a distal side from which fibers extend. This distal end is synonymous with a tip/head because the hand is not placed on the distal end. An annotated comparison of applicant’s Figure 6 and Houle’s Figure 16 are shown below. For the purposes of examination, the entirely of Houle’s device is interpreted as a handle is as much as the entirely of the applicant’s device is a handle.
PNG
media_image1.png
582
822
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
787
779
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant’s arguments filed 04 March 2026 with respect to amended claims 8-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 8 has been withdrawn.
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, 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 1-6, 10-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houle (US 2008/0255498) in view of Snyder et al. (US 2004/0209222).
[Claim 1] Houle discloses a light-based system for treating and shaping a keratin fiber (fluid delivery system, Fig. 21 #100, including a light source, Fig. 21 #102/133, for delivering light and photosensitizer to a treatment site and capable of treating and shaping a keratin fiber based on the required parameters presented in the body of the instant claim ) [abstract; par. 0313], the system comprising:
a hairbrush formed as a handle that extends from a first end to a second end and at least one fiber that extends from the handle (various applicators are disclosed including applicators with soft polymer bristles, Figs. 15-16 #88 and Fig. 44 #63; the bristles are similar toothbrush bristles which are capable of brushing hair, see MPEP § 2141.01(a) IV) [par. 0303, 0372], the handle including a fluid supply system (Fig. 21, #100A, may be used with various applicators)[pars. 0313-0315], and the at least one fiber configured to physically shape keratin fiber (when used to apply light the soft polymer brushes would shape keratin fiber);
the fluid supply system comprising a vessel (reservoir, Fig. 21 #107) in fluid communication with a fluid outlet (tip for fluid delivery, Fig. 16 #95, and fluid outlets, Fig. 44 #212) [pars. 0302, 0370], wherein the vessel contains a gel (sensitizer solution may be a gel) [pars. 0153, 0239] comprising a photosensitizer (the reservoir contains a photosensitizer solution, Fig. 21 #108) [par. 0317] that comprises fluorescein (the photosensitizer may include fluorescein) [par. 0175], the gel further comprising a reflective base that reflects electromagnetic radiation to guide the electromagnetic radiation to the keratin fiber (the gel may be a variety of materials, including hydrogels, that will reflect light incident on the gel as gels necessarily reflect light to some degree) [par. 0239], and the fluid outlet is configured to dispense the photosensitizer at a target region that includes the keratin fiber (the applicator may apply the photosensitizer to a target site, the target site being the keratin fiber is an intended use of the system) [pars. 0032, 0514];
an activation system that includes a light source (Fig. 16, #84, Fig. 44 #211), the light source configured to apply electromagnetic radiation (light) at the target region [pars. 0301, 0370]; and
a processor (control system, e.g. Fig. 28 #147, such as a microprocessor) and memory (the controller is pre-programmed implicitly requiring memory) configured to be in electrical communication with the activation system (controls the operation of the light source) [pars. 0341-0342], the processor being configured to implement instructions from the memory to cause the activation system to apply the electromagnetic radiation to the target region to effectuate photocrosslinking [par. 0160] on the keratin fiber to cause a transition from a first physical state to a second physical state (the device is configured to apply photosensitizer followed by light of the claimed power output and duration to the target region, the application to the keratin fiber is merely an intended use of the system).
Houle discloses a vessel (reservoir) in base separate from the handle and therefore does not disclose a fluid supply system comprising a vessel within the handle.
Snyder discloses an analogous handheld fluid delivery device (Figs. 1-3 #50) comprising a reservoir (Figs. 1-3 #54) within a handle portion of the device [par. 0053]. Snyder states relocating the reservoir from a separate based into the handheld device provides the advantages of portability and ease of use and storage [pars. 0003-0004].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the device taught by Houle to integrate the reservoir into the handle as taught by Snyder in order to improve the device by increasing portability and ease of use and storage [Snyder: pars. 0003-0004].
[Claim 2] Houle discloses the electromagnetic radiation is applied at a power output between about 0.1 mW/cm2 and about 300 mW/cm2 (about 0.3 W/cm2) for a duration from about 100 nsec to about 24 hours [par. 0160] but does not specifically disclose applying a power output between 0.5 W/cm2 and 2 W/cm2 to the target region for at least two minutes. The examiner notes that the applicant’s specification indicates energy can be delivered between about 0.1 and 5 W/cm2 or between about 0.5 and 2 W/cm2 [0038]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply a power of 0.5 W/cm2 (about 0.3 W/cm2 or higher) for at least two minutes during the course of routine experimentation in order to provide suitable power output and duration to activate the photosensitizer.
[Claim 3] Houle discloses the hairbrush is configured to apply a physical force to the keratin fiber in the target region to move the keratin fiber from the first physical state to the second physical state (intended use met by the applicator which may physically contact the target site or apply force through the fluid ejected from the applicator).
[Claim 4] Houle discloses the hairbrush (applicator) includes a transducer in the form of the light source but further indicates that in addition to the light source the transducer may also include a heating device [pars. 0156-157]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the applicator taught by Houle to include a heating element in the form of a heating device in the applicator since Houle teaching the heating element may be optionally included. Assisting in disrupting non-covalent interactions within the keratin fiber is an intended use of the heat which is met by the application of heat by the heating device.
[Claim 5] Houle discloses the hairbrush (applicator) includes a transducer in the form of the light source but further indicates that in addition to the light source the transducer may also include a cooling device [pars. 0156-157]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the applicator taught by Houle to include a cooling element in the form of a cooling device in the applicator since Houle teaching the cooling element may be optionally included.
[Claim 6] Houle discloses the at least one fiber is configured to apply the electromagnetic radiation (the surface features and/or materials are optionally transparent and/or transmissive and/ or conductive to the energy emissions of the transducers, for example, the surface has polymer bristles that can transmit light energy and mechanical energy) [pars. 0303, 0372].
[Claim 10] Houle renders obvious a system capable of photocrosslinking keratin fiber as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. Houle does not mention photocrosslinking forming covalent bonds. However, the system of Houle is capable of the intended use of forming covalent bonds based on the photosensitizer and light parameters applied.
[Claim 11] Houle discloses the activation system applies the electromagnetic radiation to the target region between about 100 nsec to about 24 hours [par. 0160] to effectuate photocrosslinking on the keratin fiber to cause the transition from the first physical state to the second physical state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the electromagnetic radiation to the target region between 2 minutes and 30 minutes, because one in the art would have chosen from within the suitable range of durations taught by Houle, 100 nsec to about 24 hours, in order deliver the required amount of light to activate the photosensitizer comprising fluorescein.
[Claim 12] Houle discloses the activation system applies the electromagnetic radiation to the target region between about 100 nsec to about 24 hours [par. 0160] to effectuate photocrosslinking on the keratin fiber to cause the transition from the first physical state to the second physical state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the electromagnetic radiation to the target region between 2 minutes and 15 minutes, because one in the art would have chosen from within the suitable range of durations taught by Houle, 100 nsec to about 24 hours, in order deliver the required amount of light to activate the photosensitizer comprising fluorescein.
[Claim 13] Houle discloses applying a light-activated composition (i.e. photosensitizer) and light with the parameters claimed. Thus, the system is capable of causing a rise in temperature of less than 3 degrees Celsius during crosslinking of keratin.
[Claims 14-16] Houle discloses the activation system applies the electromagnetic radiation to the target region between about 100 nsec to about 24 hours [par. 0160] to effectuate photocrosslinking on the keratin fiber to cause the transition from the first physical state to the second physical state. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to apply the electromagnetic radiation to the target region between 1 minute and 30 minutes, because one in the art would have chosen from within the suitable range of durations taught by Houle, 100 nsec to about 24 hours, in order deliver the required amount of light to activate the photosensitizer comprising fluorescein. The use of an exogenous fibrous protein, including keratin collagen, synthetic fibers, artificial hair and hair derivates is an intended use of the system. The system is capable of applying the photosensitizer and light to these proteins during treatment of the hair.
[Claim 17] Houle discloses the photocrosslinking on the keratin fibers occurs without the addition of heating the keratin fibers (the claimed light parameters are disclosed which presumably would not cause heating of keratin fibers, this amounts to an intended use of the system).
[Claim 18] Houle discloses the applied electromagnetic radiation has a wavelength between 400 nm and 700 nm [par. 0262] but does not specifically disclose 500 nm to 700 nm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a wavelength of 500 nm to 700 nm, because one in the art would have chosen from within the suitable operating wavelength range taught by Houle for activating the photosensitizer. The examiner notes the applicant’s specification describes 400 nm to 700 nm but the claim is narrowed to 500 nm to 700 nm.
[Claim 20] Houle discloses the photosensitizer comprises 4,5,6,7-tetrachloro-2',4',5',7'-tetraiodofluorescein (rose bengal) or derivatives thereof [par. 0175].
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houle (US 2008/0255498) in view of Snyder et al. (US 2004/0209222) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Lin (US 2016/0038762).
[Claims 7] Houle discloses the at least one fiber is polymer bristles that transmit light and are configured to transfer photosensitizer to the target region (the bristles aid in the distribution and/or activation of sensitizer solution) [par. 0303] but does not indicate that the bristles are fiber optic cables.
Lin discloses an analogous phototherapy toothbrush comprising a plurality of fiber optic bristles for delivering light to a target [par. 0006].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the plurality of fiber optic bristles to serve as the polymer bristles as taught by Lin in order to predictably deliver light to the target.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houle (US 2008/0255498) in view of Snyder et al. (US 2004/0209222) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Piergallini et al. (US 2017/0209484).
[Claim 19] Houle discloses the sensitizer solution used in the device may be a gel including a hydrogel [pars. 0153, 0239] but does not disclose a silicone gel.
Piergallini discloses silicone-based biophotonic compositions including a silicone gel comprising a chromophore i.e. photosensitizer [pars. 0003-0006, 0095].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select a silicone gel as taught by Piergallini in order to provide a known, biocompatible gel to provide the photosensitizer [Piergallini, par. 0004].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 8 requires a plurality of fibers that extend perpendicularly from the handle and away from an adjacent fiber to surround the handle. Houle discloses a plurality of fibers but none of the fibers do not extend away from an adjacent fiber to surround the handle. Related prior art Gourgouliatos et al. (US 2008/0172112) and Lerner et al. (US 5,300,097) discloses fiber optic hairbrushes. However, these references disclose only fiber optic “bristles” extending in one direction and do not surround their respective handles. Claim 9 depends from claim 8.
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 NATHAN J JENNESS whose telephone number is (571)270-5055. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached on 571-272-2180. 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.
/NATHAN J JENNESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3733 30 April 2026
Prosecution Insights