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 .
Drawings
1. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).
Claim 16, “clips designed to snap onto the existing structure”
Claim 18, “snap-fit connectors that engage with corresponding grooves or notches”
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
2. Claims 1 and 10-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 5, “positioned above said base of the bristles” should read “positioned above said base of each of the bristles” to provide increased clarity
Claim 1, line 7, “configured to allow only the tips of said bristles” should read “configured to allow only [[the]] tips of said bristles” to provide increased clarity and avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 10, “the scalp” should read “[[the]] a scalp” to provide increased clarity and avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 11, “moulded” should read “[[moulded]] molded” to provide increased clarity
Claim 12, "mould” should read “[[mould]] mold” to provide increased clarity
Claim 13, “allowing for the accommodation” should read “allowing for [[the]] accommodation” to provide increased clarity and avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Claim 14, lines 6-7, “to allow only the tips of the bristles” should read “to allow only [[the]] tips of the bristles” to provide increased clarity and avoid the antecedent basis issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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:
Claim 13, “a mechanism for adjusting the tension of the nylon mesh”. Additionally, proper corresponding structure is provided as “snap fit attachments, clips, Velcro” in paragraph 043 of the instant specification.
Claim 14, “the securing mechanism is adapted to removably attach the attachment to the sides”. Additionally, proper corresponding structure is provided as “snap fit attachments, clips, Velcro” in paragraph 043 of the instant specification.
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 § 112
4. 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 8-10 and 14-18 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.
Regarding claim 8, the language recites “from hair”. However, “hair” was previously introduced. Therefore, the term “from hair” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitation will be interpreted as “from the hair”.
Regarding claim 9, the language recites “wherein the nylon mesh comprises a network-like structure with evenly spaced holes or openings sized to trap particles of sand and debris while allowing hair to pass through gently”. However, it is not precisely clear what is required by the phrase “while allowing hair to pass through gently”. Specifically, as best understood by the examiner, the hair does not pass through the mesh. Rather, the hair passes through the bristles during operation. However, the bristles pass through the mesh during cleaning. Additionally, the term “hair” lacks proper antecedent basis because it was previously introduced. Overall, it is not precisely clear what is required by the claim language. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “wherein the nylon mesh comprises a network-like structure with evenly spaced holes or openings sized to trap particles of sand and debris while allowing the hair to pass through the plurality of bristles gently”.
Regarding claim 10, the language recites “and hair”. However, “hair” was previously introduced. Therefore, the term “and hair” lacks proper antecedent basis. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitation will be interpreted as “and the hair”.
Regarding claim 14, line 2, the language recites “overlay the bristles of a hairbrush”. However, the terms “bristles” and “hairbrush” lacks proper antecedent basis because “bristles” has not yet been introduced and “hairbrush” was previously introduced. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “overlay [[the]] bristles of [[a]] the hairbrush”.
Regarding claim 14, line 5, the language recites “the sides of the hairbrush body”. However, the terms “sides” and “hairbrush body” lack proper antecedent basis because these terms have not yet been introduced. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the limitation will be interpreted as “[[the]] sides of [[the]] a hairbrush body”.
Claims 15-18 are rejected for depending upon a rejected base claim.
Regarding claim 16, the language recites “the existing structure of a hairbrush”. However, the terms “existing structure” and “hairbrush” lack proper antecedent basis because the term “existing structure” has not yet been introduced and the term “hairbrush” was previously introduced. For purposes of examination, as best understood by the examiner, the language will be interpreted as “[[the]] an existing structure of [[a]] the hairbrush”.
Claim 17 contains two instances of the trademark/trade name Velcro. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the securing mechanisms and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, 11, 13-15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada (US PGPUB 20210315373).
