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, 6, 20 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 limitations “at least one active portion comprising at least one emission source”. It is unclear whether “at least on active portion” and “at least one emission source” is the same as the recited active portion and emission source recited in claim 1. It was assumed that each jaw comprises one of the at least one active portion and at least one of the at least one emission source. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 6 the phrase "notably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). it was understood that it is intended to remove the limitations as they appear to be incorporated into a new dependent claim.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(b) by virtue of dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 11, 13, 17-19, 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jung (US 8,035,061 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Jung teaches a device for treating the hair (Col. 1 l. 21-23), having at least one active portion (26) comprising at least one light emission source (26-1, 26-2) that is able to emit, towards the hair, light radiation having a dominant wavelength peak of between 0.8 μm and 5 μm (Col. 4 l. 28-29, 54-60; the light emission source iridates infrared rays and laser, which are known to have a wavelength range of approximately 700 nm to 1 mm (0.7 μm – 1000 μm) or laser beam which is monochromatic and may range between a wavelength of 100 nm to 1 mm between ultraviolet and Far-infrared regions, and therefore the light source is fully capable of emitting the claimed dominant wavelength) .
Regarding claim 2, Jung teaches the device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above), which is a straightening, curling or crimping device (the device is fully capable of straightening, curling or crimping hair), having two arms (10-1, 10-2) that are able to move relative to one another between a moved-together configuration for treating the hair (see Figures) and a spaced-apart configuration for inserting hair to be treated between said arms (Col. 1 l. 50-60), the arms defining half-handles (4-1, 4-2) that are continued towards their distal ends by jaws (8-1, 8-2) said at least one active portion (26) being carried by one of the two jaws (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Jung teaches the device according to claim 2 (see rejection above), wherein at least one of the two jaws is flat (see Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 5, Jung teaches the device according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the at least one light emission source has at least one light-emitting diode emitting in the infrared (Col. 4 l. 54-60).
Regarding claim 11, Jung teaches the device according to claim 2 (see rejection above), wherein at least one of the two jaws has at least one additional heating element intended to come into contact with the hair (20-11, 20-12, 20-23, 20-24) (see Figure 3).
Regarding claims 17-18, Jung teaches the device according to claim 1 (see rejection above), being for shaping the hair and being for straightening the hair (see Col. 1 lines 42-44; the device is fully capable of being used for shaping and straightening the hair).
Regarding claim 19, Jung teaches the device according to claim 3 (see rejection above), wherein both of the jaws are flat (see Figure 3 and Col. 1 lines 36-2; such that the plates are planar surfaces).
Regarding claim 22, Jung teaches the device according to claim 11 (see rejection above), wherein each of the two jaws has at least one additional heating element (20-11, 20-12, 20-23, 20-24) (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 23, Jung teaches the (New) The device according to claim 11 (see rejection above), wherein the additional heating element or elements has or have a plate defining a hot surface for contact with the hair (see Figure 3).
Regarding claim 24, Jung teaches the device according to claim 23 (see rejection above), wherein said plate is made of metal, glass or ceramic (Col. 4 l. 1-30; they are made of ceramic).
Second rejection:
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 9-10, 12, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Spoorendonk (US 2020/0187619 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Spoorendonk teaches a device for treating the hair ([0001]), 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) that is able to emit, towards the hair, light radiation having a dominant wavelength peak of between 0.8 μm and 5 μm ([0023]; the light emission source iridates infrared light at wavelengths between 800 nm to 1 nm (0.8 μm – 1 μm) and therefore is fully capable of emitting a dominant light beam at the claimed range if set to do so).
Regarding claim 2, Spoorendonk teaches the device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above), which is 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 4, Spoorendonk teaches the device according to claim 2 (see rejection above), wherein each of the two jaws carries at least one active portion (21) comprising at least one light emission source that is able to emit, towards the hair, radiation having a dominant wavelength peak of between 0.8 μm and 5 μm (see Figs. 1a, 5a and [0023]; the light emission source iridates infrared light at wavelengths between 800 nm to 1 nm (0.8 μm – 1 μm)).
Regarding claim 9, Spoorendonk teaches the device according to Claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein 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 teaches the device according to Claim 9 (see rejection above), wherein 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 teaches the device according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein said at least one light emission source is a pulsed-light source ([0016-0021]).
Regarding claim 21, Spoorendonk teaches the device according to Claim 10 (see rejection above), 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).
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) 6, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 8,035,061 B2), in view of Ceva (BRPI0801926 A2), translation provided.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Jung 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.
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 Jung (US 8,035,061 B2), in view of 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, Jung in view of 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) 13-15, 25-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 8,035,061 B2), in view of Samain (WO 2010/067323 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Jung teaches a method for treating the hair (Col. 1 l. 5-11), using a device for treating the hair, notably according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Jung teaches the light sources may emit infrared and laser beams but does not explicitly teach 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 0.8 μm and 5 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 claims 14-15 and 27, Jung in view of Samain teaches the method according to claim 13 (see rejection above). Samain teaches it 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 wherein 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 25-26, Jung in view of Samain teaches the method according to claim 13 (see rejection above). Jung teaches it being for shaping the hair and being for straightening the hair (see Col. 1 lines 42-44; the device is used for straightening the hair).
Claim(s) 16, 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung (US 8,035,061 B2), in view of Samain (WO 2010/067323 A1) and further in view of Bonnemaire (US 2020/0329840 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 28-29, Jung 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
Applicant's arguments filed 2/13/2026 have been fully considered. The amendments overcome the claim objections and most 112(b) rejections previously addressed. Please note new or remaining objections/clarity issues above.
With respect to applicant’s arguments that the prior art does not teach the light radiation having “a dominant wavelength peak of 0.8 um and 5 um”, because the references do not disclose the use of monochromatic light sources in the infrared domain to emit the claimed range and it is impossible to deduce from the general wavelength range of the references, the value of the dominant peak for the polychromatic light source used, these arguments are not persuasive. The claim recites this as a functional limitation and the laser beam and infrared beams of Jung and Spoorendonk are fully capable of being emitted at a dominant peak of the claimed range, if set to do so and intended to select such range.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 13 and its dependents have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Please see new rejection in view of previously cited Samain (WO 2010/067323 A1).
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.
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
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights