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, 2, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mourad (US 9,012,813).
Mourad discloses a hair styling device comprising an elongate first arm (32) having a distal end with at least one plate (36) and a proximal end (near cable 33); and an elongate second arm (34) having a distal end with at least one plate (38) and a proximal end; wherein the proximal end of the second arm is coupled to the first arm by a hinge (Fig. 1) so that the first and second arms are moveable between an open position in which hair can be introduced between the distal end of the first arm and the distal end of the second arm (Fig. 1) and a closed position in which hair is clamped between the distal end of the first arm and the distal end of the second arm (Fig. 2); wherein the hinge is coupled to the first arm at a position that is offset from the proximal end of the first arm (Fig. 1).
Mourad does not disclose a ratio of a distance between the hinge and the at least one plate at the distal end of the first arm and a distance between a centre of gravity of the hair styling device and the at least one plate at the distal end of the first arm lies within the range 0.25 and 0.4 (claim 1) or more specifically in claim 2 the range 0.28 and 0.35. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the parameters of the ratio of a distance between the hinge and the at least one plate at the distal end of the first hair and a distance between a centre of gravity of the hair styling device and the at least one plate at the distal end to be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. The purpose of the ratio would be to improve the ergonomic function of the device allowing for repeated one handed use.
Regarding claim 19, Mourad discloses a method of using the hair styling device (col. 4, lines 35-50).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claimed ratio is not an obvious matter of design choice and cannot be treated as a result-effective variable is not persuasive. The rejection recognizes that the prior art provides the same structural component as well as discloses an offset hinge which results in a ratio. Adjusting the relative dimensions and positioning of these known components represents a result effective variable that would have been subject to routine optimization by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The fact that Mourad does not expressly identify the claimed ratio as a variable does not establish that the relationship would have been beyond the ordinary skill of the artisan. Here, the claimed ratio merely defines the relative locations of structural features already present in Mourad determining the desired ergonomic configuration would have been within the ordinary skill of the art.
In response to applicant’s argument that claimed ratio is critical and not arbitrary but achieved through carful experimentation is not persuasive. Applicant has not established that the ranges produce an unexpected ergonomic result relative to values outside those ranges. The mere fact that Applicant selected and experimentally determined a particular range does not preclude a finding that the range could have been arrived at through routine optimization.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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, 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.
/RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
8/18/2026
Prosecution Insights