Regarding claim 1, Awada teaches a hairbrush (hairbrush of fig. 1-2B interacting with brush cleaning sheet 100 of fig. 6) comprising:
a brush body (fig. 1, structure indicated by element 220);
a plurality of bristles (fig. 1, bristles 230) affixed to said brush body (fig. 1), wherein each of said bristles extends from a base connected to said brush body (fig. 2a-2b); and
a layer of woven nylon mesh (cleaning sheet 100 of fig. 6, which is woven [0009] nylon [0008] mesh) positioned above said base of the bristles (see annotated fig. 2a below) and attached to said brush body (attached via hook and loop fasteners 131/132 [0030]),
PNG
media_image1.png
320
677
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein said woven nylon mesh is configured to allow only the tips of said bristles to protrude through said nylon mesh (fig. 2a-2b), characterized in that the woven nylon mesh serves to intercept and retain debris while allowing said tips of the bristles to engage with and clean hair (fig. 2a-2b, the woven nylon mesh is capable of intercept and retaining debris while allowing said tips of the bristles to engage with and clean hair).
As such, Awada and the instant claimed invention both provide a woven nylon mesh interacting with a hairbrush to intercept debris while allowing bristles to engage with hair wherein the only difference between Awada and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Awada does not teach said tips extending a length of between 1 millimeter and 4 millimeters beyond said nylon mesh.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Awada to include said tips extending a length of between 1 millimeter and 4 millimeters beyond said nylon mesh since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Awada, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed length since the woven nylon mesh interacting with the hairbrush would continue to be capable of intercepting debris while allowing bristles to engage with hair. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claims 2 and 9, Awada, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Awada, as modified, teaches wherein the woven nylon mesh is a fabric with gaps (fig. 6 showing gaps of the mesh fabric [0002]), wherein the nylon mesh comprises a network-like structure with evenly spaced holes or openings (fig. 6 showing mesh structure [0008])
As such, Awada, as modified, and the instant claimed invention both provide a woven nylon mesh interacting with a hairbrush to intercept debris while allowing bristles to engage with hair wherein the only difference between Awada, as modified, and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Awada, as modified, does not teach wherein the woven nylon mesh is a fabric with gaps of a width of 0.5mm or less, the evenly spaced holes or openings sized to trap particles of sand and debris while allowing hair to pass through gently.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Awada, as modified, to include wherein the woven nylon mesh is a fabric with gaps of a width of 0.5mm or less, the evenly spaced holes or openings sized to trap particles of sand and debris while allowing hair to pass through gently since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Awada, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed mesh size since the woven nylon mesh interacting with the hairbrush would continue to be capable of intercepting debris while allowing bristles to engage with hair. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
As best understood by the examiner, in light of the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the prior art teaches the claim limitations.
Regarding claims 3, Awada, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Awada, as modified, teaches wherein said bristles are made of boar hair [0008].
Regarding claims 8, Awada, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Awada, as modified, teaches designed for use in a dry condition or in conjunction with water or a hair conditioner to aid in the removal of sand and debris from hair (the invention of Awada, as modified, is capable of use in a dry condition or in conjunction with water or a hair conditioner to aid in the removal of sand and debris from hair).
Regarding claims 11, Awada, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Awada, as modified, teaches further comprising an ergonomic handle designed to improve grip and control during use, said handle being moulded to fit the contours of a user's hand (fig. 1, the handle of Awada, as modified, is capable of providing an ergonomic handle designed to improve grip and control during use, said handle being moulded to fit the contours of a user’s hand).
Regarding claims 13, Awada, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Additionally, Awada, as modified, teaches further comprising a mechanism for adjusting the tension of the nylon mesh (This element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the corresponding structure and equivalents thereof, as detailed above. The hook and loop fasteners 131/132 are for adjusting the tension of the nylon mesh [0030]), allowing for the accommodation of different hair types and debris sizes (the hook and loop fasteners 131/132 allow for the accommodation of different hair types and debris sizes).
Regarding claim 14, Awada teaches an attachment for a hairbrush (brush cleaning sheet 100 of fig. 6 interacting with hairbrush of fig. 1-2b), comprising:
A layer of woven nylon mesh (cleaning sheet 100 of fig. 6, which is woven [0009] nylon [0008] mesh) configured to overlay the bristles of a hairbrush (fig. 2a); and
a pair of securing mechanisms located on opposing sides of the attachment (fig. 6, hook and loop fasteners 131/132),
wherein each of the securing mechanisms is adapted to removably attach the attachment to the sides of the hairbrush body (This element is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) as the corresponding structure and equivalents thereof, as detailed above. Each of the hook and loop fasteners 131/132 are adapted to removably attach the attachment 100 of fig. 6 to the sides of the hair brush body [0030]),
characterized in that the woven nylon mesh is positioned to allow only the tips of the bristles of the hairbrush to protrude through the woven nylon mesh (fig. 2a-2b), thereby enabling the mesh to intercept and retain debris while permitting the exposed tips of the bristles to engage with and clean hair (fig. 2a-2b, the woven nylon mesh is capable of intercept and retaining debris while permitting the exposed tips of the bristles to engage with and clean hair).
As such, Awada and the instant claimed invention both provide a woven nylon mesh interacting with a hairbrush to intercept debris while allowing bristles to engage with hair wherein the only difference between Awada and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Awada does not teach with said tips extending a length of between 1 millimeter and 4 millimeters beyond said nylon mesh.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Awada to include with said tips extending a length of between 1 millimeter and 4 millimeters beyond said nylon mesh since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Awada, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed length since the woven nylon mesh interacting with the hairbrush would continue to be capable of intercepting debris while allowing bristles to engage with hair. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claims 15, Awada, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 14. Additionally, Awada, as modified, teaches wherein the woven nylon mesh is a fabric with gaps (fig. 6 showing gaps of the mesh fabric [0002]).
As such, Awada, as modified, and the instant claimed invention both provide a woven nylon mesh interacting with a hairbrush to intercept debris while allowing bristles to engage with hair wherein the only difference between Awada, as modified, and the instant claimed invention is a recitation of relative dimensions.
Specifically, Awada, as modified, does not teach wherein the woven nylon mesh is a fabric with gaps of a width of 0.5mm or less.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Awada, as modified, to include wherein the woven nylon mesh is a fabric with gaps of a width of 0.5mm or less since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Awada, as modified, would not operate differently with the claimed mesh size since the woven nylon mesh interacting with the hairbrush would continue to be capable of intercepting debris while allowing bristles to engage with hair. Further, it appears the applicant places no criticality on the claimed range.
Regarding claims 17, Awada, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 14. Additionally, Awada, as modified, teaches wherein the securing mechanisms are Velcro straps (hook and loop fasteners 131/132 [0030]) designed to wrap around the hairbrush body [0030], the Velcro straps allowing for adjustable tension and accommodation of hairbrushes of different sizes and shapes (paragraph 0030, the hook and loop fasteners 131/132 allow for adjustable tension and accommodation of hairbrushes of different sizes and shapes).
As best understood by the examiner, in light of the above 35 USC 112(b) rejection, the prior art teaches the claim limitations.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada (US PGPUB 20210315373), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Pulfrey et al. (US PGPUB 20200046109), hereinafter Pulfrey.
Regarding claim 10, Awada, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Awada, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the bristles are configured with tapered tips to facilitate gentle engagement with the scalp and hair, reducing the risk of damage during debris removal.
However, Pulfrey teaches a brush for hair, wherein the brush includes an array of bristles (abs), wherein the bristles are configured with tapered tips (fig. 3, [0118]) to facilitate gentle engagement with the scalp and hair, reducing the risk of damage during debris removal (the tapered bristles of Pulfrey are capable of facilitating gentle engagement with the scalp and hair, reducing the risk of damage during debris removal).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Awada, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Pulfrey to provide wherein the bristles are configured with tapered tips to facilitate gentle engagement with the scalp and hair, reducing the risk of damage during debris removal. Specifically, it would have been obvious to provide the bristles of Awada, as modified, with tapered tips to facilitate gentle engagement with the scalp and hair, reducing the risk of damage during debris removal. Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known bristle configuration for another known bristle configuration to obtain the predictable results of providing bristles to brush hair. Additionally, the tapered tips would promote ease of fitting the mesh fabric over the tapered tips.
Claims 6-7, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada (US PGPUB 20210315373), as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Fasse (US PGPUB 20110265807).
Regarding claim 6, Awada, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Awada, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein said brush body is constructed from a material selected from the group consisting of plastic and wood.
However, Fasse teaches a hairbrush cleaning screen, wherein said brush body is constructed from a material selected from the group consisting of plastic [0013] and wood [0013].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Awada, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Fasse to provide wherein said brush body is constructed from a material selected from the group consisting of plastic and wood. Specifically, it would have been obvious to construct the brush body of Awada from plastic or wood. Doing so would provide a known material for the brush body of Awada, as modified, allowing the device to function as intended. Additionally, doing so would promote comfort of the user by selecting a lightweight material.
Regarding claim 7, Awada, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Awada, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein said nylon mesh is integrated into the brush as a non- removable component.
However, Fasse teaches a hairbrush cleaning screen, wherein the screen 10 is substantially permanently attached to the hairbrush body 2 by a hinge that allows the screen arrangement to be pivotally displaceable relative to the hairbrush body, about the pivot axis of the hinge 15 (fig. 2, [0020]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Awada, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Fasse to provide wherein said nylon mesh is integrated into the brush as a non- removable component. Specifically, it would have been obvious to attach the nylon mesh of Awada, as modified, to the brush of Awada, as modified, via a hinge (as taught by Fasse), wherein the nylon mesh is substantially permanently attached to the brush body and the mesh is allowed to be pivotally displaceable about the pivot axis of the hinge (as taught by Fasse). Doing so would prevent separation of the mesh from the brush body, thereby preventing accidental loss of the mesh.
Regarding claim 16, Awada, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 14. Awada, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the securing mechanisms comprise clips designed to snap onto the existing structure of a hairbrush.
However, Fasse teaches a hairbrush cleaning screen, wherein the screen is attached onto the hairbrush body via a snap-fit mechanism 25 that includes a protrusion 26 protruding integrally and unitarily from the perimeter frame 14, and snap-engagement prongs or tabs 27 protruding from the hairbrush body or handle [0022] (fig. 2). Overall, Fasse teaches wherein the securing mechanisms comprise a clip (fig. 2, wherein snap-fit mechanism is interpreted as a clip) designed to snap onto the existing structure of a hairbrush (fig. 2, [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Awada, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Fasse to provide wherein the securing mechanisms comprise clips designed to snap onto the existing structure of a hairbrush. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute the snap-fit mechanism of Fasse for each of the hook and loop fasteners of Awada, as modified, wherein the incorporated snap-fit mechanisms are designed to snap onto the existing structure of a hairbrush (as taught by Fasse). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known fastening configuration for another known fastening configuration to obtain the predictable results of selectively fastening the mesh to the brush.
Regarding claim 18, Awada, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 14. Awada, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the securing mechanisms are snap-fit connectors that engage with corresponding grooves or notches on the hairbrush body.
However, Fasse teaches a hairbrush cleaning screen, wherein the screen is attached onto the hairbrush body via a snap-fit mechanism 25 that includes a protrusion 26 protruding integrally and unitarily from the perimeter frame 14, and snap-engagement prongs or tabs 27 protruding from the hairbrush body or handle [0022] (fig. 2). Overall, Fasse teaches wherein the securing mechanisms are snap-fit connectors (fig. 2, snap-fit mechanism 25) that engage with corresponding grooves or notches on the hairbrush body (fig. 2, [0022]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Awada, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Fasse to provide wherein the securing mechanisms are snap-fit connectors that engage with corresponding grooves or notches on the hairbrush body. Specifically, it would have been obvious to substitute the snap-fit mechanism of Fasse for each of the hook and loop fasteners of Awada, as modified, wherein the incorporated snap-fit mechanisms are designed to engage with corresponding grooves or notches on the hairbrush body (as taught by Fasse). Doing so would have been a simple substitution (MPEP 2143) of one known fastening configuration for another known fastening configuration to obtain the predictable results of selectively fastening the mesh to the brush.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada (US PGPUB 20210315373), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mizutani (WO 2020090127).
Regarding claims 4-5, Awada, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Awada, as modified, does not explicitly teach further comprising a rubber base located beneath said nylon mesh, wherein said rubber base provides support for the nylon mesh and bristles, further comprising a layer of felt positioned between said rubber base and said nylon mesh to enhance debris capture capabilities.
However, Mizutani teaches a brush cleaning device, wherein the brush includes a plurality of bristles (fig. 1), wherein the bristles are mounted on a backing body (fig. 1), wherein the backing body includes a layer 3a and a layer 3b located between the layer 3a and the bristles, wherein layer 3a is a layer of a rubber sheet (fourth paragraph on page 2 of the attached translation) and layer 3b is a layer of cloth (fourth paragraph on page 2 of the attached translation) such as felt (third paragraph on page 2 of the attached translation). Overall, Mizutani teaches further comprising a rubber base (rubber base 3a, fig. 1), wherein said rubber base provides support for the bristles (fig. 1), further comprising a layer of felt positioned between said rubber base and said bristles (fig 1, layer of felt 3b).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Awada, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Mizutani to provide further comprising a rubber base located beneath said nylon mesh, wherein said rubber base provides support for the nylon mesh and bristles, further comprising a layer of felt positioned between said rubber base and said nylon mesh to enhance debris capture capabilities. Specifically, it would have been obvious to incorporate the backing configuration of Mizutani into the brush body of Awada, as modified, wherein the backing configuration includes a rubber base located beneath the nylon mesh and bristles, wherein said rubber base provides support for the nylon mesh and bristles, and further comprising a layer of felt positioned between said rubber base and said nylon mesh and bristles to enhance debris capture capabilities. Doing so would provide a cushioned backing to promote comfort of the user during use, wherein the known cushion configuration of Mizutani still adequately supports the bristles. Additionally, providing the felt layer would provide the capability of enhancing debris capture capabilities by providing a textured surface at the base of the bristles.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awada (US PGPUB 20210315373), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wynne (US PGPUB 20100163067).
Regarding claim 12, Awada, as modified, teaches the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1. Awada, as modified, does not explicitly teach wherein the nylon mesh is coated with an antimicrobial agent to inhibit the growth of bacteria and mould, ensuring the brush remains hygienic over extended periods of use.
However, Wynne teaches a hair grooming device with coatings, wherein the components of the hair grooming device including the bristles are coated with a substance such as silver for its antimicrobial properties [0002].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Awada, as modified, to incorporate the teachings of Wynne to provide wherein the nylon mesh is coated with an antimicrobial agent to inhibit the growth of bacteria and mould, ensuring the brush remains hygienic over extended periods of use. Specifically, it would have been obvious to coat the components of the device of Awada, as modified, (including bristles and mesh) with a substance such as silver for its antimicrobial properties to inhibit growth of bacteria and mould, ensuring the brush remains hygienic over extended periods of use (as taught by Wynne). Doing so would promote cleanliness through the antimicrobial properties of the silver coating, as taught by Wynne [0002].
Conclusion
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abodreham (US PGPUB 20080229532) teaches a cleanable hair brush with a hinge which is similar to the claimed invention (figs. 1-2)
Robinson (US Patent 5890255) teaches a cleaning net similar to the claimed invention.
Powell (US PGPUB 20180199688) teaches a reusable brush cleaning accessory similar to the claimed invention
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A GUMP whose telephone number is (571)272-2172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9:00-5:30.
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 Posigian can be reached at (313) 446-6546. 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.
/MICHAEL A GUMP/Examiner, Art Unit 3723