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 Objections
Claims 5-8, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the head portion” should be replaced with “the elongated head” and “the handle portion” should be replaced with “the elongated handle”.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a head portion” should be “the elongated head”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 7-9, 11-15, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konesky (US 4,287,898) in view of Ruckart (US 2009/0101160) and Oliver (US 2008/0110471).
Regarding Claim 1, Konesky teaches a comb assembly (comprising:
a comb body (Figure 1) having an elongated head (elongated backing part 10 with teeth 20 extending from it) and an elongated handle (cover part 4) extending from said elongated head (Figure 1);
a plurality of teeth (teeth generally 20; ), the plurality of teeth forming a first row (outer row 30 of teeth) and a second row (outer row 32 of teeth), each row extending parallel to a longitudinal axis defined by said elongated head (Figure 2 shows the rows of teeth are parallel to the longitudinal axis of elongated backing part 10), wherein each of said plurality of teeth extends generally orthogonally with respect to said longitudinal axis (Figure 3 shows the teeth extend generally orthogonally to elongated backing part 10).
Konesky teaches the cross section of the plurality of teeth being an oval or elliptical cross section (Figure 2; col 1 lines 60-65) rather than a rectangular cross section. However, the short curved sides of the elliptical shape taught by Konesky is not waved (Figure 3 shows that the teeth viewed in the cross section along line 3-3 of Figure 1 are not wavy), while the wider side has a wavy surface resulting in the plurality of teeth in the first and second rows being wavy (Figure 1).
However, Ruckart, in the same field of endeavor of combs with multiple rows of teeth (abstract; Figure 1), teaches a comb (hair comb device 10) with an elongated head (body 12) and an elongated handle (handle 14) and multiple rows of teeth (first row of comb teeth 30 and second row of comb teeth 20), wherein the teeth of comb can have a variety of cross sectional shapes (Figures 10A-E; ¶ 0072), including oval or elliptical teeth (pattern 62 in Figure 10B) and rectangular teeth (square pattern 60 in Figure 10A).
Therefore 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 teeth of Konesky to have a rectangular cross section as taught by Ruckart as such a cross section would have been obvious to try. Modification of the teeth of Konesky to be square or rectangular in cross section while maintaining the wavy shape taught by Konesky along the length would result in a first pair of walls each having a planar surface (replacing the curved shorter ends of the elliptical cross sections as seen in Figure 2 which run generally straight from the elongated backing part 10 as seen in Figure 3) and a second pair of opposing walls each having a wavy surface (the longer sides of the elliptical cross section as seen in Figure 2 which follows the curve of the teeth as shown in Figure 1).
Konesky teaches the comb assembly having a third, middle row of teeth (middle row 34), but does not teach these middle teeth being on an insert that can connect or disconnect from the comb body.
However, Oliver, in the same field of endeavor of combs (abstract), teaches a comb device (finishing comb 10) with an elongated head (body 12) and elongated handle (handle 42; embodiment shown in Figure 7) with multiple rows of teeth or bristles (natural and synthetic bristles 32 and 34). Oliver further teaches an insert (insert 66) comprising a row of bristles or pins (shown as synthetic bristles 32, which look like pins, but described as being potentially natural bristles or other shapes depending on grooming needs in ¶ 0029) that selectively connects to and disconnects from the comb body in between the first row of the plurality of teeth and the second row of the plurality of teeth so that the comb can be used with or without the insert (Figure 9; comb would be fully capable of being used without the insert as the rest of the structure of the comb is maintained). Oliver teaches that the middle row can be formed as one non-separable structure (Figures 1-8) or could be formed as an insert (insert 66 in Figures 9 and 10; ¶ 0034-0038). Oliver further teaches that the middle row may be fabricated as a separate structure in order to make manufacturing easier (¶ 0034) as the different rows can have different structures or material compositions depending on grooming needs (Figures 5, 6, 8; ¶ 0029).
Therefore 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 comb device as taught by Konesky to make the middle row of teeth removable on an insert as taught by Oliver. This arrangement with the insert would have been obvious to try because Oliver teaches the middle row being a separate, removable insert or being integral with the rest of the comb device. Additionally, Oliver teaches it may be desirable to make the insert removable to make manufacturing easier as the middle row may be of a different format or material than the outer rows.
Regarding Claim 7, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 1, as presented above. Konesky further teaches wherein the head portion (interpreted as the elongated head – elongated backing part 10 with teeth 20 extending from it) has a middle wall formed between the first row of the plurality of teeth and the second row of the plurality of teeth (Figure 3 shows backing part 10 forms this middle wall spanning between and across the rows.
Oliver further teaches wherein the head portion has a middle wall (outer wall 68 of base 64; Figure 9) formed between the first row of the plurality of teeth (outer row 80) and the second row of the plurality of teeth (outer row 82) having a slot (end of channel 76 in end surface 72 into which insert 66 slides, as shown in Figure 9) that is formed at an end of the middle wall that is opposite the handle portion (Oliver teaches that the device could have handle 42 as shown in Figure 7; ¶ 0030).
Regarding Claim 8, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 7, as presented above. Oliver further teaches wherein the slot (end of channel 76 in end surface 72 into which insert 66 slides) is formed between the middle wall (outer wall 68 of base 64) and first end teeth (teeth of comb located at one end of base 64; Figure 9). Konesky teaches the head extending from the handle (Konesky Figure 1), as does Oliver as a potential embodiment (Oliver Figure 7). The slot could potentially be on either end of the head relative to the handle or at both ends of the head, therefore it would be obvious to try locating the slot opposite the handle. One would be motivated to locate the slot for the insert opposite the handle such that it could easily be accessed without having to maneuver around the handle.
Regarding Claim 9, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 8, as presented above. Oliver further teaches wherein the slot (end of channel 76 in end surface 72 into which insert 66 slides) has a first slot portion with a first width (bottom of slot where portion of insert with rails or wings 84 enters) that is greater than a second width of a second slot portion (top of slot where narrower part of insert 66 at surface 92 enters). The bottom of the slot taught by Oliver is wider than the top of the slot in order to accommodate the rails or wings at the bottom of the insert, as shown in Figure 9.
Regarding Claim 11, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 1, as presented above. Oliver further teaches wherein the insert (66) has a plurality of pins (synthetic bristles 32) that extend from an insert support (base structure of insert 66 with surface 92; Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 12, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 11, as presented above. Oliver further teaches wherein the insert support (base structure of insert 66 with surface 92) has a support body (rectangular prism portion of insert 66 that has surface 92) with a length that is greater than a width and a depth (see annotated Figure 9 below).
PNG
media_image1.png
341
628
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 13, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 12, as presented above. Oliver further teaches wherein the insert support (base structure of insert 66 with surface 92) has an extension (rails or wings 84) that extends from the support body (rectangular prism portion of insert 66 that has surface 92) that is sized to fit in a slot of a head portion of the comb to connect the insert to the comb (Figure 9).
Regarding Claim 14, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 11, as presented above. Oliver further teaches wherein the insert support (base structure of insert 66 with surface 92) has a protrusion (rails or wings 84) that is sized to fit in a lower wall of the comb (fit into base 64 which can be considered the lower wall of the head of the comb).
Alternatively, Oliver also teaches the insert support (base structure of insert 66 with surface 92) has protrusions (outwardly extending raised surface portions or detents 88; ¶ 0035) that are sized to fit into a lower wall of the comb (the inner surface of the base 64 has “corresponding dimples or recesses 90 of the channel that are configured to receive the detents 88 when the insert 66 slides fully into the channel 76” in ¶ 0035).
Regarding Claim 15, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 11, as presented above. Oliver further teaches wherein the insert support has a support body that is made of plastic (¶ 0036 teaches the insert may be made of plastic) and the plurality of pins are each metal (¶ 0031 teaches the synthetic bristles 32 may be made of metal).
Regarding Claim 18, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 11, as presented above. Oliver further teaches wherein the insert is a sliding insert so that the insert is slidingly received in between the first row of the plurality of teeth and the second row of the plurality of teeth (Figure 9; ¶ 0035).
Regarding Claim 19, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 11, as presented above. Konesky further teaches wherein the middle row of teeth is offset from the outer rows of teeth such that an overall configuration of the multiple rows of teeth is such that a gap for the hair to pass through is narrowed compared to the outer rows of teeth alone (Figure 2). Therefore if the pins of Oliver were also placed offset from the outer rows of teeth as taught by Konesky, the overall configuration of the plurality of teeth that are wavy bristles ( Konesky teeth 20 of outer rows 30, 32) and the plurality of pins (Oliver synthetic bristles 32) is such that a gap for the hair to pass between adjacent pins of the plurality of pins and/or the plurality of teeth is narrowed (as shown in Konesky Figure 2).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konesky (US 4,287,898), Ruckart (US 2009/0101160), and Oliver (US 2008/0110471) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 201657930).
Regarding Claims 5 and 6, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 1, as presented above. Ruckart teaches wherein the plurality of teeth (first row of comb teeth 30 and second row of comb teeth 20) include first end teeth on a side of the head portion that is opposite the handle portion that have a shape that is different than other of the plurality of teeth and second end teeth on a side of the head portion that is adjacent the handle portion that have a shape that is different than other plurality of teeth (Figures 1 and 5 show that the teeth include end teeth far from the handle and at the handle that have different shapes than the majority of the teeth, particularly are thicker along the longitudinal axis than the majority teeth). The end teeth taught by Ruckart are not wavy on one side, as the teeth of the comb taught by Ruckart are straight.
However, Zhang, in the same field of endeavor of hair combs (abstract), teaches that the end teeth of plurality of teeth are wavy on only one side (Figure).
Therefore 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 comb assembly as taught by Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver with the end teeth being different as taught by Ruckart to also include ethe end teeth being wavy on one side as taught by Zhang. This is a combination of known elements in the art (wavy main teeth of the comb as taught by Konesky and Zhang, different end teeth as taught by Ruckart and Zhang, and end teeth being wavy on only one side as taught by Zhang) with the predictable result that the main teeth and the sides of the end teeth facing the main teeth would all be wavy. One would be motivated to make this modification in order to have all the similar surfaces combing through the hair, internally from end to end of the comb, be wavy in the same way.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konesky (US 4,287,898), Ruckart (US 2009/0101160), and Oliver (US 2008/0110471) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Bates (GB 2474656).
Regarding Claim 10, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 7, as presented above. They do not explicitly teach wherein the elongated head has a lower wall that extends from an end of the middle wall that is adjacent the elongated handle.
However Bates, in the same field of endeavor of hair brushing or combing devices with inserts (abstract), teaches wherein the elongated head (brush support 14) has a lower wall (see annotated Figure 5 below) that extends from an end of the middle wall (middle wall is the bottom of brush support 14 as oriented in Figure 5) that is adjacent the elongated handle (handle 16; Figure 5). This lower wall is the result of the handle (handle 16) being attached to an end of the head (brush support 14) and the slot (channel 23) only being in the head (brush support 14), such as to limit where insert (nit comb 12) can travel so it doesn’t just slide through and fall out.
Therefore 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 comb device taught by Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver to include the lower wall as taught by Bates as the slot would not need to continue into the handle and having a lower wall at the handle would prevent the insert from sliding out that way.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konesky (US 4,287,898), Ruckart (US 2009/0101160), and Oliver (US 2008/0110471) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Schalla (US 2019/0133290).
Regarding Claim 16, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 11, as presented above. Oliver further teaches wherein the plurality of pins (synthetic bristles 32) are straight. Given that Oliver teaches the insert having different pins, teeth, or bristles from the outer rows, it would be obvious to try the straight pins of Oliver depending on grooming needs (¶ 0029).
Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver do not explicitly teach the pins on the insert or middle row being thinner than those of the outer rows.
However, Schalla, in the same field of endeavor of multi row combs with removable inserts (abstract, Figure 1), teaches the wherein the plurality of pins (tines 210) of the insert (inner comb 200) have a thickness that is thinner (Figure 1; ¶s 0008, 0024, 0027) than each of the plurality of teeth (outer tines 110) of the comb (outer comb 100). Schalla teaches the pins of the insert being thinner than the teeth of the outer comb such the outer comb is configured to detangle hair while the inner comb is configured to remove lice from hair (¶s 0006, 0008, 0028).
Therefore 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 comb assembly as taught by Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver to have the pins of the insert be thinner than the teeth of the outer comb as taught by Schalla in order to enable the assembly to both detangle hair and remove lice from hair.
Regarding Claim 17, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 11, as presented above. They do not explicitly teach the spacing distance between the teeth or pins of the middle row or insert being less than that of the outer rows.
However, Schalla, in the same field of endeavor of multi row combs with removable inserts (abstract, Figure 1), wherein the insert (inner comb 200) has spacing having a distance between each of the plurality of pins (tines 210) that is less than a distance (Figure 3; ¶ 0027) between each of the plurality of teeth of the comb (outer tines 110 of outer comb 100). Schalla teaches the pins of the insert being closer together than the teeth of the outer comb such the outer comb is configured to detangle hair while the inner comb is configured to remove lice from hair (¶s 0028).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konesky (US 4,287,898), Ruckart (US 2009/0101160), and Oliver (US 2008/0110471) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Park (US 2016/0338467).
Regarding Claim 17, Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver teach the comb assembly of claim 11, as presented above. They do not explicitly teach the spacing distance between the teeth or pins of the middle row or insert being less than that of the outer rows.
However, Park, in the same field of endeavor of multi-row combs (abstract, Figure 1), teaches the middle row (inner comb teeth 20) has spacing having a distance between the pins (inner comb teeth 20) that is less than a distance between each of the plurality of teeth of the outer rows (outer comb teeth 7 and 8; Figures 3, 5, 6, 8; ¶ 0111, 0120-0121). Park teaches these different spacing distances in order to make the comb more effective for backcombing or teasing hair (¶ 0120-0121).
Therefore 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 comb assembly as taught by Konesky, Ruckart, and Oliver to have the teeth or pins of the insert spaced more closely together than the outer teeth as taught by Park in order to make the comb assembly more effective when teasing or backcombing hair.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Bates (GB 2474656) is now only relied upon in the rejection of claim 10 to teach the lower wall at the end of the slot near the handle.
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 Jennifer P. Connell whose telephone number is (703)756-1169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 3 pm ET.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571)270-5614. 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.
/JENNIFER P CONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772