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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/18/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-16, drawn to “a shower hair container assembly”, classified in A45D44/16.
II. Claims 17-20, drawn to “a method of using a shower hair container”, classified in for instance A46B 2200/405.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Groups I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. For instance, the shower hair container assembly according to claim 1 can be used as a small brush that catches hair directly from the user’s head instead of the user’s hand. For instance, brushing the user’s hair with the removable insert thereby collecting the user hair away from the container, and placing the removable insert back into the container for storage until later disposal of the hair.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Group I would require a search in at least A45D44/16, along with a unique text search. Group II would not be searched as above and would instead require a search in at least A46B 2200/405, along with a unique text search.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with Howard Wernow on 06/08/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of claims 1-16. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 9 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Windsor (US 11930911 B1).
Note: The broadest reasonable interpretation has been applied to the term “container”, being anything that contains or can contain something. In the rejection below, part 14, as shown in Windsor’s Figure 9, is a container; since this part contains bristles that collect and contain the hair in place, for later disposal, and also contains the insert 16 (see col 6, lines 1-24).
Regarding claim 1, Windsor discloses a shower hair container assembly (Figure 1 and col 5, lines 15-35) comprising: an outer container (11); an inner container (14, since plate ), wherein the inner container (14) is selectively and removably connected to the outer container (11; see col 6, lines 41-53); a hair removal insert (16); and wherein the outer container is configured to be installed on a shower wall and remain installed on the wall when the inner container is emptied (the device has all the necessary structures to be configured to be installed on a shower wall and remain installed on the wall when the inner container is emptied; see col 2, lines 44-49).
Regarding claim 2, Windsor discloses wherein when the inner and outer containers are connected, the inner container is positioned within the outer container (col 5, lines 25-26), and within the inner container there is a space (14a) that retains the hair removal insert (16; see col 5, lines 58-60).
Regarding claim 3, Windsor discloses wherein the hair removal insert is selectively and removably connected with the inner container (col 5, lines 25-26).
Regarding claim 5, Windsor discloses further comprising a first size bristle and a second size bristle, wherein the first size bristle and the second size bristle are adjacent to one another and different in size (col 5, lines 41-43).
Regarding claim 6, Windsor discloses wherein the first size bristles and the second size bristles are configured to remove hair from a hand of a user (said bristles, e.g. 15a and 15b, have all the necessary structures to be configured to remove hair from a hand of a user).
Regarding claim 9, Windsor discloses wherein the inner container (14) further comprises a set of protrusions that extend outwardly from the inner container (since the bristles 15 are protrusions that extend outwardly from the container 14). The Examiner notes that claim 9 directly depends on claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Windsor discloses a method of assembling a shower hair container comprising: inserting a hair removal insert (16) into an inner container (14); inserting the inner container into an outer container (11; see col 5, line 65 to col 6, line 17); and attaching the outer container (11) to a surface inside of a shower (col 6, lines 30-32).
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dengel (US 20230165410 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dengel discloses a shower hair container assembly (Figure 3 and abstract) comprising: an outer container (122); an inner container (120), wherein the inner container is selectively and removably connected to the outer container ([0036]); a hair removal insert (106) ([0036]); and wherein the outer container is configured to be installed on a shower wall and remain installed on the wall when the inner container is emptied ([0041]).
Regarding claim 4, Dengel discloses wherein the hair removal insert (106) further includes bristles (108) (Figure 1 and [0033]).
Regarding claim 9, Dengel discloses wherein the inner container further comprises a set of protrusions (124, see Figure 1) that extend outwardly from the inner container (since the inner container is secured to the outer container for use via a press fit or snap fit configuration, or via spring clips 124 or any other suitable locking features as is known in the art [0036]).
Regarding claim 10, Dengel discloses wherein the set of protrusions are selectively engaged with the outer container to lock the inner container in place (since the inner container is secured to the outer container for use via a press fit or snap fit configuration, or via spring clips 124 or any other suitable locking features as is known in the art [0036]).
Regarding claim 11, Dengel discloses wherein the set of protrusions are flexible and may be moved inwards to remove the inner container from the outer container (since these protrusion are part of press fit or snap fit configuration, they are flexible and have all the necessary structures to be able of being configured to be moved inwards to remove the inner container from the outer container).
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Windsor, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clawson (US 11680396 B1).
Regarding claim 7, Windsor fails to disclose “wherein the first size bristles and the second size bristles are at a downward facing angle in relation to the hair removal insert”.
Clawson discloser a shower hair container assembly (Figure 1 and Abstract) comprising: a container 102, and an a hair removal insert (110); wherein the hair removal insert further includes bristles (504) and wherein the bristles are at a downward facing angle in relation to the hair removal insert (col 5, lines 31-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Windsor’s first size and second size bristles to make them downward facing angle in relation to the hair removal insert, since such modification would make it easier for the hair to be grasped by the bristles and to fall down towards the bottom of the container.
Regarding claim 8, Windsor fails to disclose “wherein the inner container further comprises a plurality of apertures along a bottom surface of the inner container, wherein the apertures are configured to provide drainage”.
Clawson discloser wherein the container further comprises a plurality of apertures (114) along a bottom surface of the container, wherein the apertures are configured to provide drainage (col 5, lines 45-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Windsor’s inner container (12) to make it comprising a plurality of apertures, as taught by Clawson, since such modification may allow for drainage and drying of the inner container (col 5, lines 45-52).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dengel.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Dengel fails to specifically disclose “wherein the set of protrusions are located on an upper portion of a first sidewall of the inner container and on an upper portion of a second sidewall of the inner container” and “wherein the set of protrusions are located on a lower portion of the first sidewall of the inner container and on a lower portion of the second sidewall of the inner container”. However, Dengel discloses a plurality of protrusion (124, see [0036] and Figure 1) located on the sidewalls of the inner container. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Dengel’s inner container to locate the protrusions in the desired places (e.g. an upper portion of a first sidewall of the inner container and on an upper portion of a second sidewall and/or a lower portion of the first sidewall of the inner container and on a lower portion of the second sidewall), since such modification would be a mere rearrangement of known parts in a device, which has no patentable significance since it does not modify the operation of the device and has been held to be an obvious matter of design choice (MPEP 2144).
Claim(s) 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blazer (US 1527112 A) in view of Dengel.
Regarding claim 14, Blazer discloses a method of assembling a shower hair container comprising: inserting a hair removal insert (10) into an inner container (5); inserting the inner container into an outer container (1) (see col 2, lines 80-110). Blazer fails to disclose “and attaching the outer container to a surface inside of a shower”.
Dengel discloses and attaching the outer container to a surface inside of a shower ([0041]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Blazer’s device in order to attach the outer container to a surface inside of a shower, as taught by Dengel, since such modification would make it easier to collect unwanted hair when washing and rinsing hair in the shower ([0033]).
Regarding claim 15, Blazer and Dengel, as combined above discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Blazer discloses further comprising: inserting a set of protrusions (threads 4) on the inner container (5) into a set of openings on the outer container (1) (since the inner container has threads 4 and it is threaded into the outer container 1; see Figure 1 and col 2, lines 90-100).
Regarding claim 16, Blazer and Dengel, as combined above discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Blazer discloses further comprising: locking the inner container in place in relation to the outer container wherein the inner container is locked in place when the protrusions are inserted into the openings (since the inner container has threads 4 and it is threaded into the outer container 1; see Figure 1 and col 2, lines 90-100).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS MIGUEL RUIZ MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 Am - 5 PM (EST).
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, 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 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.
/LUIS RUIZ MARTIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights