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.
Claims 15-30 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. Claims 15 and 30 are construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the hair” and/or “the steps” lack a positive antecedent basis. Since claims 16-29 depend upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency. Claims 16, 17, and 29 are further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the hair” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claim 24 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the length” and “the heated combing zone” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim 25 is construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the steam outlet zone” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claims 26 and 27 are construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the at least one steam outlet zone” or “the at least one heated combing zone” lack a positive antecedent basis.
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: heating means in claims 18, 20, and 30.
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
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.
Claims 15, 18-20, and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dolev (US 5,261,427). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Dolev, as teaching:
a method for treating the hair with a treatment device (see title and abstract), the method comprising:
simultaneously heating and combing a lock of hair between teeth of at least one heated combing zone without a steam outlet of the treatment device (column 2 lines 25-46 and column 3 lines 50-57); and
(ii) applying steam to the lock of hair in at least one steam outlet zone (column 5 lines 10-18),
wherein the steps of (i) and (ii) are carried out on the lock of hair by passing the treatment device through the hair at least once (column 2 lines 59-68). Dolev also discloses the claim 18 feature wherein the treatment device comprises a treatment surface, and the teeth extend from the treatment surface in the heated combing zone, wherein the heating in step (i) is carried out by: a) thermal transmission from the treatment surface heated by heating means of the treatment device; or b) thermal transmission from at least some of the teeth of the at least one heated combing zone without a steam outlet, and wherein the combing in step (i) is carried out by passing the teeth in the heated combing zone (figures 1, 2), the claim 19 feature wherein the at least one heated combing zone comprises: a) teeth comprising at least one heat conducting material, and b) teeth comprising at least one heat insulating material (column 2 lines 59-68), the claim 20 feature wherein the teeth comprising at least one heat conducting material in the at least one heated combing zone are heated by the heating means of the treatment device by thermal radiation emitted from the heating means (figures 1, 2), the claim 25 feature wherein step (ii) further comprises: simultaneously combing the lock of hair in the steam outlet zone (column 5 lines 10-18), the claim 26 feature wherein step (ii) is carried out through at least one row of steam outlets that extend in the at least one steam outlet zone, wherein the steam outlets that extend in the at least one steam outlet zone alternate with the teeth in the at least one steam outlet zone (figures 4, 5), the claim 27 feature wherein, in each of the at least one heated combing zone adjacent to the steam outlet zone, a row of teeth closest to the steam outlet zone is made of at least one heat insulating material (figures 1, 7), the claim 28 feature wherein the teeth comprising the at least one heat insulating material have an elongated cross section (column 2 lines 47-52), and the claim 29 feature step of applying a cosmetic product to the hair by a zone of the treatment device while the treatment device passes through the hair (column 2 lines 59-68 wherein the disclosed chemical or natural agent meets the claimed cosmetic product because both are either chemical or natural).
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yao (US 6,941,955). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Yao, as teaching:
a brush for treating the hair (see title and abstract) comprising:
at least one heated hair combing zone 2, without a steam outlet, comprising a plurality of teeth wherein heating means are carried out for heating at least two teeth of the plurality of teeth (figures 3, 4); and
at least one steam outlet zone 1 separate from the at least one heated hair combing zone (figures 3, 5).
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.
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.
Claims 16-17 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dolev. Dolev discloses the claimed invention as rejected above, except for the claim 16 two steps, claim 17 constant speed, claim 21 elastomer or plastic material, claim 22 plurality of rows, claim 23 material ranges, claim 24 insulating length. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite those features, since the teachings of Dolev would perform as claimed, regardless of those features and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this application teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting such that a rejection would be proper or reasonable under current Office practice and procedure. References A, B, N, O, cited with this action, are patent publications from the same inventive entity. References C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, P, Q, cited with this action, teach hair devices and methods thereof.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
Friday, July 17, 2026
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights