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
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 3, delete “are flat” from the end of the claim.
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 4, 13-16, 27-29 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “radiation having a dominant wavelength peak of between 0.8 µm-5 µm” and depends from claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear how the claimed ranges recited in claims 1 and 4 are related. For examining purposes, it was understood that claim 4 recites the same ranges of 1.1 µm and 2 µm or 2.9 µm and 4 µm. Clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites the range “0.8 µm and 5 µm” and depends from claim 1. Therefore, it is unclear how the claimed ranges recited in claims 1 and 4 are related. For examining purposes, it was understood that claim 13 recites the same ranges of 1.1 µm and 2 µm or 2.9 µm and 4 µm. Clarification is required.
Claims 14-16 and 27-29 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of dependency.
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) 1-5, 9-10, 12-15, 17-19, 21, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spoorendonk (US 2020/0187619 A1), in view of Samain (WO 2010/067323 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Spoorendonk teaches a device for treating the hair, having at least one active portion (21) comprising at least one light emission source ([0027]; light exposure units 21 have arrays of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) inside).
Spoorendonk teaches the light emission source iridates IR light at wavelengths between 800 nm to 1 nm ([0023]) but does not teach it explicitly being able to emit, towards the hair, light radiation having a dominant wavelength peak of between 1.1 µm and 2 µm or 2.9 µm and 4 µm.
Samain teaches a method and device for treating hair (abstract) and the device comprises two clamping jaws (102, 103) for folding, rounding or straightening the hair to perm, straighten or color the hair and transform the hair fibers (see page 18 ll. 23-25, and page 9 ll. 12-27). Samain teaches the light operates at a dominant peak wavelength preferably between 400 and 2000 nm (0.4 μm and 2 μm) and can belong to the visible, ultraviolet or infrared spectrum (page 13 lines 33-37). Samain discusses that the device aims to reduce the risk of damage to keratin fibers (page 1 lines 15-20 and page 18 lines 13-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a dominant wavelength peak of the light beam to be between 0.4 μm and 2 μm, as taught by Samain, because it would be suitable for use in a hair treatment process and would contribute to reducing the risk of hair damage.
Regarding claim 2, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches the device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above). Spoorendonk teaches it being a straightening, curling or crimping device ([0001]), having two arms (20) that are able to move relative to one another between a moved-together configuration for treating the hair (see Figure 1a) and a spaced-apart configuration for inserting hair to be treated between said arms (see Fig. 1b), the arms defining half-handles that are continued towards their distal ends by jaws said at least one active portion (21) being carried by one of the two jaws (see annotated Fig. below).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
447
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches the device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above). Spoorendonk teaches at least one of the two jaws is flat (see Figures).
Regarding claim 4, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches the device according to Claim 2 (see rejection above). Spoorendonk teaches each of the two jaws carries said at least one active portion (see Figs. 1a-5a). Spoorendonk teaches the at least one active portion comprising at least one light emission source that is able to emit, towards the hair, radiation having a dominant wavelength peak of between 1.1 µm and 2 µm or 2.9 µm and 4 µm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a dominant wavelength peak of the light beam to be between 0.4 μm and 2 μm, as taught by Samain, because it would be suitable for use in a hair treatment process and would contribute to reducing the risk of hair damage.
Regarding claim 5, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches the device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above). Spoorendonk teaches the at least one light emission source has at least one light-emitting diode emitting in the infrared ([0023]).
Regarding claim 9, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches the device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above). Spoorendonk teaches the jaws of the arms do not have heating elements other than the active portion or portions comprising the light source or sources (see Figs. 1a-1b, 5a).
Regarding claim 10, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches the device according to Claim 9 (see rejection above). Spoorendonk teaches said at least one light source is disposed at the center or at the ends of the jaws of the arms (see Figs. 1a-1b, 5a; 21 is in the center of the jaws).
Regarding claim 12, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches the device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above). Spoorendonk teaches wherein said at least one light emission source is a pulsed-light source ([0016-0021]).
Regarding claim 13, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches a method for treating the hair, using a device for treating the hair, notably according to Claim 1 (see abstract and rejection above). The combination teaches wherein, in said method, in order to treat the hair, at least one lock of hair is exposed to light radiation having a dominant wavelength peak of between 1.1 µm and 2 µm or 2.9 µm and 4 µm.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select a dominant wavelength peak of the light beam to be between 0.4 μm and 2 μm, as taught by Samain, because it would be suitable for use in a hair treatment process and would contribute to reducing the risk of hair damage.
Regarding claims 14-15 and 27, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches the method according to claim 13. Samain teaches a method having an additional step of applying one or more hair compositions to all or part of the head of hair to be treated, before, during or after the use of the treatment device, and the hair composition used comprises at least one agent for breaking the disulfide bridges present in the hair and wherein the hair composition used comprises at least one thiol.
Samain specifically teaches a method of permanent hair reshaping or straightening (page 1 l. 3-6 and page 32 l. 14-19) comprising using a composition having thiol, which is known to modify disulfide bonds (page 1 l. 21-35) and then using infrared radiation (page 13 l. 33-37) to apply heat to the hair because it is known that heat accelerates chemical processes for treating hair (page 2 l. 11-14). Samain teaches applying stress to the hair such that the hair is positioned in a stress-applying device so that it takes on the desired shape in front of the light outlet that delivers the light pulse and that the stress-applying device and the irradiation device may be incorporated within a single appliance (page 4 l. 27-34).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method to include a step of applying a composition comprising thiol when using the device, as taught by Samain, because it would allow long-term reshaping/straightening of the hair due to the modification of disulfide bonds from the composition and heat.
Regarding claims 17-18, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches the device according to claim 1. Spoorendonk teaches it being for shaping the hair and being for straightening the hair (see at least [0001], [0003], [0027]).
Regarding claim 19, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches the device according to claim 3. Spoorendonk teaches both of the jaws are flat (see Figures).
Regarding claim 21, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches the device according to claim 10. Spoorendonk teaches the device having a plurality of light sources disposed in one or more rows, or in an array of light sources (see Fig. 5a and [0027]; 21 comprises an array having a plurality of LEDs).
Regarding claims 25-26, Spoorendonk in view of Samain yteaches the method according to claim 13. Spoorendonk teaches it being for shaping the hair and for straightening the hair (see at least [0001], [0003], [0027]).
Claim(s) 6, 20. 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spoorendonk (US 2020/0187619 A1), in view of Samain (WO 2010/067323 A1), and further in view of Ceva (BRPI0801926 A2), translation provided.
Regarding claims 6 and 20 and 30, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches the device according to claim 1 (see rejection above), but does not teach wherein the at least one light emission source has at least one carbon infrared emitter, and wherein said at least one carbon infrared emitter is a halogen lamp with a carbon filament or the at least one light emission source has a halogen lamp with a carbon filament
Ceva teaches a device in hair device comprising a heater element disposed around a support comprised of a pair of plates and the heater element having a halogen lamp (abstract). Ceva teaches the heater emits infrared radiation and the halogen lamp may have a carbon filament because it provides smooth and controlled emission (see abstract and page 2 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the light emission source to comprise a halogen lamp having a carbon filament, as taught by Ceva, because it would ensure controlled and smooth emission of heat which is ideal for heat application to the hair.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spoorendonk (US 2020/0187619 A1), in view of Samain (WO 2010/067323 A1), Ceva (BRPI0801926 A2), translation provided, and further in view of Made in China.com (NPL; https://yinfrared.en.made-in-china.com/product/cOdTEAZYZSka/China-Halogen-Sauna-Lamp-2020-Best-Infrared-Heater.html . 2020).
