DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This action is in response to the application 19/068,822 filed 3/3/2025 which is a CON of application PCT/KR2022/019853 filed 12/07/2022 and claims priority to KR10-2022-0112260 filed 9/5/2022.
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
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Royle (US 7,137,205 B2)(hereinafter Royle).
RE Claim 1: Royle discloses a comb for companion animal, comprising:
a handle (handle 2) part;
a body part (support 23) connected to one end of the handle part (2)(Figs 1-4);
a head part (cartridge 1) disposed to be spaced apart from the body part (space between 23 and 1 as seen in Figs 1-4) and configured to be rotatable (1 rotates with respect to handle 2 and support 23); and
a connection part (linkage mechanism 3) configured to connect the body part and the head part (Figs 1-4)(also col 5, ln 40-50), wherein the head part (1) is configured to be rotatable relative to the body part (23) via the connection part (3)(col 5, ln 40-50).
RE Claim 2: Royle discloses the comb for companion animal of Claim 1,
wherein the connection part includes a first connector (4) and a second connector (5),
wherein a first end portion of the first connector (end of 4 below 22 in Figs 1-4) is connected to the body part (23) via a first body shaft (9), a second end portion of the first connector (opposite end of 4 near 12) is connected to the head part (1) via a first head shaft (12),
a first end portion of the second connector (end of 5 near 21) is connected to the body part via a second body shaft (7), and a second end portion of the second connector (end of 5 near 11) is connected to the head part (1) via a second head shaft (11), and
wherein the first connector (4) is configured to be rotatable about the first body shaft (9)(Figs 5-7) and the second connector (5) is configured to be rotatable about the second body shaft (7)(5-7).
RE Claim 3: Royle discloses the comb for companion animal of Claim 2,
wherein a distance between the first body shaft (9) and the second body shaft (7) is different from a distance between the first head shaft (12) and the second head shaft (11) (a distance between 9 and 7 is different than a distance between 11 and 12)(Please note, as currently drafted, “a distance” is required. The claim does not require the entire distance. Also, the claim does not require specific start and end points or orientation. The claimed distance is interpreted broadly.)
RE Claim 4: Royle discloses the comb for companion animal of Claim 2,
wherein the distance between the first body shaft (9) and the second body shaft (7) is longer than the distance between the first head shaft (12) and the second head shaft (11)(a distance between 9 and 7 is different than a distance between 11 and 12)(Please note, as currently drafted, “a distance” is required. The claim does not require the entire distance. Also, the claim does not require specific start and end points or orientation. The claimed distance is interpreted broadly.)
RE Claim 5: Royle discloses the comb for companion animal of Claim 2,
wherein the head part (1) is configured to be rotatable according to a difference in forces generated when rotating the first connector and the second connector (based on pressure as someone shaves with the device).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Royle as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wilhelmi (US 4,970,990)(hereinafter Wilhelmi).
RE Claim 6: Royle discloses the comb for companion animal of Claim 1, as previously discussed.
Royle teaches a grooming device with blades. Many brushes, such as those designed for shearing comprise blades (instead of tines or bristles).
Where it is contemplated that Royle does not explicitly teach wherein a brush is provided on one side of the head part.
However, Wilhelmi teaches a comb for a companion animal (Fig 7)(analogous art) and further teaches wherein a brush is provided on one side of the head part (tines and blades per abstract and throughout)(see Fig 7 for attachment to a head and handle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Royle in view of Wilhelmi such that a brush is provided on one side of the head part as taught by Wilhelmi for the advantages of trimming hair during brushing.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892.
These documents present alternative designs similar in scope which illustrate relevant features in comparison to the Applicant’s submission. The cited prior art include various brushing and combing devices for grooming animals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA E GRABER whose telephone number is (571)272-4640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Timothy D Collins can be reached on 571-272-6886. 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.
/MARIA E GRABER/Examiner, Art Unit 3644