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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-8, 11, 13, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yun (KR100539710B1), translation provided.
Regarding claim 1, Yun teaches a hair styling apparatus comprising:
a first arm (210) and a second arm (110) coupled together at a hinge (460) to allow the first arm and the second arm to be moveable between a closed position in which a facing side of the first arm and a facing side of the second arm are adjacent, and an open position in which the facing side of the first arm and the facing side of the second arm are spaced apart (see Figures 9-12);
a central pack (700) disposed between the first and second arms and coupled to the hair styling apparatus at the hinge (see Figures 6-8); and
a locking mechanism (500) disposed within the central pack, wherein the locking mechanism comprises an elongate lock arm (520) disposed lengthwise within the central pack (see Figures 1a, 1c and pages 3-4 of translation).
Regarding claim 4, Yun teaches the hair styling apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection above), further comprising:
a user interface lock button (112) on an external surface of the central pack (see Figures), wherein the elongate lock arm of the locking mechanism is adapted to move relative to the central pack between first and second positions (see page 5 of translation), wherein the user interface lock button is connected with the elongate lock arm of the locking mechanism and is adapted to move the elongate lock arm of the locking mechanism between the first and second positions (see page 3-4 of translation; such that the slider knob 112 interacts with the locking mechanism arm to slidably move it and lock/unlock the arms relative to each other).
Regarding claim 5, Yun teaches the hair styling apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the locking mechanism further comprises a lock out actuator (510) movably attached to the central pack (see page 4 paragraphs 9-13; the selection protrusions 510 are slidable via the slide knob 112 to move the locking arm 520 of the locking mechanism 500 within the locking hole 720 of the central pack 700 to fix its position).
Regarding claim 6, Yun teaches the hair styling apparatus according to claim 5 (see rejection above), wherein: the lock out actuator (510) is connected to a biasing member (600 and see page 4 of translation; such that the lock out actuator 510 is connected to the spring 600 via 500 and the spring 600 provides the sliding force for opening the central pack 700 when actuator 510 of locking mechanism 500 has released the lock hole 720); and
the lock out actuator is biased by the biasing member in an extended position (see page 4 of translation; such that the lock out actuator 510 biased by the spring 600 into an open position as the spring extends when the actuator 510 is no longer engaged with lockout hole 720).
Regarding claim 7, Yun teaches the hair styling apparatus according to claim 6 (see rejection above), wherein the lock out actuator is adapted to be moved into a contracted position by at least one of the first and/or second arms when the first and second arms are in the closed position (see page 4 paragraph 9 of translation; the arms close when the actuator is slid into a locking connection with locking hole 720).
Regarding claim 8, Yun teaches the hair styling apparatus according to claim 7 (see rejection above), further comprising: a protrusion (113) on at least one of the first and second arms (see Figures), wherein the lock out actuator (510) is operable to be pushed into the contracted position by the protrusion on the at least one of the first and second arms (see page 4 paragraph 13 of translation; the hook 113 moves the locking mechanism 500 to guide the actuator 510 into or out of the locking hole 720).
Regarding claim 11, Yun teaches the hair styling apparatus according to claim 6 (see rejection above), wherein the biasing member comprises a spring (600 is a spring).
Regarding claim 13, Yun teaches the hair styling apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the central pack comprises a power pack (see translation page 4 paragraphs 2, 6-7; such that the central pack is a housing for battery cells 740).
Regarding claim 16, Yun teaches the hair styling apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the locking mechanism is selectively operable to lock the first and second arms in the closed position (see Figures and page 4 of translation).
Regarding claim 17, Yun teaches the hair styling apparatus according to claim 16 (see rejection above), wherein: the central pack (700) defines a longitudinal axis; and the elongate lock arm (520) is disposed within the central pack in parallel with the longitudinal axis defined by the central pack (see Figures).
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) 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun (KR100539710B1), translation provided.
Regarding claim 12, Yun teaches the hair styling apparatus according to claim 11 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the biasing member comprises a coil spring.
However, Yun teaches that spring 600 is a tension spring that lifts the central pack when extended. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the spring to be a coil spring, because it would have involved a mere change in shape of a component, which is recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B). Such modification only involves replacing the spring of Yun with a coil spring having similar length and force requirements to simply extend.
Regarding claim 14, Yun teaches the hair styling apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the central pack comprises at least one frame adapted to support:
the locking mechanism (see Figures);
at least one cell (740).
Yun teaches the device comprises a user interface printed circuit board (PCB) (substrate 300) that is coupled and interacts with the central pack (see page 4 paragraphs 6-7), but does not teach it being housed within the central pack.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the location of the substrate to be within the central pack, as it would involve ordinary skill in the art. Such modification may provide protection to the substrate and the electrical components from steam or rust.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6, 9-10, 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 18-20 are allowed.
Yun (KR 100539710 B1) teaches a hair styling device comprising two arms and a central power pack between the arms and a locking mechanism that interacts with the spring to release or engage the cover of the power pack and therefore the arms. Although Yun teaches many of the claimed structures, it does not disclose a T-shaped or symmetrical locking mechanism structure or the claimed contraction/extension behavior between the lock out actuator and the locking mechanism. Yun further does not teach the lock arm being connected to the frame by a torsion spring.
DeGrood (US 2018/0042352A1) teaches a hair styling device having two arms and a locking actuator mechanism (118) that functions similar to the claimed invention and aims to prevent accidental opening of the arms relative to one another. However, it does not teach the lock being T-shaped or symmetrical, the lockout actuator being a separate structure that interacts with the central pack or a biasing member being in communication with the locking mechanism and lockout actuator.
Other prior art teach a central pack located between two arms of a styling device - see Overend (GB2420277A), Sawada (JP 2002051825A), Uwano (US2013/0098389A1) but do not teach a locking mechanism or biasing mechanism as claimed.
Lelieveld (EP3662780A1) teaches a hair straightener having two arms and having dual independent biasing systems to achieve functional symmetry to balance contact forces between the arms and being automatically adjustable ([0004-0005]). Although it teaches the concept of automatic and symmetrical bias between the arms, it does not teach the mechanism comprising the locking mechanism, biasing spring and actuator.
Therefore, the closest prior art does not appear to disclose or suggest, in combination or alone, the claimed limitations specifically involving a T-shaped locking structure that ensures symmetry between the arms in combination with the lockout actuator being a separate structure intended to interact with a spring biasing mechanism to adjust the position of the T-shaped locking mechanism depending on the position of the lockout actuator to lock/unlock the arms relative to one another. As shown in Figures 3 and 5
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the locking mechanism being disposed within the central pack and the elongate arm being disposed lengthwise within the central pack. However, this was not found to be persuasive. According to Dictionary.com, the term “dispose” is defined as “to put in a particular or proper order or arrangement” or “to put in a particular or suitable place”. Therefore, the limitation “disposed within” merely requires placement of the locking mechanism within the central pack and the elongate arm being placed lengthwise within the central pack.
With reference to the prior art and the rejection, Yun’s central pack (700) has openings/locking holes (720) into which the locking arms (520) of the slide table (500) are inserted. As best shown in Figures 3, 5-6, part of structure 500, including the locking arms 520, are within/inside the central pack 700. The recited limitations merely require the locking mechanism and the arm being placed in the central pack, which they are. There is no specification of whether the locking mechanism is required to be entirely or partially disposed within the central pack and so under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the structures of Yun meet the claim limitations since structure 500 is partially disposed within central pack 700 via arms 520 (i.e., the arms are part of 500 and they are one unitary structure), and the arms 520 are linear and therefore extend along a length therein, as shown in Figures 5-6.
Please note that although disclosure of the invention is considered during examination, but cannot be read into the claims and only the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited claims is applied. Since there is no special definition for the term “disposed” in the specification, it will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with its plain and ordinary meaning (see MPEP 2111 and 2111.01).
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