Regarding claims 7-8, Spoorendonk in view of Samain and Ceva teaches the device according to claim 6 (see rejection above), but does not teach the carbon filament with a diameter ranging from 8 mm to 25 mm or having a length ranging from 200 mm to 400 mm.
According to Made in China.com, a halogen lamp for infrared heating can be customized to be a carbon infrared heat lamp, which provides more heating efficiency (see pgs. 1, 9 of NPL) and the heating element lamp dimensions may be selected to have a length between 100-3300 mm and a diameter of 10 mm, 12 mm, or 15 mm as to provide a minimum or a maximum voltage and power (see pg. 2 and 6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the carbon filament to have a length between 100-3300 mm and a diameter of 10 mm, 12 mm, or 15 mm, because as disclosed by Made in China.com, commercial carbon filaments may have dimensions within said range and are customizable. One would be motivated modify the diameter and length of the filament as to select proper dimensions for the filament of the lamp that would provide a desired power for applying to hair.
Claim(s) 11, 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spoorendonk (US 2020/0187619 A1), in view of Samain (WO 2010/067323 A1), and further in view of Jung (US 8,035,061 B2)
Regarding claim 11, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches the device according to claim 2. However, it does not teach at least one of the two jaws has at least one additional heating element intended to come into contact with the hair.
Jung teaches a hair styling device comprising two jaws, each having one active portion (26) and further comprising additional heating elements (20-11, 20-12, 20-23, 20-24) (see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device to include additional heating elements, as taught by Jung, because it would provide multiple and varying heat sources that would enhance the styling process.
Regarding claim 22, Spoorendonk in view of Samain and Jung teaches the device according to claim 11. Jung teaches each of the two jaws has at least one additional heating element.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device to include additional heating elements, as taught by Jung, because it would provide multiple and varying heat sources that would enhance the styling process.
Regarding claim 23, Spoorendonk in view of Samain and Jung teaches the device according to claim 11 (see rejection above). Jung teaches wherein the additional heating element or elements has or have a plate defining a hot surface for contact with the hair (see Figure 3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device to include additional heating elements, as taught by Jung, because it would provide multiple and varying heat sources that would enhance the styling process.
Regarding claim 24, Spoorendonk in view of Samain and Jung teaches the device according to claim 23 (see rejection above). Jung teaches wherein said plate is made of metal, glass or ceramic (Col. 4 l. 1-30; they are made of ceramic).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device to include additional heating elements, as taught by Jung, because it would provide multiple and varying heat sources that would enhance the styling process.
Claim(s) 16, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spoorendonk (US 2020/0187619 A1), in view of Samain (WO 2010/067323 A1) and further in view of Bonnemaire (US 2020/0329840 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 28-29, Spoorendonk in view of Samain teaches the method according to claim 13 (see rejection above), but is silent to it also comprising a step of treatment using steam, wherein said step of treatment using steam being during the exposure to light and wherein the steam flow rate is less than 1 g/min.
Bonnemaire teaches a method of hair straightening comprising the use of a hair straightening device having two arms (4, 5) each having heating plates (10, 11) and the hair being pinched therebetween for treatment ([0082-0085]). Bonnemaire further teaches using steam via outlet 20 ([0087]) and the steam being provided at a flow rate of 0.5 – 1.1 g/min ([0040]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method to include using steam, as taught by Bonnemaire, because it would reduce damage to the hair and increase hydration.
Response to Arguments
With respect to applicant’s arguments that Spoorendonk and Jung do not expressly disclose the claimed range and that they are not fully capable of functioning within the claimed range. The absence of an express range does not establish that the disclosed light sources are incapable of operating within that range, which is merely what is required by the claim. The rejection did not rely solely upon explicit disclosure of the claimed range, but rather on the capabilities of the light source of the prior art.
In addition, applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-29 have been considered but are moot in view of the amendment to the claims. The claims were amended to replace the previously recited broader range of 0.8 to 5 microns with a range of 1.1-2 microns or 2.9-4 microns.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
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 LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
