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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the French Republic on 11/27/2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR2313068 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 10 line 9, “the portion of the body of the individual” should read “the hair” for consistency with the current amendments.
Appropriate correction 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abehasera (US 10,918,184 B1), in view of Kosecoff (US 2022/0088407 A1), and further in view of Jang (WO 2020105876A1).
Regarding claims 1, Abehasera teaches an attachment for a hair dryer (10, Col. 1 ll. 64-67), the attachment comprising a proximity sensor (200) operably connected to circuitry (18) and configured to transmit data that corresponds to a distance between the attachment and a portion of a body of an individual to the circuitry (Coll. 3 ll. 41-63); wherein the circuitry is configured to control, based on data received from the proximity sensor, operation of the attachment, the hair dryer, or both (Col. 3 ll. 58-67 - Col. 3 ll. 1 – Col. 4 ll. 3; the controller can send a shut-off signal associated with conditions such as distance, temperature, humidity, airflow or time, and therefore is fully capable of controlling operation of the hair dryer).
However, Abehasera does not explicitly disclose an aerosolized cosmetic composition and the circuitry is configured to control operation to apply and cure the aerosolized cosmetic composition to the hair.
Kosecoff teaches a device comprising sensors (160, 162, 164), including a proximity sensor (162) which may be a camera and/or infrared, and a controller to diagnose a portion of the body such as the hair or scalp (abstract, ([0001], [0016], [0048], [0050]). Kosecoff further discloses application of an aerosolized cosmetic composition to the portion of the body based on the diagnosis and controlling the hair dryer to vary the air temperature proportional to the distance the device is moved away from the hair and dispensing differently based on the distance of the device from the body portion ([0054-0057], [0064-0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Abehasera to be capable of controlling the operation of the hair dryer based on spatial parameters for applying or drying a composition, as taught by Kosecoff, because it provides real time data that allows for simultaneous functionality and efficient results ([0064-0065]).
Kosecoff teaches the controller considers the distance of the device from the scalp and determined proximity of the sensor relative to the hair ends to determine the dispensing conditions (see at least [0005], [0054], [0067]), but does not teach it being selectable based at least in part on a natural strand color, an artificial hair strand color, a hair strand density, a hair strand thickness, or any combination thereof.
Jang teaches a hair dye dispensing system comprising a sensor that detects hair conditions/parameters to control dispensing of hair dye onto the hair (abstract). Jang teaches the sensor transmits current hair color information or other conditions including hair thickness, a degree of dryness, a degree of damage or the like, to determine dispensing parameters (see page 12). Jang also contemplates inputting hair length information in order to calculate an amount of dye to be discharged (see page 12 para. 5). Additionally, Jang mentions that price information may be estimated based on the calculated amount of product needed (see page 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device to be capable of controlling the operation of the dispensing based on hair conditions including thickness, length or color, as taught by Jang, because it allows calculating and determining an exact amount of product to be dispensed and therefore a more accurate approach to the dispensing and would also allow estimation of cost for the specific amount of dye to be used.
Regarding claim 2, Abehasera in view of Kosecoff and Jang teaches the attachment of claim 1 (see rejection above). Abehasera further discloses wherein the attachment is configured for physical attachment to the hair dryer (see Figures 1-2 and Col. 1 ll. 63 – Col. 2 ll. 8).
Regarding claim 3, Abehasera in view of Kosecoff and Jang teaches the attachment of claim 2 (see rejection above). Abehasera further discloses wherein the attachment is an after-market addition to the hair dryer (Col. 1 ll. 63 – Col. 2 ll. 8; the attachment is an “add-on” to a hair dryer and therefore is considered to meet this limitation as recited).
Please note that the recited limitation does not add any additional structure to the claimed device and only how the device is obtained by the user and therefore is considered intended use.
Regarding claim 4, Abehasera in view of Kosecoff and Jang teaches the attachment of claim 1 (see rejection above). Kosecoff teaches the cosmetic composition is for application to the hair ([0053-0055, 0064-0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Abehasera to be capable of controlling the operation of the hair dryer based on spatial parameters for applying or drying a composition, as taught by Kosecoff, because it provides real time data that allows for simultaneous functionality and efficient results ([0064-0065]).
Regarding claim 6, Abehasera in view of Kosecoff and Jang teaches the attachment of claim 1 (see rejection above). Kosecoff further teaches wherein the cosmetic composition is further selectable based on a hair strand length (see at least [0005], [0053-0056, 0064-0067]; such that the controls depend on a length/distance along a strand of hair by being at or away from the roots and the spatial position of the sensor relative to the root ends). Jang also teaches the control unit uses an input of hair length information to calculate the amount of product to be used (see page 12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Abehasera to be capable of controlling the operation of the hair dryer based on spatial parameters such as hair length for applying or drying a composition, as taught by Kosecoff, because it provides real time data that allows for simultaneous functionality and efficient results ([0064-0065]).
Regarding claim 7, Abehasera in view of Kosecoff and Jang teaches the attachment of claim 1 (see rejection above). Kosecoff further teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to compute a hair dryer blower level, a hair dryer blower temperature, and/or an applicator spray level based at least in part on data received from the proximity sensor ([0053-0056, 0064-0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Abehasera to be capable of controlling the operation of the hair dryer based on spatial parameters for applying or drying a composition, as taught by Kosecoff, because it provides real time data that allows for simultaneous functionality and efficient results ([0064-0065]).
Regarding claim 8, Abehasera in view of Kosecoff and Jang teaches the attachment of claim 7 (see rejection above). Kosecoff further teaches wherein the circuitry is configured to: activate an applicator of the attachment for application of the aerosolized cosmetic composition to the portion of the hair; and activate a blower of the hair dryer; wherein the hair dryer blows air based at least in part on the hair dryer blower level, the hair dryer blower temperature, and/or the applicator spray level ([0053-0056, 0064-0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Abehasera to be capable of controlling the operation of the hair dryer based on spatial parameters for applying or drying a composition, as taught by Kosecoff, because it provides real time data that allows for simultaneous functionality and efficient results ([0064-0065]).
Regarding claim 9, Abehasera in view of Kosecoff and Jang teaches the attachment of claim 1 (see rejection above). Abehasera teaches wherein the attachment is attached or is attachable to a hair dryer of the hair dryer system (Col. 1 ll. 63 – Col. 2 ll. 8).
Regarding claim 10, Abehasera teaches method for applying an aerosolized cosmetic composition to hair of an individual (Col. 4 ll. 61 – Col. 5 ll. 18), the method comprising:
detecting, with a proximity sensor of an attachment for a hair dryer, the portion of the body (Coll. 3 ll. 41-63), and
transmitting, from the proximity sensor, data that corresponds to a distance between the attachment and the hair to circuitry of the attachment and/or the hair dryer (Col. 3 ll. 41-63), wherein the attachment is attachable to the hair dryer (Col. 1 ll. 63 – Col. 2 ll. 8);
applying, with an applicator of the attachment (113), an aerosolized cosmetic composition to the portion of the body of the individual (Col. 4 ll. 61 – Col. 5 ll. 18), and activating a blower of the hair dryer, wherein the applicator applies and the hair dryer blows air based at least in part on the one or more parameter values (Col. 4 ll. 61 – Col. 3 ll. 18).
Abehasera does not explicitly teach computing, with the circuitry, one or more parameter values for operation of the attachment, the hair dryer, or both, to apply and cure a cosmetic composition to the hair.
Kosecoff teaches devices and methods comprising sensors (160, 162, 164), including a proximity sensor (162) which may be a camera and/or infrared, and a controller to diagnose a portion of the body such as the hair or scalp (abstract, ([0001], [0016], [0048], [0050]). Kosecoff further discloses application of an aerosolized cosmetic composition to the portion of the body based on the diagnosis and controlling the hair dryer to vary the air temperature proportional to the distance the device is moved away from the hair and dispensing differently based on the distance of the device from the body portion ([0054-0057], [0064-0067]). Kosecoff teaches computing, with circuitry, an applicator spray level based on the sensing ([0055-0057]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Abehasera with the teachings of Kosecoff to include steps including computation and programming of settings based on the sensing, because Kosecoff teaches that this method is known in the art and because it provides real time data that allows for simultaneous functionality and efficient results ([0064-0065]).
Abehasera in view of Kosecoff does not teach being selectable based at least in part on a natural strand color, an artificial hair strand color, a hair strand density, a hair strand thickness, or any combination thereof and applying the composition based on said parameter.
