DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/12/25 has been entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a battery powered dispensing mechanism configured to…dispense…said hair-coloring composition” in claim 7. Based on a review of applicant’s disclosure, this should be interpreted to include “gears, pistons, transmission wheels, motorized components” [0028 & 0030-0032], and any equivalents known in the art.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 7 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (JP 3988556) in view of Jeon (KR 100823355) and Gueret (US 7481592).
Claims 7 and 10: Sakamoto discloses a device for applying hair color compositions [0001-0003], comprising a device body (103, see Figs 1 & 6) comprising: a first reservoir (top of 103) configured to receive an insertable capsule (1) including a second reservoir (20A) holding a first part of the hair coloring composition and a third reservoir (20B) holding a second part of the hair coloring composition separate from the first part of the hair coloring composition [0001-0005] and a dispensing mechanism (see annotations) including an illustrated motor (6) with no power cord, which the office interprets to mean the motor is battery powered and therefore so is the dispensing mechanism. The dispensing mechanism is configured to dispense the hair coloring from the capsule, wherein the dispensing mechanism when activated dispenses the hair coloring out of the capsule towards the exit orifices (30A & 30B). The dispensing mechanism includes a first recessed gear (5) having outer teeth and disposed beneath the second reservoir (see Fig 6) and the first part of the hair coloring composition stored therein, a second recessed gear (5) having outer teeth and being placed beneath the third reservoir and the second part of the hair coloring composition stored therein; a cogwheel (1) having outer teeth disposed between and in contact with the first recessed gear and the second recessed gear such that the outer teeth of the cogwheel mesh with the outer teeth of the first recessed gear and the outer teeth of the second recessed gear; and a motor (6) and a first threaded shaft (11) extends from a lower end to an upper end of the second reservoir with a first end of the first threaded shaft protruding from the lower end of the second reservoir and threaded to the first recessed gear (5) and a first piston (12+13+14+15) mounted around the first threaded shaft and comprising an inner thread that mates with the outer thread of the first threaded shaft (see Figs 2-3 & 6); and a second threaded shaft (11) extending from a lower end to an upper end of the third reservoir with a first end of the second threaded shaft protruding from the lower end of the third reservoir and threaded to the second recessed gear (5) and a second piston (12+13+14+15) mounted around the second threaded shaft (11) and comprises an inner thread that meshes with the outer thread of the second threaded shaft and the motor is configured to rotate the cogwheel thereby rotating the first and second recessed gears, thereby moving the first and second pistons (see Figs 2-3 & 6).
Sakamoto discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for a removable application cap with a mixing mechanism held parallel to and inside of an elongated containing space and a plurality of dispensing tines projecting in a longitudinal direction of the device and the cap including a first orifice and a second orifice feeding the containing space and mixing mechanism.
Jeon, however, teaches a hair dye [0021] application device (see Figs 1-2) comprising a device body (11) with a removable application cap (13+15) comprising a mixing mechanism (19) configured to mix a first part of a hair coloring composition (12a) and a second part of a hair coloring composition (12b), an elongated containing space in fluid communication with the mixing mechanism (see Figs 1-8). The elongated containing space is also in fluid communication with a plurality of projecting tines (15, see Fig 1) with the tines extending radially outward from the longitudinal direction of the device body (see Fig 1) The elongated containing space(s) is disposed parallel to the mixing mechanism since the mixing mechanism is housed therein and also since this is how applicant illustrates their own mixing mechanism to constitute parallel to the containing space. The containing space receives the hair dye composition through a first orifice (16a) feeding from the first part of the hair coloring composition and a second orifice (16b) feeding from the second part of the hair coloring composition to the mixing mechanism for dispensing (see Fig 1). The flow is in the longitudinal direction of the device body (see Fig 1). The application cap is removably connected with the device body sealing the reservoirs from the outside except for dispensing channels in the plurality of projecting tines (see Fig 1). A dispensing mechanism (31+26) in the device body dispenses the coloring composition from the capsule towards the plurality of projecting tines through the mixing mechanism (19) thereby mixing the two parts of the coloring composition housed in the second and third reservoirs of the capsule to form a mixed coloring composition uniformly dispensed through the plurality of projecting tines. Jeon teaches providing a removable application cap comprising a series of dispensing tines and a mixing mechanism with two-part hair dye dispensers in order to allow for brushing the composition through the hair during use thereby improving the application efficiency [0021]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the dye application device of Sakamoto by providing it with the removable application cap of Jeon in view of Jeon in order to provide an evenly mixed dye extrusion device thereby increasing the efficiency of application during use as taught by Jeon.
PNG
media_image1.png
459
354
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Sakamoto discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the tines extending in the longitudinal direction of the device body.
Gueret, however, teaches that it is old and well known for brush heads, including dispensing brush heads (see Figs 25 and 29-30), to have the bristles/tines arranged radially outward along the longitudinal axis of the body of the brush device (see Figs 1-2; 81, Fig 12; Figs 19 & 24) or to have the bristles/tines arranged extending longitudinally along the longitudinal axis and parallel to the longitudinal axis (see Fig 7-8; 80, Fig 12; Fig 17, Figs 29-30 & 40). In other words, Gueret teaches it to be an obvious matter of design choice to arrange bristles, or tines, in a radial pattern extending radially outward from the central longitudinal axis of the device or extending longitudinally in the same direction as the longitudinal axis of the body of the device depending on preference. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the device of modified Sakamoto to have the tines extending in the longitudinal direction of the device body rather than radially outward in view of Gueret since Gueret teaches this to be an old and well known obvious matter of design choice.
Claim 11: Modified Sakamoto discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the ends of the threaded shafts each formed into an additional mating gear instead of a threaded connection joined to the recessed gears. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of modified Sakamoto by providing additional gears at the base of the threaded shafts since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). In the instant case providing an additional gear at the end of the threaded shaft would have been an obvious duplication of the essential working parts already disclosed by Sakamoto.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/12/25 have been considered but are all drawn to the newly presented claim limitations, which have been addressed with a modified rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited references not relied upon, but cited all teach it to be an obvious matter of design choice to arrange a brush head to have radially extending bristles or longitudinally extending bristles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Gill whose telephone number is (571)270-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER GILL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772