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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 106 in Figure 11A. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-5 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 line 8 and claim 4 line 4, the limitations “along which hair passing between the pair of teeth extends in use” should read “along which hair is configured to pass during use”, for clarity and as to functionally recite the hair, to prevent positive recitation of human anatomy.
In claim 5 lines 2 and 4, “proximal ends” should read “proximal end” since only one singular proximal end of each tooth is claimed.
In claim 11 lines 2-3, “proximal end of protrusion” should read “proximal end of the protrusion”.
Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 24 line 6, “a comb” should read “the comb”.
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 2, 4-6, 8, 12-16, 21, 25 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 2 recites the limitation “the distance between at least one pair of neighboring teeth”. It is unclear whether this is referring to the same pair of neighboring teeth recited in claim 1 or another, therefore the claim is indefinite. For examining purposes, it was understood as “the distance between the at least one pair of neighboring teeth”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “wherein the non-linear path is a first path and wherein the space between the at least one pair of neighboring teeth further defines a second transversely extending path”. It is unclear how the non-linear path can be the first path and how the space, which is claimed to form the non-linear path and is claimed to extend transversely, can define the second path. For examining purposes, it was understood that the non-linear path comprises a first path and further defines a second path, such that the non-linear path which extends transversely in a space between neighboring arm comprises the first and the second paths.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the proximal portion of the first leg is spaced from the distal portion of the first leg in a first direction along the longitudinal axis” and “the proximal portion of the second leg is spaced from the distal portion of the second leg in a second direction along the longitudinal axis that is opposite to the first direction”. It is unclear how a proximal portion that is recited to be proximal to the support and a distal portion that is recited to be distal from the support (i.e., at the free opposite end), of each leg, can extend in a longitudinal direction and in opposite directions for each leg. The longitudinal axis is recited in claim 1 to be the axis along which the plurality of teeth are spaced along (i.e., the horizontal axis) and the proximal and distal ends extend in the same direction. Clarification is required. For examining purposes, it was understood that the proximal portion of each leg is spaced in an opposite direction to the distal portion.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “a width extending transversely to the longitudinal axis”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation since the longitudinal axis and the transverse axis appear to be perpendicular axes. Clarification is required. For examining purposes, it was understood as a width extending transversely.
Claim 25 recites the limitations “each tooth has a leading edge that leads in movement along a tress of hair in use and a trailing edge that trails in movement along a tress in use, and wherein the leading edge of each tooth is sloped with respect to a direction of the airflow discharged from the outlet”. It is unclear what is meant by these limitations structurally. In light of the disclosure, it appears that 109a and 109b in Figures 10B-11A are the leading edge and the trailing edge and the leading edge is tilted as to urge the hair in a curved direction during use. For examining purposes, it was understood that the comb is curved and the teeth have a concave face and a convex face. Clarification as to what the leading edge and the trailing edge are and how they relate to each other structurally is required.
Claims 5-6, 8, 13-16 are rejected under USC 35 112(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.
First rejection:
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wei (CN112401438 A), translation provided.
Regarding claim 1, Wei teaches a comb (100) comprising:
a support (200); and
a row of teeth (10) mounted to the support so as to be spaced along a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1), each tooth projecting from a proximal end at which it is mounted to the support to a distal free end (see annotated Fig. 2 below);
wherein at least one pair of neighboring teeth (30, 40) at least partly overlap along the longitudinal axis such that a space therebetween defines a transversely extending non-linear path (107, 108) along which hair is configured to pass during use (see Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image1.png
438
706
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
429
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wei teaches the comb according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the distal free ends of each tooth of the row of teeth are spaced apart and the distance between at least one pair of neighbouring teeth decreases towards the proximal end so they at least partly overlap along the longitudinal axis (see claim 4 and page 3 paragraphs 3-5; the thickness of the teeth is greater at the proximal end than at the distal end and therefore the space between two adjacent teeth decreases in a direction going from the distal end to the proximal end).
Regarding claim 4, Wei teaches the comb according to claim 1 (see rejection above),
PNG
media_image3.png
429
432
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Wei teaches the comb according to claim 4 (see rejection above), wherein a distance between the first path and the proximal ends of the at least one pair of neighbouring teeth is less than a distance between the second path and the proximal ends of the at least one pair of neighbouring teeth (see Fig. 7; the first path, which corresponds to the bend, is closer to one tooth of the adjacent pair).
PNG
media_image2.png
429
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Wei teaches the comb according to claim 5 (see rejection above), wherein, wherein the tortuosity, taken in a transverse direction, of the space between the at least one pair of neighbouring teeth decreases gradually in a direction from the first path to the second path (see Fig. 7; the first path (107), which corresponds to the bend, straightens forming the second path (108) and therefore becomes less tortuous than the first path).
PNG
media_image2.png
429
550
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Wei teaches the comb according to claim 4 (see rejection above),“the distance between the first arc centers 107 of two adjacent comb teeth is 1.1 to 1.6 times of the thickness of the comb teeth, and the distance between the second arc centers 108 of two adjacent comb teeth is 1.2 to 1.8 times of the thickness of the comb teeth”, such that the bent portion of 107 takes from the first path’s width).
Regarding claim 9, Wei teaches the comb according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the at least one pair of neighbouring teeth includes a first tooth (30) and a second tooth (40), and wherein a portion of the first tooth is nested within a portion of the second tooth so as to define the non-linear path therebetween (see Fig. 7; the bend of one tooth is nested within a recess of an adjacent tooth).
Regarding claim 10, Wei teaches the comb according to claim 9 (see rejection above), wherein the first tooth comprises a protrusion extending at least partly along the length of the first tooth and the second tooth comprises a recess (see annotated Fig. below) extending at least partly along the length of the second tooth, and wherein the protrusion is at least partially received in the recess (see Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
399
447
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Wei teaches the comb according to claim 10 (see rejection above), wherein the height of the protrusion from a body of the first tooth is greater at a proximal end of the protrusion than at a distal end of the protrusion (see annotated Fig. below; such that the highest point of the protrusion is the proximal end of the protrusion and the lowest point of the protrusion is at a distal/lower end of the protrusion and so the protrusion’s slope/height declines from a proximal end to a distal end).
PNG
media_image5.png
399
520
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Wei teaches the comb according to claim 1 (see rejection above),
Regarding claim 21, Wei teaches the comb according to claim 1 (see rejection above),
Second rejection:
Claim(s) 1, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koneitzko (WO 2020/070530 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Koneitzko teaches a comb (1) comprising:
a support (see annotated Fig. below); and
a row of teeth (3) mounted to the support so as to be spaced along a longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1), each tooth projecting from a proximal end at which it is mounted to the support to a distal free end (see annotated Fig. 1 below);
wherein at least one pair of neighboring teeth (10, 11) at least partly overlap along the longitudinal axis such that a space therebetween defines a transversely extending non-linear path along which hair is configured to pass during use (see Figures 1-2 and page 2 lines 33-42; the teeth overlap and their legs are curved and therefore the path therebetween is non-linear as it follows said configuration).
PNG
media_image6.png
315
480
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Koneitzko teaches the comb according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein each tooth comprises first and second transversely spaced legs (see annotated Fig. below), each leg comprising a proximal portion that is proximate the support and a distal portion that is distal from the support (see annotated Fig.); and
wherein: the distal portions of the first and second legs are joined (see Fig. 1);
the proximal portion of the first leg is spaced from the distal portion of the first leg in a first direction along the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 1); and
the proximal portion of the second leg is spaced from the distal portion of the second leg in a second direction along the longitudinal axis that is opposite to the first direction (see Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image7.png
293
619
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Koneitzko teaches the comb according to claim 12 (see rejection above), wherein the teeth are arranged such that the proximal portion of the first leg of each tooth is transversely aligned with the proximal portion of the second leg of a neighbouring tooth (see Figure 1).
Regarding claims 14-16, Koneitzko teaches the comb according to claim 12 (see rejection above), wherein adjacent teeth interdigit (see Figure 1), such that one leg of a tooth interlocks a leg of an adjacent tooth. Therefore, it teaches the first and second legs of each tooth form part of an outer member of the tooth, and each tooth further comprises an inner member (such that the interlocked leg makes the adjacent prong/tooth an inner member) surrounded by the outer member, the inner member comprising third and fourth transversely spaced legs disposed between the first and second legs, each of the third and fourth legs comprising a proximal portion that is proximate the support and a distal portion that is distal from the support, and wherein the distal portions of the third and fourth legs are joined; the proximal portion of the third leg is spaced from the distal portion of the third leg in the second direction along the longitudinal axis; and the proximal portion of the fourth leg is spaced from the distal portion of the fourth leg in the first direction along the longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. below) and further wherein the third leg is adjacent the first leg and the fourth leg is adjacent the second leg (see Fig. below), and further wherein the teeth are arranged such that the proximal portions of the first and fourth legs of each tooth interdigitate with the proximal portions of the second and third legs of a neighbouring tooth (see Figure below).
PNG
media_image8.png
295
619
media_image8.png
Greyscale
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) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN112401438 A), translation provided, in view of Yang (CN212995080 U), translation provided.
Regarding claim 19, Wei teaches the comb according to claim 1 (see rejection above), but does not teach the non-linear path is non-symmetrical about the longitudinal axis.
Yang teaches a comb having teeth and wherein adjacent teeth form a path for hair to be passed therethough (abstract, Figures). Yang teaches the path may be bilaterally symmetrical (see Fig. 3) or may be non-symmetrical bilaterally (see Figs. 4, 7, 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the path to be asymmetrical, as taught by Yang, because it would be an alternative configuration that is well known in the art for achieving an alternative styling pattern. It is an obvious matter of design choice to modify the symmetry of the path since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change is shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN112401438 A), translation provided, in view of Chan (US 20004/0045569 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Wei teaches the comb according to claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the spacing between teeth is adjustable.
Chan teaches a comb attachment with an adjustable spacing between the teeth and can be coupled as an attachment to a hair care apparatus with air blower (abstract and [0001]). Chan discloses that such comb device makes it suitable to adjust for different persons in order to achieve optimal styling, caring or treatment to hair of different thicknesses of characteristics ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the spacing between the teeth to be adjustable, as taught by Chan, because it would allow selecting desired spacing depending on the use and thus achieve optimal results.
Regarding claim 24, Wei teaches the comb according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Wei teaches the comb is attached to a heated base (see Figures and page 5 paras. 7-9), but does not teach it being configured to attach to a hair appliance with air flow as part of a comb attachment system and specifically for mounting at an outlet of a hair appliance for supplying air, the comb attachment comprising: a housing defining an airflow inlet for receiving air from the appliance and an airflow outlet in fluid communication with the inlet for discharging air received from the appliance; and the comb being arranged such that the longitudinal axis along which the teeth are spaced extends across the outlet, and wherein the proximal end of each tooth is proximate the outlet, and the distal end of each tooth is distal from the outlet.
Chan teaches a comb attachment configured to attach to a hair blower ([0001], [0035]). The comb comprising a housing (10), see Figs. 1-4 and [0093]) configured to attach to an outlet of the blower (14; [0114]) to deliver air to the comb teeth and the base/proximal end of the teeth being adjacent to the housing such that air flowing through the housing enters the base of the teeth as to be delivered to the hair (see Figures and at least paras. [0034-0036], [0093-0096], [0014-0015]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the comb to be configured to attach to an air blowing appliance, as taught by Chan, because it would provide an alternative tool mechanism that may be desired to achieve a specific result (i.e., results obtained by a hair straightener, crimper, curler, blow dryer, etc…).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN112401438 A), translation provided, in view of Chan (US 20004/0045569 A1), and further in view of Lexcen (US 6,823,874 B2).
Regarding claim 25, Wei in view of Chan teaches the comb attachment according to claim 24 (see rejection above). Wei/Chan is silent to explicitly wherein each tooth has a leading edge that leads in movement along a tress of hair in use and a trailing edge that trails in movement along a tress in use, and wherein the leading edge of each tooth is sloped with respect to a direction of the airflow discharged from the outlet (please note interpretation of the limitations according to the 112(b) rejection above).
Lexcen teaches a comb comprising a plurality of teeth (1, 3) and the teeth being curved such that each tooth has a concave face and a convex face (see Figures and abstract). Lexcen discloses this design is advantageous because the teeth are curved and do not pull the hair straight and may achieve a ringlet curl and further that the comb may be used as an accessory with a hair dryer or a curling iron (abstract, Col. 1 ll. 20- Col. 2 ll. 31-66, and Col. 3 ll. 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teeth of Wei/Chen to be curved, as taught by Lexcen, because it does not pull the hair straight and may achieve a ringlet curl pattern if desired. It is well known in the art to alter the shape of a design as to achieve a certain or predictable result.
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