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 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 1-5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the battery" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It should read “a battery”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Rhoades (PGPub 20060058714).
Rhoades teaches an apparatus, comprising: a handle (130) having a first end, a second end, at least one curved middle portion (cylindrical shape), and a power and speed control button (275); a vibrating member (264) connected to the first end of the handle, the vibrating member including a motor (260) disposed inside the vibrating member, and a brush head connecting protrusion (120, 140) being disposed on the vibrating member; a brush head (300) having a cut-out portion (280, 290) on a first side and being detachably connected to the vibrating member, the brush head including bristles (320) that are configured to receive a hair dye; and a charging cord being magnetically and electrically connected to a battery (phantom lines in figure 3) (paragraph 0059), the charging cord being configured to supply a charge to the battery, to supply power to the motor, and to cause the vibrating member to oscillate the bristles when the power and speed control button is activated, wherein the brush head is detachably connected to the vibrating member by the cut-out portion fastening to the brush head connecting protrusion.
With regards to claim 3, the power and speed control button is configured to turn the apparatus on and off and to activate a plurality of speeds for vibrating the motor (paragraph 0041).
With regards to claim 6, the method of dying hair comprises connecting a brush head (300) having bristles (320) to a tip of a vibrating member (264) of the apparatus, the vibrating member including a motor (260); electrically connecting a charging cord to a rechargeable battery to supply power to the motor (paragraph 0059); placing a hair dye on a portion of the bristles of the brush head (paragraph 0055 states that it can be used on hair); and activating a power and speed control button disposed on the handle to turn on the apparatus (275, paragraph 0041), to cause a vibrating member connected to the motor to oscillate the bristles and to apply the hair dye to hair follicles of a scalp of a user.
With regards to claim 8, the power and speed control button is configured to turn the apparatus on and off and to activate a plurality of speeds for vibrating the motor (paragraph 0041).
Claim(s) 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Kosecoff (WO 2022061175).
With regards to claim 6, Kosecoff teaches the method of dying hair comprises connecting a brush head (100a) having bristles (108) to a tip of a vibrating member (158) of the apparatus, the vibrating member including a motor (variable speed); electrically connecting a charging cord to a rechargeable battery to supply power to the motor (not shown, page 10, lines 5-7); placing a hair dye on a portion of the bristles of the brush head (page 5, lines 24-29); and activating a power and speed control button disposed on the handle to turn on the apparatus (106), to cause a vibrating member connected to the motor to oscillate the bristles and to apply the hair dye to hair follicles of a scalp of a user.
With regards to claim 8, the power and speed control button is configured to turn the apparatus on and off and to activate a plurality of speeds for vibrating the motor (106).
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 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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 7 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoades (‘714) in view of Goldberg (PGPub 20080255483).
Rhoades teaches all the essential elements of the claimed invention including a tri-grip shaped cushion handle disposed on the at least one curved portion of the handle (figure 4a-4b) (claims 4 and 9), however fail to teach that the second end of the handle has threads (claims 2 and 7). Goldberg teaches a vibrating device with a handle that has a threaded end (14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Rhoades so that the second end of the handle has threads as taught by Goldberg to allow for easy access to the batteries.
Claim(s) 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rhoades (‘714) and Goldberg (‘483) further in view of Johnson (USPN 6789549).
Rhoades and Goldberg teach all the essential elements of the claimed invention however fail to teach a pick is detachably connected to the second end of the handle via the threading. Johnson teaches a brush with a handle (120) having a threaded end (54/26) for connecting a pick (130). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second end of Rhoades and Goldberg so that a pick can be attached to the threaded portion of the handle as taught by Johnson to allow for an additional brushing utensil without needing to have two separate devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAY LYNN KARLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1268. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-5pm).
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-272-4475. 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.
/SHAY KARLS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723