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 .
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: heating assembly in claims 1-20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa (WO2019215972).
As for claims 1 and 2, Morikawa discloses a brush accessory, comprising: a rounded body (1, fig. 1a) having a lumen extending therethrough (fig. 3) and an attachment collar at one end thereof (p. 2, 3rd paragraph, beginning with “The iron head”); at least two bristles positioned along a first section of the rounded body (12, fig. 2a), the first section including at least one outlet opening positioned between the at least two bristles (fig. 2b); and a heater assembly positioned along a second section of the rounded body, the heater assembly comprising a plurality of tines (p. 3, 3rd paragraph from bottom, starting with “The material constituting”).
Morikawa discloses a distance between adjacent tines (13, fig. 2a) and the claimed invention except for expressly reciting a distance between adjacent tines of the plurality of tines is between about 0.5 mm and about 0.7 mm. However, at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a distance between adjacent tines of the plurality of tines is between about 0.5 mm and about 0.7 mm because applicant has not disclosed that a distance between adjacent tines of the plurality of tines is between about 0.5 mm and about 0.7 mm provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant's invention to perform equally well with the tine structure illustrated in fig. 2a.
As for claim 3, Morikawa discloses the heater assembly comprises a heater shell with an opening, and wherein at least two tines of the plurality of tines are positioned within the opening (13, fig. 2b, p. 7, 4th full paragraph, starting with “Further,” illustrates more than two tines in the open area of the rib cage heated by the heater).
As for claim 6, Morikawa discloses each tine of the plurality of tines is positioned perpendicular to a longitudinal dimension of the hollow body (13, fig. 1a).
As for claim 7, Morikawa discloses each tine of the at least two tines comprises a top surface and a bottom surface, and wherein each of the top and bottom surfaces are substantially planar (13, fig. 2a, upper and lower portion of each tine).
As for claim 8, Morikawa discloses the at least two bristles are arranged in a plurality of rows spaced circumferentially around the first region (12, fig. 2a, at least three rows illustrated).
As for claim 9, Morikawa discloses the plurality of rows comprises between 5 and 10 rows (fig. 1c illustrates the width of area containing bristles illustrating at least five rows).
As for claim 10, Morikawa discloses the at least one outlet opening is configured as an outlet for airflow (D1, fig. 3).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa in view of Huang (CN219460524U).
As for claim 4, Morikawa discloses 16 tines and the claimed invention except for the plurality of times comprises between 20 tines and 40 tines. Huang teaches the plurality of times comprises between 20 tines and 40 tines (20, 21, fig. 2) in order to increase the amount of heat to each strand of hair for more efficient drying. Morikawa would benefit equally from increasing the amount of heat to each strand of hair for more efficient drying. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morikawa with the plurality of times comprises between 20 tines and 40 tines as taught by Huang in order to increase the amount of heat to each strand of hair for more efficient drying.
As for claim 5, Morikawa discloses the claimed invention except for each tine of the plurality of tines comprises a triangular cross-sectional shape. Huang teaches each tine of the plurality of tines comprises a triangular cross-sectional shape (20, 21, figs. 2 and 6) in order to facilitate penetration of the tines into the user’s hair. Morikawa would benefit equally from facilitating penetration of the tines into the user’s hair. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morikawa with each tine of the plurality of tines comprises a triangular cross-sectional shape as taught by Huang in order to facilitate penetration of the tines into the user’s hair.
Claims 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa in view of Huang.
As for claim 11, Morikawa discloses a brush accessory, comprising: a rounded body (1, fig. 1a) having a lumen extending therethrough (fig. 3) and an attachment collar at one end thereof (p. 2, 3rd paragraph, beginning with “The iron head”); at least two bristles positioned along a first section of the rounded body (12, fig. 2a), the first section including at least one outlet opening positioned between the at least two bristles (fig. 2b); and a heater assembly positioned along a second section of the rounded body (p. 3, 3rd paragraph from bottom, starting with “The material constituting”).
