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 § 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.
Claim 25 is 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 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.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “wherein each tooth has a convex edge that leads in movement along a tress of hair in use and a convex edge that trails in movement along a tress in use wherein the convex edge of each tooth is sloped with respect to a direction of the airflow discharged from the outlet”. It is unclear what the difference between the convex edges is and which convex edge the claim is referring to in line 4. Additionally, it is unclear what the convex edge is structurally and relative to one another. In light of the disclosure, it appears that 109a and 109b in Figures 10B-11A are an upper concave surface of the teeth and an underside lower convex surface of the teeth such that the teeth are 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.
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.
First rejection:
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-11, 20, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN112401438 A), in view of Zhang (WO2012000209A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wei teaches a comb attachment (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
Wei’s comb attachment is fully capable of being mounted to an outlet of a hair appliance for supplying air, since it is intended to be a heated comb. However, Wei is silent to explicitly the comb attachment comprising: a housing defining an airflow inlet for receiving air from the hair appliance and an airflow outlet in fluid communication with the inlet for discharging air received from the hair appliance, the row of teeth extending across the airflow outlet and the proximal end of each tooth is proximate the outlet and the distal end of each tooth is distal from the outlet.
Zhang teaches a hair dryer comb (21+22) comprising a housing (21) and a plurality of comb teeth (22) and the housing defining an inlet (see Fig. 1) for receiving air flow from an appliance airflow outlet (see Figure 1). Zhang further teaches the proximal end of each tooth is proximate the outlet and the distal end of each tooth is distal from the outlet (see annotated Figure below).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the comb attachment to include an air outlet configured to be in fluid communication with an air outlet of an air blowing appliance, as taught by Zhang, because it would perform the same function of styling/combing the hair, with the additional advantage of providing air as the heat source which would allow use on wet and/or dry hair and would be less damaging on the hair as heat is diffused, as compared to a direct heated surface.
PNG
media_image3.png
438
720
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Wei in view of Zhang teaches the comb attachment according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Wei teaches 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 in view of Zhang teaches the comb attachment according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Wei teaches the non-linear path includes a first path portion (107) and further defines a second path portion (108) along which hair is configured to pass, the second path being less tortuous than the first path (see Fig. 7).
PNG
media_image4.png
429
432
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Wei in view of Zhang teaches the comb attachment according to claim 4 (see rejection above). Wie teaches 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 in view of Zhang teaches the comb attachment according to claim 5 (see rejection above). Wei teaches 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 in view of Zhang teaches the comb attachment according to claim 4 (see rejection above). Wei teaches each of the first and second paths comprises a width defined by the spacing between the at least one pair of neighbouring teeth, and wherein the width of the first path is smaller than the width of the second path (see Fig. 7 and page 3 para. 4; “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 in view of Zhang teaches the comb attachment according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Wei teaches 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 in view of Zhang teaches the comb attachment according to claim 9 (see rejection above). Wei teaches 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_image5.png
399
447
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Wei in view of Zhang teaches the comb attachment according to claim 10 (see rejection above). Wei teaches 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_image6.png
399
520
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 20, Wei in view of Zhang teaches the comb attachment according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Wei teaches each tooth is curved in a direction along its length (see Figure 7).
Regarding claim 21, Wei in view of Zhang teaches the comb attachment according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Wei teaches each tooth has a width extending in the longitudinal axis (see Fig. 7), and wherein the proximal end of each tooth is wider than the distal end (see claim 4 and page 3 paragraphs 3-5).
Second rejection:
Claim(s) 1, 12-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (WO2012000209A1), and further in view of Koneitzko (WO 2020/070530 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang teaches a comb attachment (2) for mounting at an outlet of a hair appliance for supplying air (1), the comb attachment comprising:
a housing (21) defining an airflow inlet for receiving air from the hair appliance and an airflow outlet in fluid communication with the inlet for discharging air received from the hair appliance (see annotated Figure below), the comb attachment further comprising: a support (21); and a row of teeth (22) mounted to the support so as to be spaced along a longitudinal axis extending across the airflow outlet (see Figure 1), each tooth projecting from a proximal end at which it is mounted to the support to a distal free end, the proximal end of each tooth is proximate the outlet, and the distal end of each tooth is distal from the outlet (see annotated Figure below).
Zhang does not teach at least one pair of neighbouring teeth 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.
Koneitzko teaches a comb comprising teeth and adjacent teeth overlapping as to create a non-linear path through which hair passes (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). Koneitzko teaches such configuration/arrangement of teeth provides easier and painless combing (see 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 comb attachment of Zhang to have its teeth arranged as shown by Koneitzko, because such arrangement provides easier and painless combing.
Regarding claim 12, Zhang in view of Koneitzko teaches the comb attachment according to claim 1 (see rejection above). Koneitzko teaches 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
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the comb attachment of Zhang to have its teeth arranged as shown by Koneitzko, because such arrangement provides easier and painless combing.
Regarding claim 13, Zhang in view of Koneitzko teaches the comb attachment according to claim 12 (see rejection above). Zhang teaches 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).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the comb attachment of Zhang to have its teeth arranged as shown by Koneitzko, because such arrangement provides easier and painless combing.
Regarding claims 14-16, Zhang in view of Koneitzko teaches the comba attachment according to claim 12 (see rejection above). Koneitzko teaches 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
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the comb attachment of Zhang to have its teeth arranged as shown by Koneitzko, because such arrangement provides easier and painless combing.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN112401438 A), Zhang (WO2012000209A1), in view of Yang (CN212995080 U).
Regarding claim 19, Wei in view of Zhang teaches the comb attachment 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN112401438 A), in view of Zhang (WO2012000209A1), and further in view of Chan (US 20004/0045569 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Wei in view of Zhang 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.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei (CN112401438 A), in view of Zhang (WO2012000209A1), and further in view of Lexcen (US 6,823,874 B2).
Regarding claim 25, Wei in view of Zhang teaches the comb attachment according to claim 24 (see rejection above). Wei 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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-16, 19-21, 23, 25 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.
Applicant argues that there is no motivation to modify Wei’s comb to incorporate airflow from a blower since it is electrically heated and therefore would require fundamental change in its principle of operation. However, this is not persuasive. The rejection relies on the teaching that airflow is a known alternative mechanism for applying heat to hair during styling. The comb part is detachable and one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to user different heating mechanisms, tooth materials, and tooth connfigurations as to achieve a certain result and blow dryer combs are very well known. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that electrically heated teeth/plates and heated airflow are known alternative techniques for transferring heat to hair and the selection of one over the other would be a predictable design choice depending on the desired styling and use, for example, use on wet hair, dry hair or both. Such modification would merely involve replacing one known heat source with another that performs the same general function of heating hair during styling (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Moreover, please note that the claims do not require any of the structure of the air blowing appliance at all and only the arrangement of the inlet and outlet that would functionally interact with a blow dryer if that was the intended mechanism of use.
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.
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 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