Jang teaches a hair dye dispensing system comprising a sensor that detects hair conditions/parameters to control dispensing of hair dye onto the hair (abstract). Jang teaches the sensor transmits current hair color information or other conditions including hair thickness, a degree of dryness, a degree of damage or the like, to determine dispensing parameters (see page 12). Jang also contemplates inputting hair length information in order to calculate an amount of dye to be discharged (see page 12 para. 5). Additionally, Jang mentions that price information may be estimated based on the calculated amount of product needed (see page 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device to be capable of controlling the operation of the dispensing based on hair conditions including thickness, length or color, as taught by Jang, because it allows calculating and determining an exact amount of product to be dispensed and therefore a more accurate approach to the dispensing and would also allow estimation of cost for the specific amount of dye to be used.
Regarding claim 11, Abehasera in view of Kosecoff and Jang teaches the method of claim 10 (see rejection above). Abehasera further discloses wherein the attachment is attached to the hair dryer (Col. 1 ll. 63 – Col. 2 ll. 8).
Regarding claim 12, Abehasera in view of Kosecoff and Jang teaches the method of claim 11 (see rejection above). Abehasera/Kosecoff, as combined further teach a detection area of the proximity sensor, a spray area of the applicator of the attachment, and a portion of the hot air blown by the hair dryer coincide with the hair (such that they are all part of the attachment that is used proximal to the portion of the body).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Abehasera with the teachings of Kosecoff to include steps including computation and programming of settings based on the sensing, because Kosecoff teaches that this method is known in the art and because it provides real time data that allows for simultaneous functionality and efficient results ([0064-0065]).
Regarding claim 13, Abeharesa in view of Kosecoff and Jangteaches the method of claim 10 (see rejection above). Kosecoff teaches wherein the aerosolized cosmetic composition is for application to hair of the individual ([0053-0055], [0064-0067]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Abehasera with the teachings of Kosecoff to include steps including computation and programming of settings based on the sensing, because Kosecoff teaches that this method is known in the art and because it provides real time data that allows for simultaneous functionality and efficient results ([0064-0065]).
Regarding claim 15, Abehasera discloses a computational device comprising circuitry configured to perform part of the method of claim 10 (Col. 1 ll. 63 – Col. 2 ll. 25). Abehasera in view of Kasecoff teaches circuitry configured to perform all of the method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10 above).
Claim(s) 5, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abehasera (US 10,918,184 B1), in view of Kosecoff (US 2022/0088407 A1), Jang (WO 2020105876A1), and further in view of Lin (US 6,425,403).
Regarding claim 5, Abehasera in view of Kosecoff and Jang teaches the attachment of claim 4 (see rejection above). Kosecoff further discloses the device being configured to generate ions ([0036-0038]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device to include an ion generator, as taught by Kosecoff, as it is beneficial to provide specific settings to hair treatments ([0033]).
As combined, the device is fully capable of generating ions in a hair dye prior to application if intended to do so. However, Abehasera/Kosecoff is silent to the aerosolized cosmetic composition includes a hair dye that is curable with hot air of the hair dryer. Lin teaches that is a known process to provide hot hair from a hair dryer to cure a hair dye composition (abstract, Col. 4 ll. 41-49, Col. 6 ll. 51-56 and Col. 7 ll. 11-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a hair dye that is curable with hot air, as taught by Lin, because it is known in the art and can minimize hair damage (abstract and Col. 6 ll. 51-56).
Regarding claim 14, Abeharesa in view of Kosecoff and Jang teaches the method of claim 13 (see rejection above). Abehasera/Kosecoff is silent to the aerosolized cosmetic composition includes a hair dye that is curable with hot air of the hair dryer. Lin teaches that is a known process to provide hot hair from a hair dryer to cure a hair dye composition (abstract, Col. 4 ll. 41-49, Col. 6 ll. 51-56 and Col. 7 ll. 11-22).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a hair dye that is curable with hot air, as taught by Lin, because it is known in the art and can minimize hair damage (abstract and Col. 6 ll. 51-56).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 5 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 5 of copending Application No. 18/812,180 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the only difference is the use of a “camera” sensor and a “proximity” sensor. However, it is obvious that the proximity sensor must be an imaging or othertwise known as a camera sensor especially in light of paragraph [0047] of the instant specification stating that the proximity captures imagery of hair.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 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.
The amendments overcome the previously indicated 112(b) rejections.
In response to applicant’s comments with respect to the double patenting rejections, please note that claim 5 remains rejected under non-statutory double patenting over claims 1, 4, 5 of copending application no. 18/812,180, which has been amended to include similar limitations to the instant claim 1. However, the amendments overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claim 5 over copending application No. 18/812,174 since none of the claims of ‘174 recite the amended limitation of instant claim 1 from which claim 5 depends.
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