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 do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a system for dispensing” in claim 1, “a magnetic system for spraying” in claim 1, “a system for collecting residues” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Izawa (JP 2004121327, cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 1, Izawa discloses a device for cleansing and/or applying a cosmetic composition for the hair, comprising a body structure (1) provided with one or more application elements (21), a system (6) for dispensing the cosmetic composition (in 5) contained in a housing (5) connected to a dispensing opening (3) that opens onto the body structure and a handle (10) extending the body structure; the device having a magnetic system (solenoid, see [0012]) for spraying the cosmetic composition from the dispensing opening toward the hair, the magnetic system being powered by a circuit (including power button 15 and a DC power supply, see [0009]) for supplying electric current, wherein the body structure is covered at least partially by a removable support (20).
Regarding claim 3, Izawa discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the magnetic system has one or more solenoids ([0012]) integrated in the body structure.
Regarding claim 4, Izawa discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the circuit for supplying electric current has a switch (15).
Regarding claim 5, Izawa discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the circuit for supplying electric current has a circuit for reversing the polarity of the current ([0013]).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parko (US 6112362).
Regarding claim 2, Izawa teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach that the device has a system for collecting residues, the residues being waste particles.
Parko teaches a system (16) for collecting residues, the residues being waste particles (col. 3, ll. 10-13).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Izawa with a system for collecting residues, the residues being waste particles as taught by Parko for the purpose of enabling a user to clean the brush (Parko, col. 3, ll. 10-13).
Regarding claim 11, Izawa teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach that the removable support is a wipe.
Parko teaches a removable support (16) that is a wipe.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Izawa with a removable support that is a wipe as taught by Parko for the purpose of enabling a user to clean the brush (Parko, col. 3, ll. 10-13).
Claim(s) 6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charroud (US 2020/0098174).
Regarding claim 6, Izawa teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach that the circuit for supplying electric current has a timer circuit.
Charroud teaches a brush with a circuit that includes a timer circuit (¶0004 teaches timestamping, which requires some sort of timer circuit).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Izawa with a timer circuit as taught by Charroud for the purpose of enabling the device to store data related to specific times (Charroud, ¶0002-0004).
Regarding claim 8, Izawa teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach a position or movement sensor.
Charroud teaches a device with a position or movement sensor (¶0040).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Izawa with a position or movement sensor as taught by Charroud for the purpose of recording position or movement of the device (Charroud ¶0004, 0040)
Regarding claim 9, Izawa teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach a gyroscope.
Charroud teaches a device with a gyroscope (¶0040).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Izawa with a gyroscope as taught by Charroud for the purpose of enabling the device to record positional data (Charroud, ¶0040)
Regarding claim 10, Izawa discloses the device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach a connection to an operation computer system.
Charroud teaches a device with a connection to an operation computer system (803).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Izawa with an operation computer system as taught by Charroud for the purpose of controlling the operation of the device.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (US 2021/0153989).
Regarding claim 7, Izawa teaches the device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach that the circuit for supplying electric current has a current stabilizer.
Huang teaches a circuit with a current stabilizer (1012).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Izawa with a current stabilizer as taught by Huang for the purpose of providing a stable current to the device (Huang, ¶0095).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thevenet (US 9609934).
Regarding claim 12, Izawa teaches a kit for cleansing and/or applying a cosmetic composition for the hair, comprising a device as claimed in claim 1, but does not teach a cosmetic composition having magnetic bodies having a nonzero magnetic susceptibility and able to move under the effect of a magnetic field generated by the device.
Thevenet teaches a cosmetic composition having magnetic bodies having a nonzero magnetic susceptibility and able to move under the effect of a magnetic field (col. 1, ll. 16-29).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Izawa with a cosmetic composition having magnetic bodies having a nonzero magnetic susceptibility and able to move under the effect of a magnetic field generated by the device as taught by Thevenet for the purpose of providing the user with a cosmetic that can change appearance under the effect of a magnetic field (Thevenet, col. 1, ll. 33-35).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Izawa and Thevenet teaches the cleansing kit as claimed in claim 12 wherein the cosmetic composition is contained in a reservoir (Izawa, 5) held in a removable manner (Izawa [0008]) in the housing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the cover 20 of Izawa is not removable.
Examiner disagrees. Izawa discloses that the cover is an elastic and flexible material and is retained by a groove (e) about the cover’s perimeter. This is a removable attachment.
In response to Applicant’s arguments that removing the cover of Izawa would render the device inoperable, it is noted that there is no requirement in the claim that the device is operable while the cover is detached. “Removable” does not imply that the device can or should be used while the element is removed, but merely that the element can be removed from the device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 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, David Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/BRADLEY S OLIVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights