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 and 3-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julemont (EP 1,721,539) in view of Csavas (US 7,152,610).
Julemont discloses a comb attachment (4) for mounting to a hair-care appliance (Figure 7; blow dryer), the comb attachment comprising: a housing (1) defining an inlet for receiving an airflow from the appliance when mounted thereto (portion attached to the blow dryer) and an outlet fluidly connected to the inlet for discharging the airflow (spaces between teeth allowing air to exit the dryer) rows of outer protrusions (3) mounted to the housing so as to extend across or alongside the outlet, each outer protrusion of the first row being transversely spaced from a corresponding outer protrusion (each side of 3) of the second row so as to define an outer protrusion pair, wherein each outer protrusion (3) comprises a proximal end that is proximate to the housing, and an opposite distal end (tip portion), and wherein the distal ends of each outer protrusion of an outer protrusion pair are joined such that each outer protrusion pair cooperate to define a respective outer tooth (3) having an aperture for passage of an inner protrusion (5) therethrough (Fig. 1), a longitudinally extending row of inner protrusions (5) mounted to the housing so as to be interposed between the first and second rows of outer protrusions (Fig. 3), each inner protrusion (5) moveable longitudinally relative to the outer protrusions between (Fig. 3; paragraph 17) a retracted position (Fig. 3) in which the inner protrusion is positioned on a first side of, and is spaced from, a corresponding outer protrusion pair; and an extended position (Fig. 4) in which the inner protrusion is positioned on a second side of the corresponding outer protrusion pair that is opposite to the first side (see Fig. 3 and 4). Julmont does not disclose the outlet is a continuous longitudinally elongate slot along the housing. Csavas teaches a comb attachment (4) comprising a housing (1) defining an inlet (4) for receiving an airflow form the appliance when mounted thereto and an outlet (7) fluidly connected to the inlet for discharging the airflow, wherein the outlet is a continuous longitudinally elongate slot along the housing (see Figures 1 and 2; col. 4, lines 55-60). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the outlet of Julmont be an elongate slot as taught by Csavas to allow for expediting of drying whet hair.
Claim 3, Julmont further discloses wherein each outer tooth (3) has a width in the transverse direction that is greater at the proximal end of the outer tooth than at the distal end of the outer tooth (Fig. 1).
Claim 4, Julmont further discloses wherein the width of each outer tooth tapers inwardly from the proximal end to the distal end (Fig. 1).
Claim 5, Julmont further discloses wherein each inner protrusion (5) has a shape that is complementary to the shape of the aperture formed in each outer tooth (Fig. 1). Claim 6, Julmont further discloses wherein the row of inner protrusions is slideably mounted to the housing (paragraphs 17 and 18).
Claim 7, Julmont further discloses comprising a trigger (adjusting screw 7) operatively connected to the inner protrusions such that depressing the trigger moves the inner protrusions away from the retracted position and towards the extended position (Fig. 3; paragraph 18).
Claim 8, Julmont further discloses wherein the operative connection between the trigger and the inner protrusions is such that there is a direct relationship between the distance moved by the trigger as it is depressed and the longitudinal displacement of the inner protrusions (Fig. 8 shows alternative trigger).
Claim 9, Julmont further discloses a biasing mechanism ["spring"; 6] configured to bias the inner protrusions towards the retracted position, wherein in the retracted position (Fig. 2).
Claim 10, Julmont further discloses each inner protrusion (5) is transversely aligned with an outer protrusion pair (3) located adjacent the respective corresponding outer protrusion pair, on the first side thereof (Fig. 3-6).
Claim 11, Julmont further discloses wherein in the retracted position (Fig. 5) each outer tooth extends about a periphery of an inner protrusion of the row of inner protrusions (Fig. 1-6).
Claim 12, Julmont further discloses wherein in the extended position each inner protrusion is disposed equidistantly between the respective corresponding outer protrusion pair and an outer protrusion pair adjacent the respective corresponding outer protrusion pair, on the second side thereof (Fig. 6).
Claim 13, Julmont further discloses wherein the outer protrusion pairs are equi-spaced from one another according to a fixed spacing distance, the fixed spacing distance being defined as the longitudinal distance between the central points of adjacent outer protrusion pairs (Fig. 6), wherein in the extended position each inner protrusion is displaced longitudinally from the retracted position by a distance that is equal to or greater than the fixed spacing distance (Fig. 6).
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Julemont discloses the claimed invention except for the extended position each inner protrusion is displaced longitudinally from the retracted position by at least 1.3 times the fixed spacing distance and the spacing between the outer protrusions of each outer protrusion pair is such that a transverse gap having a width of between 0.2 mm and 1 mm is maintained between each of the outer protrusions and an inner protrusion when passing therebetween. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the parameters of the protrusion spacing to be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. In this instance case it would be an obvious selection based on hair volume and thickness.
Claim 16, Julmont further discloses wherein each inner protrusion has a width in the transverse direction that is greater at a proximal end of the inner protrusion than at a distal end of the inner protrusion (Fig. 1).
Claim 17, Julmont further discloses wherein the width of each inner protrusion tapers inwardly from the proximal end to the distal end (Fig. 1).
Claim 18, Julmont further discloses each inner protrusion (5) and each outer protrusion (3) has a thickness in the longitudinal direction, the thickness of each inner protrusion being less than or equal to the thickness of each outer protrusion (Fig. 1).
Claim 19, Julmont further discloses the comb does not comprise an electric heat pad (Fig. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/29/2026 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.
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 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
7/27/2026
Prosecution Insights