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 Status
Claims 2, 5-10, 12, 14, 17, 20-21, and 23-28 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3-4, 11, 13, 15-16, 18-19 have been canceled in the preliminary amendment of December 2025. Please note that claim 22 appears to be missing or inadvertently skipped in claim numbering.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Claims 7 and 17 require two types of bristles, “wherein the two types of bristles comprise a first bristle type with a first predetermined height and a second bristle type with a second predetermined height, wherein the number of bristles of the first bristle type is greater than the number of bristles of the second bristle type and the first predetermined height is less than the second predetermined height.”
Claim 8 requires two types of bristles “wherein the two types of bristles comprise bristles with tips and bristles without tips”.
Claims 9 and 27 each require that the bristles are “configured to align the hair with the first or second plurality of channels.”
Claim 14 requires that “at least one channel of the first or the second plurality of channels is laterally aligned with at least two bristles that are vertically staggered relative to each other.”
Claims 21 and 23 recite “channel width”, however the specification does not specifically refer or provide antecedent basis for a width dimension of a channel. The specification in paragraphs [0008]-[0014] describes both a channel length and distance between channels.
Claim 24 requires that “the channel opposing sides are substantially parallel”.
The specification does not provide antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims, however support can be found in the drawings.
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.
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 2, 5-10, 12, 14, 17, 20-21, and 23-28 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.
The preliminary amendment of 25 November 2025 introduces limitations not described in the originally filed disclosure. Independent claim 21 recites: “each of the first plurality of channels extending inwardly toward an interior of the brush head by a first distance, each of the plurality of channels further having a channel width measured from a first channel opposing side to a second channel opposing side at the widest distance between the opposing sides, wherein the channel width is about equal to the first distance…” There is not support for a channel width being about equal to the first distance. Independent claim 23 recites: “each of the first plurality of channels extending inwardly toward an interior of the brush head by a first distance, each of the plurality of channels further having a channel width measured from a first channel opposing side to a second channel opposing side at the widest distance between the opposing sides, wherein the channel width is greater than the first distance…” The applicant provides dimensions to some channels (length or length/distance that the channels are separated; see paragraphs [0008]-[0014], [0033], [0035]), but in any of these disclosed ranges, there is not support for a channel width being about equal to a first distance or support for a channel width that is greater than a first distance.
Claims 2, 5-10, 12, 14, and 21 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 “about equal” in claim 21 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” 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. It is unclear what the applicant considers to be a width that is about equal to a first distance, the first distance being the distance that the channels extends inwardly towards an interior of the brush head.
Claim 8 requires that “the two types of bristles comprise bristles with tips and bristles without tips.” It is unclear what is meant “without tips” as all of the bristles disclosed by the applicant have tips in the drawings. Is the applicant referring to the rounded ends of tips (142) when reciting that bristles have “tips”? Did the applicant intend claim 8 to recite “the two types of bristles comprise bristles with rounded tips and bristles without rounded tips”?
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.
Claim(s) 2, 5, 9, 12, 14, 20-21, 23-25, and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boyd, US 8,656,933.
Regarding claim 21, Boyd discloses a hair brush (1) comprising a brush head comprising a plurality of bristles (4), a first plurality of channels disposed along a first side of the brush head (2, embodiment of Figure 4), the first plurality of channels having opposing sides and are configured to separate and enhance waves, curls, or coils in hair (paragraphs 0018 and 0023), each of the first plurality of channels extend inwardly towards an interior of the brush head by a first distance (Figure 4), each of the plurality of channels further having a channel width measured from a first channel opposing side to a second channel opposing side at the widest distance between the sides (Figure 4), wherein the channel width is about equal to the first distance (they are considered to be about equal as shown in Figure 4); and a second plurality of channels disposed along a second side of the brush head (at 31, embodiment of Figure 4), wherein the first and second plurality of channels are configured to separate and enhance waves, curls, or coils in hair (paragraphs 0018 and 0023). Regarding claim 2, the first and second plurality of channels are substantially U-shaped (Figure 4). Regarding claim 14, the first and second plurality of channels, in conjunction with the plurality of bristles, are configured to separate and enhance waves, curves, or coils in hair (the channels and bristles are capable of this use, see MPEP 2115, Figures 3a-3d, and paragraph 0023). Regarding claims 5 and 9, at least one channel of the first or second plurality of channels is laterally aligned with the plurality of bristles (they are aligned longitudinally in that channels 2 follow the bristles in Figure 4; alternatively, the rightmost tuft of bristles in Figure 4 is aligned vertically with the groove 31 above it) and would be capable of aligning hair with the channels (during use it is capable of acting in this manner, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115 which recites: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Regarding claim 12, a width of the first plurality of channels defines clumps of hair (in that it is capable of use in this manner, see Figure 3c and also MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 23, Boyd discloses a hair brush (1) comprising a brush head comprising a plurality of bristles (4), a first plurality of channels disposed along a first side of the brush head (2, embodiment of Figure 4), the first plurality of channels having opposing sides and are configured to separate and enhance waves, curls, or coils in hair (paragraphs 0018 and 0023), each of the first plurality of channels extend inwardly towards an interior of the brush head by a first distance (Figure 4), each of the plurality of channels further having a channel width measured from a first channel opposing side to a second channel opposing side at the widest distance between the sides (Figure 4), wherein the channel width is greater than the first distance (Figure 4); and a second plurality of channels disposed along a second side of the brush head (at 31, embodiment of Figure 4), wherein the first and second plurality of channels are configured to separate and enhance waves, curls, or coils in hair (paragraphs 0018 and 0023). Regarding claim 20, the first and second plurality of channels, in conjunction with the plurality of bristles, are configured to separate and enhance waves, curves, or coils in hair (the channels and bristles are capable of this use, see MPEP 2115, Figures 3a-3d, and paragraph 0023). Regarding claim 24, the channel opposing sides are substantially parallel (Figure 4). Regarding claims 25 and 27, at least one channel of the first or second plurality of channels is laterally aligned with the plurality of bristles (they are aligned longitudinally in that channels 2 follow the bristles in Figure 4; alternatively, the rightmost tuft of bristles in Figure 4 is aligned vertically with the groove 31 above it) and would be capable of aligning hair with the channels (during use it is capable of acting in this manner, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115 which recites: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Regarding claim 28, a width of the first or second plurality of channels defines clumps of hair (in that it is capable of use in this manner, see Figure 3c and also MPEP 2115).
Claim(s) 2, 6, 9, 12, 14, 21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rathke et al., DE 3532734 A1 (see also English translation).
Regarding claim 21, Rathke et al. disclose a hair brush comprising a brush head (1, Figure 1) comprising a plurality of bristles (Figures 2-3), a first plurality of channels disposed along a first side of the brush head (3 on one side, Figure 1), the first plurality of channels having opposing sides configured to separate and enhance waves, curls, or coils in hair (during use the channels are capable of this use, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115 which recites: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)), each of the plurality of channels extending inwardly toward an interior of the brush head by a first distance (Figure 1), each of the first plurality of channels further having a channel width measured from a first channel opposing side to a second channel opposing side at the widest distance between the opposing sides (Figure 1), wherein the channel width is about equal to the first distance, and a second plurality of channels disposed along a second side of the brush head (other of 3 on the other side, Figure 1), wherein the first and second plurality of channels are capable of separating and enhancing waves, curls, or coils in hair (during use the channels are capable of this use, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115 which recites: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). Regarding claim 2, the first and second plurality of channels are substantially U-shaped (Figure 1). Regarding claim 14, the first and second plurality of channels, in conjunction with the plurality of bristles, are configured to separate and enhance waves, curves, or coils in hair (the channels and bristles are capable of this use, see MPEP 2115). Regarding claim 6, the plurality of bristles comprises at least two types of bristles (shorter and taller, see Figures 2-3), wherein the bristles protrude from holes arranged in a plurality of rows (Figure 3 shows one bristle in one hole, also see English translation paragraphs 0015 and 0017), the bristles are configured and capable of reducing frizz in hair (depending on hair type, hair products applied, and environmental factors; see MPEP 2115). Regarding claim 9, the plurality of bristles are configured to align the hair with the first or second plurality of channels (a user is capable of operating the brush head so that the bristles aid in aligning hair with the first or second channels, Figure 1; see MPEP 2115). Regarding claim 12, a width of the first plurality of channels defines clumps of hair (in that it is capable of use in this manner, see MPEP 2115).
Claim(s) 2, 5, 9-10, 12, 14, 17, 20-21, 23, 25, 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Servilla, US 2,633,591.
Regarding claim 21, Servilla discloses a hair brush comprising a brush head (12) comprising a plurality of bristles (14, see Figures), a first plurality of channels disposed along a first side of the brush head (undulations 26 on upper side as oriented in Figure 1), the first plurality of channels having opposing sides and configured to separate and enhance waves, curls, or coils in hair (during use the channels are capable of this use, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115 which recites: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)), each of the first plurality of channels extending inwardly toward an interior of the brush head by a first distance (Figure 1), each of the first plurality of channels further having a channel width measured from a first channel opposing side to a second channel opposing side at the widest distance between sides (Figure 1), wherein the channel width is about equal to the first distance (Figure 1), and a second plurality of channels disposed along a second side of the brush head (undulations 26 on lower side as oriented in Figure 1), wherein the first and second plurality of channels are capable of separating and enhancing waves, curls, or coils in hair (during use the channels are capable of this use, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115 which recites: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)). Regarding claim 2, the first and second plurality of channels are substantially U-shaped (Figure 1). Regarding claim 14, the first and second plurality of channels, in conjunction with the plurality of bristles, are configured to separate and enhance waves, curves, or coils in hair (the channels and bristles are capable of this use, see MPEP 2115). Regarding claims 5 and 9, at least one channel of the first or second plurality of channels is laterally aligned with the plurality of bristles (the channels at 26 are aligned with the bristles as shown in Figure 1) and would be capable of aligning hair with the channels (during use it is capable of acting in this manner, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115). Regarding claim 10, there is a third plurality of channels disposed along a third side of the brush head (channels of combs 36, 37; the third side is the back side of the brush head, see Figures 2-4). Regarding claim 12, a width of the first or second plurality of channels defines clumps of hair (in that it is capable of use in this manner, see MPEP 2115).
Regarding claim 23, Servilla discloses a hair brush comprising a brush head (12) comprising a plurality of bristles (14, see Figures), a first plurality of channels disposed along a first side of the brush head (undulations 26 on upper side as oriented in Figure 1), the first plurality of channels having opposing sides and configured to separate and enhance waves, curls, or coils in hair (during use the channels are capable of this use, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115 which recites: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)), each of the first plurality of channels extending inwardly toward an interior of the brush head by a first distance (Figure 1), each of the first plurality of channels further having a channel width measured from a first channel opposing side to a second channel opposing side at the widest distance between sides (Figure 1), wherein the channel width is greater than the first distance (Figure 1), and a second plurality of channels disposed along a second side of the brush head (undulations 26 on lower side as oriented in Figure 1), wherein the first and second plurality of channels are capable of separating and enhancing waves, curls, or coils in hair (during use the channels are capable of this use, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115 which recites: A claim is only limited by positively recited elements. Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)). Regarding claim 17, the plurality of tufts comprise a first bristle type with a first predetermined height (bristles of the shorter tufts 20, 21, 22, see Figures 1-2 and 4) and a second bristle type with a second predetermined height (bristles of the taller tufts 19, see Figures 1-2 and 4), wherein the number of bristles of the first type is greater than the number of bristles of the second type (Figures 1-2 and 4) and the first predetermined height is less than the second predetermined height (best shown in Figures 2 and 4, column 3 lines 52-68). Regarding claim 20, the first and second plurality of channels, in conjunction with the plurality of bristles, are configured to separate and enhance waves, curves, or coils in hair (the channels and bristles are capable of this use, see MPEP 2115). Regarding claims 25 and 27, at least one channel of the first or second plurality of channels is laterally aligned with the plurality of bristles (the channels at 26 are aligned with the bristles as shown in Figure 1) and would be capable of aligning hair with the channels (during use it is capable of acting in this manner, a user’s hair is not a positively recited element of the hair brush, instead it is the material being worked upon by the brush, see MPEP 2115). Regarding claim 28, a width of the first or second plurality of channels defines clumps of hair (in that it is capable of use in this manner, see MPEP 2115).
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) 6-8 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Servilla, US 2,633,591 in view of Reusche et al., US 2015/0135455.
Servilla discloses all elements previously discussed above including bristles arranged in a plurality of rows and capable of reducing frizz in hair (Figures 1-2, MPEP 2115). Regarding claims 6 and 26, Servilla discusses that the bristles are mounted to the head, but does not specifically state how they are mounted to the head, and does not disclose that the bristles protrude from holes. Additionally, regarding claim 7, the plurality of tufts comprise a first bristle type with a first predetermined height (bristles of the shorter tufts 20, 21, 22, see Figures 1-2 and 4) and a second bristle type with a second predetermined height (bristles of the taller tufts 19, see Figures 1-2 and 4), wherein the number of bristles of the first type is greater than the number of bristles of the second type (Figures 1-2 and 4) and the first predetermined height is less than the second predetermined height (best shown in Figures 2 and 4, column 3 lines 52-68).
Regarding claims 6 and 26, Reusche et al. teach a hair brush having a brush head (22) and a plurality of bristles (32, 34) that protrude from holes arranged in rows in the brush head (52, Figure 4) to provide stability and support for various bristles attached to the brush head (paragraph 0061). Regarding claim 8, Reuche et al. also teach that two types of bristles includes bristles with rounded tips (bristles 32 with tips 62) and bristles without rounded tips (bristles 34, see Figure 4 and paragraph 0062).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to mount the rows of bristles of the first and second bristle types of Servilla so that they protrude from holes, as taught by Reusche et al., in order to provide support and stability for the bristles. Further regarding claim 8, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the bristles of Servilla so that some include rounded tips and the others do not include tips, as taught by Reusche et al., so that the bristles can provide a desired brushing effect.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 1,852,362 to Newby is cited for teaching that an ordinary comb (Figure 3, page 1 lines 16-20) is known to be used in techniques configured to enhance waves in hair (page 1 lines 3-15). Also, other devices such as the hair waver of Adams, US 1,805,507, teach a tool head comprising first and second pluralities of channels disposed along its first and second sides (see the Figure).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Laura C Guidotti whose telephone number is (571)272-1272. The examiner can normally be reached typically M-F, 6am-9am, 10am-4:30pm.
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, David Posigian can be reached at 313-446-6546. 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.
/LAURA C GUIDOTTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
lcg