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 Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 1-12 are 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1, 3, 7, 10-12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 5 & 6 recite “remaining parts of the grooming device” - it is unclear which specific structural component or components are being referenced. As such, the scope of the claim is impossible to distinguish. It is recommended to replace “remaining parts” with, e.g., --one or more of: A, B, or C-- to overcome the rejection.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the distal end” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 9 are rejected as ultimately dependent from claims 1 or 7, rejected above.
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.
Claims 1-5 & 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being disclosed by Hadden (US 20170215379 A1).
For Claims 1, 11, & 12, Hadden discloses a grooming device (pet comb 10) comprising:
a handle (handle 20);
a plurality of tines (44, 48, of comb blade 40, ¶0076) each having a proximal end secured to said handle (“The comb blade 40 may be selectively coupled to the handle 20 as described herein below,” ¶0044) and a distal end extending away from the handle (as seen in Figs. 19 & 21);
a bend incorporated at the distal end of each tine (¶0050 and claim 9);
the plurality of tines being spaced from one another laterally (Fig. 18);
a grooming element integral with each tine, said grooming element having an exposed end with a plurality of teeth formed thereon (as represented in Figs. 17B, 18);
wherein each grooming element is secured to an interior surface of the distal end of the corresponding tine such that a height [H] of the blade extends along the longitudinal axis [X] of the tine and a width of the tine extends substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal axis along a transverse axis [Y] (as represented by Fig. 2).
[For Claim 12:] and wherein depths of the grooming elements differ between at least two of the grooming elements (although not explicitly depicted together, claim 9 incorporates an angular bend [Fig. 2] with the blunted and non-blunted tines [Figs. 18-23], which would result in differing heights).
For Claim 2, Hadden discloses the grooming device of claim 1, and Hadden further discloses wherein: said bend forms an angle of between about 60 to 90 degrees (¶0063 discloses each of 60, 70, 80, 90 which meets the claimed limitation).
For Claim 3, Hadden discloses the grooming device of claim 1, and Hadden further discloses wherein: said tines are substantially uniformly spaced from one another (as represented in Figs. 17A-18, for non-limiting example).
For Claim 4, Hadden discloses the grooming device of claim 1, and Hadden further discloses wherein: said bend forms an angle of approximately 90° (¶0063 discloses 90 degrees).
For Claim 5, Hadden discloses the grooming device of claim 1, and Hadden further discloses wherein: the grooming elements are made from metal ¶0059 and remaining parts of the grooming device are molded plastic ¶0048.
For Claim 7, Hadden discloses, through the normal use of the device outlined in claims 1, 11, & 12, a method of grooming an animal with a grooming device for removing hair or fur from the animal, said method comprising:
providing the grooming device having (a) a handle (handle 20), (b) a plurality of tines (44, 48, of comb blade 40, ¶0076) each having a proximal end secured to said handle (“The comb blade 40 may be selectively coupled to the handle 20 as described herein below,” ¶0044) and the distal end extending away from the handle (as seen in Figs. 19 & 21), the plurality of tines being spaced from one another laterally (as seen in Figs. 17-23), (c) a grooming element secured to each tine (blunt ended and non-blunt-ended tines, the ends serving to groom);
contacting the animal with the grooming elements in which distal tips of the plurality of tines penetrate layers of the animal's fur such that widths of the grooming elements are oriented substantially perpendicular to skin of the animal underlying the fur (see Figs. 19 & 21); and
manipulating the device to remove fur from the animal in which the grooming elements contact a plurality of layers of the fur by pulling the handle towards a user of the device in a longitudinal direction substantially parallel with a longitudinal axis of the tines (“the spacings may be adapted to a particular type of hair or fur intended to be groomed,” the spacings may be adapted to a particular type of hair or fur intended to be groomed,” ¶0081 and Figs. 19 & 21).
For Claim 8, Hadden discloses the method of claim 7 and Hadden further discloses wherein: each tine has a single grooming element secured thereto (as seen in Fig. 17C, for non-limiting example).
For Claim 9, Hadden discloses the method of claim 7 and Hadden further discloses wherein: each tine has a plurality of grooming element secured thereto (as seen in Fig. 17B, for non-limiting example).
For Claim 10, Hadden discloses the method of claim 7 and Hadden further discloses wherein: said manipulating step comprises contacting substantially all of the layers of fur (Figs. 19 & 21 appear to represent contacting and penetrating all of the layers of fur by contacting the skin) or1 contacting less than all of the layers of fur.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadden as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chou (US 4913172 A).
For Claim 6, Hadden discloses the grooming device of claim 1.
Hadden is silent to the grooming elements being integrally molded with any other element, and thus is silent to wherein: the grooming elements and remaining parts of the grooming device are molded plastic thereby forming a unitary molded member.
Chou, like prior art above, teaches an animal grooming device (title, disclosure) further comprising grooming elements and remaining parts of the grooming device are molded plastic thereby forming a unitary molded member (“the handle 11 and the tooth portion 12 are molded integrally into one piece,” Col. 2, lines 40-42 and Fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was effectively filed to modify the grooming device of Hadden to have the grooming elements integral with the grooming device as taught by Chou, in order to better protect the integrity of the device when exposed to differing climates, yielding predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art cited in the parent application and made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Morgan T. Jordan whose telephone number is (571)272-8141. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, PETER POON can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/MORGAN T JORDAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3643
1 Interpretation note: only one aspect is required due to the alternative construction triggered by the “or” limitation.