DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 13: each of these claims was amended to recite “a first continuous inner surface” and “a second continuous inner surface”; however, no such language is provided in the originally filed disclosure nor is the language supported by applicant’s figures. In fact, this language appears to directly conflict with applicant’s presented figures (see annotations). Applicant illustrates large holes through both halves of the hair clip, which by definition mean these “sides” including the hole are not “continuous”. The language “continuous” has no support in applicant’s disclosure and is being rejected as new matter.
PNG
media_image1.png
378
522
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 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)(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) 1-8 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sze (US 20250268355).
Claims 1 and 13: Sze discloses a hair clip (2) comprising: a first half (8) including: a first handle (12); a first hinge member (16) adjacent the first handle; a first side (see annotations) extending from the first handle (see annotations) and including a first continuous inner surface from which an array of rows of first teeth protrude (see Fig 3 & annotations) in a first direction with every first tooth parallel to every other first tooth (see Fig 5) and protruding in the first direction and every first tooth of each row having the same length (see Fig 3 & annotations). Additionally, first tines (24a, 26a, 28a, 30a, 32a; see annotations) extend from the first side beyond the first continuous inner surface (see annotations). A second half (10) is hinged to the first half via a second hinge member (16) aligned with the first hinge member (16) and a second handle (14) with a second side extending from the second handle (see annotations) and including a second continuous inner surface from which an array of rows of second teeth (see annotations) protrude in a second direction opposite the first direction with every second tooth oriented parallel with every other second tooth and protruding in the second direction and every second tooth of each row has the same length (see Fig 3 & annotations). The second teeth extend beyond the second continuous inner surface since they extend therefrom (see annotations). The second tines are laterally offset from the first tines to allow interleaving (see Fig 19). A hinge including the first hinge member and the second hinge member couples the first half to the second half in pivotal relation so the clip has an open arrangement where the first handle and the second handle are
PNG
media_image2.png
592
479
media_image2.png
Greyscale
pressed together and the tines are spaced apart (see Figs 12-14) and a gripping arrangement where the first handle and second handle are spaced apart and the tines are interleaved with the opposing tines (see Figs 17-19).
Claims 2 and 14: the first side and the second side are “substantially flat” since they are illustrated to be flat, smooth, and substantially straight (see Figs 1-19 & annotations).
Claim 3: in the gripping arrangement, the first side and the second side are oriented at an acute non-parallel angle to each other (see Figs 17-19).
Claims 4-7: the first tines and the second tines are substantially straight (see Fig 21 & annotations) and substantially flat (see Fig 21 & annotations).
Claim 8: the entire device is made of rigid materials [0010].
Claims 10-12 and 15-17: the first direction is oriented at an angle away from the first tines (see Fig 17) and the second direction is oriented at an angle away from the second tines (see Fig 17) with these directions being somewhat opposite. In the gripping arrangement (see Fig 17), the first direction and the second direction are oriented at an obtuse angle with the first half and the second half (see Fig 17).
Claim 14: the first teeth and the second teeth are substantially straight (see Fig 17 & annotations).
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) 1-8 and 10-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jenkins (US 20240081503).
Claims 1 and 13: Jenkins discloses a hairclip (2) comprising: a first half including: a first handle (8) joined to an adjacent first hinge member (see Fig 4) and a first side extending from the first handle and including a first continuous inner surface (see annotations) from which an array of rows of first teeth protrude in a first direction and every first tooth of the first side is oriented parallel to every other first tooth of the first side because the rows are parallel (see annotations). The first teeth protrude in a first direction and some of the first teeth have the same length (see annotations); and first tines extending from the first side beyond the first continuous inner surface and the bristles/tines also extend beyond this inner surface (see annotations). The hair clip includes a second opposite half (see annotations) including: a second handle (14) joined to an adjacent second hinge member (see annotations) aligned with the first hinge member (see Fig 4 & annotations). A second side extending from the second handle (see annotations) and including a second continuous inner surface from which an array of rows of second teeth (see annotations) protrude in a second direction opposite the first direction (see annotations) and every second tooth is oriented parallel to every other second tooth at least because the rows are parallel (see annotations). The second teeth protrude in the second direction and some of the second teeth have the same length (see annotations). Second tines (see annotations) also extend from the second side beyond the second continuous inner surface and the second tines are laterally offset from the first tines (see Fig 10-11). A hinge including the first hinge member and the second hinge member (see annotations), the hinge coupling the first half and the second half pivotally together (see Figs 10-13) so the clip has an open arrangement (see Figs 12-13) in which the first handle and second handle are pressed together and the first tines are spaced apart from the second tines and a gripping arrangement where the first and second handle are spaced apart and the first tines interleave with the second tines (see annotations). Jenkins discloses the invention
PNG
media_image3.png
568
998
media_image3.png
Greyscale
essentially as claimed except for the teeth in each row having a same length.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the clip of Jenkins by providing some of the teeth of each row having a same length, since the applicant has not disclosed that this solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the various different length teeth of Jenkins, rather than some teeth having a same length and some being different.
Claims 2 and 14: the first side and the second side are only slightly curved (see annotations), which the office interprets as “substantially flat”.
Claim 3: in the gripping arrangement, the first side and the second side are oriented at an acute nonparallel angle to each other (see annotations).
Claims 4-7: the first tines and the second tines are substantially straight (see Figs 10 & 12) and are substantially flat as flattened triangles (see Figs 10 & 12).
Claim 8: the teeth and clip are made of rigid plastic materials [0006].
Claims 10-11: the first direction is oriented 180 degrees away from the first tines and the second direction is oriented 180 degrees away from the second tines (see annotations) such that the first direction and the second direction are opposite from each other in the gripping arrangement (see annotations).
Claims 12 and 17: modified Jenkins discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the first direction and second direction being oriented at an obtuse angle in the gripping arrangement. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the clip of modified Jenkins to have the first direction and second direction at slightly less than 180 degrees, thereby meeting the limitation, (note Jenkins teaches these at 180 degrees to each other), since the applicant has not disclosed that this solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the teeth angled as disclosed by Jenkins/modified Jenkins.
Claim 15: the first direction is oriented at a non-perpendicular angle to the first inner surface (see annotations) and the second direction is oriented at a non-perpendicular angle to the second inner surface (see annotations).
Claim 16: the first direction is opposite the second direction (see annotations) in the gripping arrangement (see annotations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/12/26 have been considered but are moot because they all are drawn to the newly presented claim limitations, which have been addressed above.
The language “continuous” is somewhat broad and both clips have “continuous” inner surfaces from which the tines and bristles extend because when assembled the entire clip is “continuous” so it is unclear what structure applicant believes this new limitation requires that would somehow overcome both references. The sides of the clips in both Sze and Jenkins are “continuous” because they are joined together and form an entire side of the clip. This argument is also confusing because applicant is claiming “continuous” surfaces from which the teeth project being novel; however, applicant’s own disclosure illustrates a hole in each side of the clip (47, Fig 1) so applicant’s surfaces and sides are arguably less continuous than the surfaces of the cited references.
Applicant argues that Sze fails to teach a series of the limitations; however, applicant uses figures from a different reference to make these arguments which renders them moot. Applicant appears to be arguing against the rejection of the claims as anticipated by Sze (20250268355), but is using figures from a Sze (20230397704) which is improper and irrelevant. Only the figures in the cited 2025 reference would be relevant to any arguments about this reference, not prior disclosures by the same inventor for a different patent as applicant attempts to argue. The cited Sze reference does not have a Figure 10c, so all of these arguments regarding Sze are moot.
The argument regarding the obviousness rejection under Jenkins, it appears there is a misunderstanding of the rejection, so the wording has been adjusted to help with clarity. The proposed modification is not to provide all the teeth of the same length, nor does applicant’s claims require this. The proposed modification is to provide some of the teeth, specifically every other tooth or every second tooth, having a same length and still varying the teeth length as disclosed by Jenkins. So the arguments regarding this rejection are also moot and unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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-Thursday 9:00am-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
Prosecution Insights