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 § 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) 1-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno (FR 2,416,668) in view of Foster (US 2,241,879).
Bruno discloses a positioning double-layer comb, comprising an upper comb body (1); a lower comb body (6), a pair of plug-in sockets (4a) provided on the upper comb body, wherein each of the plug-in sockets is provided therein with a plug-in hole (F); and a pair of plug-in connectors (M) provided on the lower comb body, wherein each of the plug-in connectors is provided thereon with a plug-in strip (7b), and the plug-in strip is matched with a respective plug-in hole (see Figure 1). Bruno discloses the claimed invention except for a height of the upper comb body is greater than a height of the lower comb body. Foster teaches a double comb body having a height of the upper comb body (12) is greater than a height of the lower comb body (10) (see Figure 3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the upper comb body of Bruno be of a greater height than the lower comb body as taught by Foster to allow for versatility in hair care and styling allowing a single tool to perform multiple functions for various hair types and desired results.
Regarding claims 2-3 and 5, Bruno further discloses: Claim 2, a docking slot (4b) is further provided on each of the plug-in sockets, each of the plug-in holes (F) is located in a respective docking slot, and a size of the docking slot is matched with a size of the plug-in connector (M) (see Figure 1).
Claim 3, at least one pair of connection members (8), wherein one end of each connection member is provided with a connection plug-in strip, and the other end of each connection body is provided with a connection slot (see Figure 4), the connection slot is provided therein with a connection receptacle; the connection plug-in strip is matched with the plug-in hole, and the connection receptacle is matched with the plug-in strip (see Figures 2-4).
Claim 5, wherein an end of the upper comb body is provided with a handle (2) (see Figure 1).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno (FR 2,416,668) in view of Foster (US 2,241,879) as applied to claims 1-3 and 5 above, and further in view of Davis (US 4,867,184).
The combination of Bruno and Foster disclose the claimed invention except for the upper comb body and the lower comb body each being arch-shaped. Davis teaches a hair trimming comb body having a body that is arch-shaped (see Figures 3a, and 7a-9c). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the combs of the combination of Bruno and Foster be arch shaped as taught by Davis to allow for the ability to follow the natural contour of the head, which provides ergonomic benefits, enhances styling efficiency, and improves scalp comfort.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL RUNNING STEITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm EST.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
11/5/2025