Morikawa discloses the claimed invention except for the heater assembly comprising a first tine support having a first set of tines and a second tine support having a second set of tines, wherein the first and second tine supports interlock such that a tine of the second set of tines is positioned between two tines of the first set of tines. Huang teaches the heater assembly comprising a first tine support having a first set of tines and a second tine support having a second set of tines, wherein the first and second tine supports interlock such that a tine of the second set of tines is positioned between two tines of the first set of tines (20, 21, figs. 2 and 6, p. 5, first full paragraph starting with “As shown”) in order to uniformly heat the comb tines so that the hair shaping and heating are uniform. Morikawa would benefit equally from uniformly heating the comb tines so that the hair shaping and heating are uniform. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morikawa with the heater assembly comprising a first tine support having a first set of tines and a second tine support having a second set of tines, wherein the first and second tine supports interlock such that a tine of the second set of tines is positioned between two tines of the first set of tines as taught by Huang in order to uniformly heat the comb tines so that the hair shaping and heating are uniform.
As for claim 12, Huang teaches the first tine support comprises a plurality of tine openings configured to receive the second set of tines (20, 21, figs. 2) in order to improve the heat transfer efficiency. Morikawa would benefit equally from improving the heat transfer efficiency. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morikawa with the first tine support comprises a plurality of tine openings configured to receive the second set of tines as taught by Huang in order to improve the heat transfer efficiency.
As for claim 13, Huang teaches each tine of the first and second sets of tines comprises a triangular cross-sectional shape (20, 21, figs. 2 and 6) in order to facilitate penetration of the tines into the user’s hair. Morikawa would benefit equally from facilitating penetration of the tines into the user’s hair. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morikawa with each tine of the plurality of tines comprises a triangular cross-sectional shape as taught by Huang in order to facilitate penetration of the tines into the user’s hair.
As for claim 14, Huang teaches each tine of the first and second sets of tines is positioned perpendicular to a longitudinal dimension of the rounded body (20, 21, fig. 2) in order to facilitate engaging with a user’s hair. Morikawa would benefit equally from facilitating engaging with a user’s hair. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morikawa with each tine of the first and second sets of tines is positioned perpendicular to a longitudinal dimension of the rounded body as taught by Huang in order to facilitate engaging with a user’s hair similar to Morikawa.
As for claim 15, Huang teaches each tine of the first and second sets of tines comprises a top surface and a bottom surface, and wherein each of the top and bottom surfaces are substantially planar (20, 21, fig. 2) so as to facilitate engaging with a user’s hair similar to Morikawa.
As for claim 16, Huang teaches 16 tines (fig. 6) and the claimed invention except for each of the first and second sets of tines comprises 16 tines. Huang teaches each of the first and second sets of tines comprises 16 tines (20, 21, fig. 2) in order to increase the amount of heat to each strand of hair for more efficient drying. Morikawa would benefit equally from increasing the amount of heat to each strand of hair for more efficient drying. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morikawa with each of the first and second sets of tines comprises 16 tines as taught by Huang in order to increase the amount of heat to each strand of hair for more efficient drying.
As for claim 18, Morikawa discloses the at least two bristles are arranged in a plurality of rows spaced circumferentially around the first region (12, fig. 4).
As for claim 19, Morikawa discloses the plurality of rows comprises between 5 and 10 rows (fig. 1c).
As for claim 20, Morikawa discloses the at least one outlet opening is configured as an outlet for airflow (D1, fig. 3).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morikawa in view of Huang as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Cai (CN205513049U).
Morikawa discloses the claimed invention except for the heater assembly comprises a heater shell that covers at least a portion of each of the first and second tine supports. Cai teaches the heater assembly comprises a heater shell that covers at least a portion of each of the first and second tine supports (p. 3, second paragraph under “Preferred Embodiment”) in order to prevent heat damage to the scalp. Morikawa would benefit equally from preventing heat damage to the scalp. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Morikawa with the heater assembly comprises a heater shell that covers at least a portion of each of the first and second tine supports as taught by Cai in order to prevent heat damage to the scalp.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights