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 .
Priority
The claims of the instant application are drawn to an embodiment (Figures 8-10) which is not disclosed in FR 3129814A1. Therefore, the effective filing date is the filing date of PCT/EP2022/08435, December 7, 2022.
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.
Claim limitations “system for pressurizing has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “opening” and “magnetically retaining” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 14 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The system for pressurizing is disclosed as being a piston, a gas cartridge, an electrical pumping system or a manual pumping system.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 1-16 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 1 requires the convex distal surfaces of the assemblies be tangential to a flat curve whose radius of curvature is similar to that of a user’s skull. However, a user’s skull is not a standard unit of measure for describing a radius, in fact, different user’s have skulls of different radii and the same user has different radial dimensions depending on where the dimension if being measured (e.g. across the occipital area, across the crown, in an anterior posterior direction, etc.). Additionally, the term “similar” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “similar” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2 and 5-7 attempt to describe structures with regard to the radius of curvature and flat curve of a user’s skull; however, a user’s skull is not part of the invention. The claim requires amending to define directions, surfaces, etc. as they relate to components of the device itself.
Claim 12 recites “at least one assembly,” where this clause is incomplete and therefore renders the claim indefinite.
Claim 14 requires the base include a system for pressurizing at least one container, where it is unclear if the “system for pressurzing” is the same or different from the electric pump of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemente Marco (US 6378529) and Lee et al. (US 20220273400).
Regarding claim 1, Clemente Marco discloses a device for delivering a product to the base of hair shafts and/or on the scalp of a predefined user, which comprises: a container (3) for the product and a case (portion of 1 extending from proximal side of 7 to distal-most assembly 2, Refer to Figures 1 and 2) connected to the flexible tube, a case whose geometry is configured to be held in the palm of a user's hand and comprising a row of assemblies (2, 2’, 2’’, 2’’’, 2iv, 2v) having a convex distal surface (best shown in Figures 3 and 4) of contact with the user's head, each of said row of assemblies comprising a tooth (2, 2’, 2’’, 2’’’, 2iv, 2v form teeth), at least one nozzle (portion of 2,2’,2’’ defining outlet of orifice 9) and at least one applicator (8 and/or curved back side of distal ends of teeth), said tooth being configured to separate hairs to their roots, each of the at least one nozzle being configured to deliver the product on the roots of hairs separated by the tooth and/or on the scalp between the hairs separated by the tooth, and each of said at least one applicator being configured to spread, over the roots and/or the scalp, the product delivered by said at least one nozzle, said at least one applicator taking the form of a curved spatula (Refer to Figures 3 and 4, 8 provides a curved exterior surface for application as to the curved back sides/surfaces of the distal ends of teeth. Applicant’s invention provides a similar structure as the curved spatula, Refer to 806 of Figure 8 of Applicant’s drawings.), wherein the convex distal surfaces of the row of assemblies all being tangential to a flat curve having curvature which is similar to a radius of curvature of skull of an intended user (Refer to Figure 1, where the convex distal surfaces of the assemblies follow a curved contour meant to coincide with the contours of a human head), said case also comprising a control button (7) for dispensing the product from the container (Refer to Figures 1-7); however, Clemente Marco is silent regarding the container having a filler cap and being provided on a base, such that a product in the container is aspirated into a flexible tube which feeds into the case via an electric pump when the button is actuated.
Lee et al. disclose a similar device where a container is coupled to a case having dispensing assemblies which dispense a product on the hair/scalp (Refer to Figures 1-12). Lee et al. explain the device provides a base (802) which is coupled to the case, the base having a container (810) with a filler cap (832,842) and cartridges (814,816) containing the product in the container, where the cartridge has a plug (824) and the base includes means for opening the plug (840 provides access to the plug to allowing opening and closing thereof). Lee et al. provide a pump (e.g. peristaltic pump 614, Refer to paragraph 0088) which draws product from the container in a controlled manner, through flexible tubes (606,608), into the case into a mixing chamber (632) and out through the nozzles (622). Button (426) is provided to control operation of the pump. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the generic container of Clemente Marco to be as disclosed by Lee et al., on a base including a filler cap, cartridges configured to be received by the container, plugs, a mixing chamber, etc. and for the device to include an electric pump, such as a peristaltic pump, to aspirate the product from the container through a flexible tube to the case and where the button actuates the pump, as claimed, as Lee et al. demonstrates this is a well-known arrangement for supplying and delivering product to the nozzle(s) in a controlled manner. One of ordinary skill in the art understands the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. results in the button 7 of Clemente Marco being the button that actuates the pump and the pump is provided in the base, as the case is defined as the portion of 1 extending from a proximal side of 7 to the distal-most assembly, where the pump would be disposed proximally relative of button 7 and distal relative to the base and container.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above, wherein at least one assembly (2, 2’, 2’’, 2’’’, 2iv, 2v) has a cross-section perpendicular to the radius of curvature, a cross-section whose width, measured in the plane of the flat curve, decreases, at least in part, as a function of the distance between this cross-section and the flat curve, this decrease creating a free compartment for the hairs separated by the tooth (the cross sectional width of the assemblies decrease toward the distal ends/flat curve (Refer to Figures 1 and 3-7).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above. The combination is silent regarding the maximum dimension of the case, in the plane perpendicular to the curvature, being less than twelve centimeters. However, the case is intended to be grasped in a user’s hand during use. One of ordinary skill in the art appreciates it is common practice to hold such devices with the thumb on one side and wrapping the palm over the top of the spine such that the other four fingers are on the opposite side of the device. Applicant acknowledges the “the persons skilled in the art knows, from published anatomical studies, the most suitable geometry for the hands of adults and adolescents” where the claimed range (less than 12 cm) is dictated by the common dimensions of the palm of a hand and is comparable to the size of a computer mouse (Refer to page 10 of Applicant’s disclosure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. such that the case has a maximum dimension of less than 12 cm in a plane perpendicular to the radius of curvature, as the device is intended to be grasped in the hand of a user at the case and such dimensions correspond to common anatomical hand sizes.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above, wherein the pump is a peristaltic pump. As explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, the pump (614) is a peristaltic pump (Refer to paragraph 0088 of Lee et al.) and Clemente Marco was modified per the teachings of Lee et al. to provide a peristaltic pump.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above, comprising a cartridge containing the product to be delivered, and wherein the container is configured to receive said cartridge. As explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, Clemente Marco’s generic (non-specific) container was modified per the teachings of Lee et al. to provide a base supporting the container, cartridges containing the product being received in the container, where the cartridges include a plug and the base provides means for opening the plug.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above, wherein at least one tooth incorporates said at least one nozzle (Refer to Figures 1-7 of Clemente Marco)
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above, Clemente Marco further disclose at least one assembly of said row of assemblies, at least one nozzle (outlet of 9) comprises at least one side opening for delivering the product mainly on the roots of hair strands separated by the tooth (Refer to Figures 3 and 4 where the nozzles open to a side).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above, wherein said container comprises a first storage chamber (one cartridge) for storing a first substance, a second storage chamber (other cartridge) for storing a second substance, and an intermediate chamber (mixing chamber) connected to the first chamber and the second chamber, for mixing the first substance and second substance forming the product for hair and/or scalp, said at least one nozzle being connected to the intermediate chamber. As explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, Clemente Marco was modified per the teachings of Lee et al. to include cartridges having first and second products, where the products are feed into a mixing chamber and dispensed through the nozzles.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Duqueroie (US 7059333)
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not comprise a second row of assemblies offset relative to the said row of assemblies such that the teeth of a second row are positioned between two teeth of the previous row in the direction perpendicular to the flat curve to which the contact surfaces of the assemblies of the first row are tangential. It is well-known and conventional practice in the art to provide two rows of dispensing assemblies in an offset arrangement as demonstrated by Duqueroie (Refer to Figure 1) as this arrangement allows product to be dispensed to other portions of the hair for efficient application and enhanced coverage in a single movement. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. to include a second row of assemblies offset from the row of assemblies as Duqueroie demonstrate the claimed configuration is well-known and conventional in the art and provides the benefit of enhanced coverage and improved efficiency.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takagi (US 20130174860).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not disclose the distance, between two successive assemblies whose contact surfaces are tangential to the same flat curve, is between one half and three-quarters of the width of the contact surface measured in the plane of the flat curve. Clemente Marco is silent regarding the width dimensions of the contact surfaces of the assemblies and the dimensions of the gaps between adjacent contact surfaces. It is well-known in the art to vary the dimensions based on the application area, intended degree of coverage/saturation, etc. Takagi discloses a similar device and teaches the gap between adjacent contact surfaces (W1) may have a width of 0.1 to 3 mm and preferably 0.1 to 1 mm (Refer to paragraph 0039), while the width of the contact surface may be 1 mm (Refer to paragraphs 0084, 0088) or 4mm (Refer to paragraph 0095 and Figure 11c). If the contact surface with is 1 mm, then gaps within the range of 0.33 and 0.5mm are 1/3 to ½ the width of the contact surface, where these widths fall within the disclosed range. Similarly, if the contact surface with is 4mm, gaps between 1.33 and 2mm would be 1/3 to ½ the width of the contact surface, where these widths fall within the disclosed range. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. such that the distance between two successive assembly contact surfaces be ½ to 1/3 the width of the contact surface as Takagi demonstrates this is a well-known configuration/arrangement in the art.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mercier (US 20110315157).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above, wherein the base comprises a means for retaining the case. However, the combination does not disclose the means for retaining the case is magnetic. Mercier discloses a similar device where a base assembly (400) is connected to a case (22) via “any fastener known in the art, including but not limited to a clip, a screw apparatus, a magnetic fastener or any other fastener known in the art” (Refer to paragraph 0131). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the mean for retaining of the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. to be a magnetic means for retaining as Mercier demonstrates it is well-known for these components to be coupled using any known fastening means including magnetic fastening means.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20060021627).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not disclose the base comprises a system for pressurizing said one container. The combination provides a base with an electric pump but does not specify if the pump pressurizes the container. Many pumping mechanisms/systems pressurize containers serving as the supply, such as positive displacement pumps (plunger, diaphragm, screw, etc.) and centrifugal pumps. Lee discloses a similar device where a pump is used to move the fluid from the container to the nozzle (Refer to Figures 1-24). Lee explains “An external gear pump, an internal gear pump, a trochoid pump, a rotary pump, a plunger pump, a squeeze pump, a peristaltic pump, a diaphragm pump, a vane pump, or any other pumps may be applied to the basic mechanism of the pump 80 of the present invention”. Thus, Lee demonstrates it is known and conventional to use electric pump systems which pressure the container in such applications and for this reason it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric pump of the combination of Clemente Marco and Lee et al. to be an electric pump system which pressure the container.
Claims 1, 3, 9, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kreiss (US 20210227947), Kajgana (US 6062230) and Dallianis et al. (US 20080210251).
Regarding claim 1, Kreiss discloses a device (Refer to Figures 1-4) for delivering a product to the base of hair shafts and/or on the scalp of a predefined user, which comprises: a base (12,20,22) comprising a container (cavity of 12,20 accepting 16) for the product, equipped with a filler cap (22), and; and a case (32) connected to a flexible tube (19), said case whose geometry is configured to be held in the palm of a user's hand and comprising a row of assemblies (30) having a convex distal surface of contact with the user's head, each of these assemblies comprising a tooth (30) and at least one nozzle (dispensing orifice of 30), said tooth being configured to separate hairs to their roots, each of the at least one nozzle being configured to deliver the product on the roots of hairs separated by the tooth and/or on the scalp between the hairs separated by the tooth, the convex distal surfaces of the assemblies all being tangential to a flat curve whose radius of curvature is equal to a radius of curvature of the user's skull (Refer to Figures 1-3); however, Kreiss does not disclose at least one applicator configured to spread the product delivered by at least one nozzle, where the at least one applicator is in the form of a curved spatula and the base includes an electric pump aspirates the product in the container and pushes it into the flexible tube where a control button is provided for controlling the operation of the pump.
Kajgana discloses a similar device (Refer to Figures 1A-1C) for delivering a product to the hair and/or scalp where the device includes a container (1) having the product, nozzles (6), teeth/bristles (9) and an applicator (2X) disposed adjacent the teeth/bristles and extending over a discrete proximal portion of the length of the teeth/bristles. The applicator is in the form of a curved spatula (Refer to Figure 1C curved to match contours of teeth/bristles and Figures 1A and 1B) and serves to spread the product on the target/intended area. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Kreiss to include an applicator which extends uniformly and adjacent to the proximal portions of the teeth and is configured to spread the product on the target area as taught by Kajgana in order to prevent the product from spreading to undesired areas while also facilitating spreading of the product onto the intended areas. It is noted that the combination of Kreiss and Kajgana results in the applicator being curved in the same manner that the distal ends of the teeth collectively form a curve, as such a curvature is required to ensure the applicator extends adjacent to and along the same proximal section/portion of each tooth.
Kreiss discloses the invention provides a manual pump, where compressing the base results in expelling of the product from the container into the flexible tube. It is well-known and conventional in the art to use manual or electric pumps interchangeably as demonstrated by Dallianis et al. (Refer to paragraph 0025) where electric pumps require a button/actuator in order to selectively operate the pump. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combination of Kreiss and Kajgana such that the manual pumping action be replaced with an electric pump as Dallianis et al. demonstrate these are well-known functionally equivalent pump variants which can be used interchangeably. One of ordinary skill in the art understands an electric pump requires a button in order to turn the pump on and off and regulate functions of the pump (e.g. flow rate).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kreiss, Kajgana and Dallianis et al. disclose the device of claim 1, wherein Kreiss discloses a cartridge (16) containing the product to be delivered and wherein the container is configured to receive the cartridge (Refer to Figures 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kreiss, Kajgana and Dallianis et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above, wherein at least one tooth incorporates at least one nozzle (Refer to Figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kreiss, Kajgana and Dallianis et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above, wherein the case forms part of a headband, each assembly in said row of assemblies being positioned on an inner portion of the headband (Refer to Figures 1-3).
Claims 8 and 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kreiss, Kajgana and Dallianis et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 20060021627).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kreiss, Kajgana and Dallianis et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not disclose the pump is a peristaltic pump. Lee discloses a similar device where a pump is used to move the fluid from the container to the nozzle (Refer to Figures 1-24). Lee explains “An external gear pump, an internal gear pump, a trochoid pump, a rotary pump, a plunger pump, a squeeze pump, a peristaltic pump, a diaphragm pump, a vane pump, or any other pumps may be applied to the basic mechanism of the pump 80 of the present invention”. Thus, Lee demonstrates it is known and conventional to use peristaltic pumps as the pumping mechanism in such applications and for this reason it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric pump of the combination of Kreiss, Kajgana and Dallianis et al. to be a peristaltic pump.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Kreiss, Kajgana and Dallianis et al. disclose the device of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not disclose the base comprises a system for pressurizing said one container. The combination provides a base with an electric pump but does not specify if the pump pressurizes the container. Many pumping mechanisms/systems pressurize containers serving as the supply, such as positive displacement pumps (plunger, diaphragm, screw, etc.) and centrifugal pumps. Lee discloses a similar device where a pump is used to move the fluid from the container to the nozzle (Refer to Figures 1-24). Lee explains “An external gear pump, an internal gear pump, a trochoid pump, a rotary pump, a plunger pump, a squeeze pump, a peristaltic pump, a diaphragm pump, a vane pump, or any other pumps may be applied to the basic mechanism of the pump 80 of the present invention”. Thus, Lee demonstrates it is known and conventional to use electric pump systems which pressure the container in such applications and for this reason it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the electric pump of the combination of Kreiss, Kajgana and Dallianis et al. to be an electric pump system which pressure the container.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kreiss, Kajgana and Dallianis et al. as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Skaruda (US 1584329).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kreiss and Dallianis et al. disclose the device of claim 15 above; however, the combination does not provide a hairdressing band having a mechanical connection with the headband, the band being configured to prevent the product dripping onto the user's forehead, ears and/or neck, wherein during use, the mechanical connection leaving the headband free to rotate relative to the band around an axis that is substantially parallel to an axis traversing the user's temples.
Kreiss et al. provide a headband but do not disclose a hairdressing band with a mechanical connection permitting the headband to rotate about an axis. Skaruda demonstrates it is well-known in the art to fasten such headbands (13) to a hairdressing band (14) via a mechanical connection (14A) permitting rotation (Refer to Figure 4). When worn, band 14 is able to extend behind one ear across the forehead and behind another ear or in front of one ear across the neck and in front of the other ear and protect the forehead, ears and/or neck, accordingly. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of the combination of Kreiss, Kajgana and Dallianis et al. such that the headband be pivotably connected to a hairdressing band extending about the user's forehead, ears and/or neck as Skaruda et al. demonstrate this is a well-known configuration and the hairdressing band provides the benefit of additional support.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: The combination of Clemente Marco and Lee do not provide an applicator in the form of a curved spatula as required by amended claim 1. Previously claim 4 required a distributor in the form of a curved spatula and the rejection stated Clemente Marco does not provide a distributor in the form of a curved spatula and Kajgana was relied upon for this teaching.
Response: Arguments directed to Kajgana are moot as Kajgana is not relied upon in the rejection above. Previously, the claims required a different element, the distributor, be a curved spatula, while the claim also required an applicator. The claim as amended requires the applicator be in the form of a curved spatula. Applicant’s disclose refers to element 806 in Figure 8 as a distributor in the form of a curved spatula; therefore, it is believed the distributor is an applicator and the term curved spatula is being used to refer to a curved surface or edge as shown in Figure 8. Clemente Marco provides such a curved surface or edge. Referring to Figures 3 and 4, the exterior surface of applicator 8 is curved similarly to that of 806 of Applicant’s invention. Additionally, the back sides/surfaces (surfaces opposite 8) of the distal end of the teeth are also curved and form an applicator in the form of a curved spatula.
Argument: Neither Kreiss nor Dallianis, Lee or Skaruda was cited against previous claim 4. These publications do not provide an applicator in the form of a curved spatula.
Response: The amended language differs from claim 4 as explained in the response above. With regard to the combination of Kreiss and Dallianis, the new ground of rejection provided above incorporates teachings of Kajgana to provide the applicator in the form of a curved spatula.
Conclusion
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 TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights