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 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.
Claims 1-3, 9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Charles (CH 181654 A).
As to claim 1, Charles includes a hair brush (Fig. 2) comprising a brush head (c, e, f), the brush head comprising:
a plurality of bristles (c) disposed on the brush head,
a first plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of comb e) disposed along a first side (The left side of the brush head) of the brush head, and
a second plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of comb f) disposed along a second side (The right side of the brush head) of the brush head, wherein the first and the second plurality of channels are configured to separate and enhance waves, curls, or coils in hair (The channels of the combs are capable of doing that) [See machine translation (MT), page 1].
As to claim 2, wherein the first and second plurality of channels are substantially U-shaped (A comb’s channel is close to a U shape).
As to claim 3, wherein the first and second plurality of channels have opposing sides (A side located at the end of one tooth of a comb, and a side located at an inner edge of that tooth) that are not parallel (90 degrees) to one another (Fig. 2).
As to claim 9, wherein the plurality of bristles are configured to align the hair with the first or second plurality of channels (Hair is aligned around the brush head by the bristles plus channels).
As to claim 11, the hair brush further comprising a handle member (d) connected to the brush head, wherein the handle member includes a tapered end (Fig. 1 and 2) and is configured to create hair coils and part lines in the hair (The handle is capable of doing that).
As to claim 12, wherein the width of each of the first or second plurality of channels defines clumps of hair (Each channel shapes clumps of hair).
As to claim 13, wherein the plurality of bristles is disposed on a third side of the brush head (Each of the first channels, second channels, and bristles are on a different side of the brush head).
As to claim 14, wherein the first and second plurality of channels, in conjunction with the plurality of bristles, are configured to separate and enhance waves, curls, or coils in hair (The channels of the combs and the bristles are capable of doing that due to the spacing between each comb tooth and each bristle while combing occurs).
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.
Claims 4-5, 10, 15-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Charles (CH 181654 A) in view of Ihne (DE 2422916 A1).
As to claim 4, Charles does not include wherein the first and second plurality of channels are concave.
Ihne includes a hair brush with a brush head comprising:
a plurality of bristles (The “round brush”; MT, para 3) disposed on the brush head,
a first plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of a first comb; MT, para 3) disposed along a first side (The left side) of the brush head (Fig. 1),
a second plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of a second comb; MT, para 3) disposed along a second side (The right side) of the brush head (Fig. 1), and the first and second plurality of channels are concave (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to substitute combs e and f for the comb taught by Ihne, in order to permit a person to comb using less effort because there is more spacing between the comb teeth.
As to claim 10, Charles does not include wherein the brush head further comprises a third plurality of channels disposed along a third side of the brush head.
Ihne includes a hair brush with a brush head (MT, para 3) comprising: channels of a first plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of the top comb), a second plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of the left comb; Fig. 1), and a third plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of the right comb; Fig. 1). The hair brush of Ihne includes a brush head having combs on the top, left, and right sides of its brush head (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to modify the brush head to include a comb on the top, by adding the brush head further comprising a third plurality of channels disposed along a third side of the brush head, as taught by Ihne, and more combs allowing hair to be combed more effectively.
As to claim 5, Charles does not include wherein at least one channel of the first or the second plurality of channels is laterally aligned with at least two bristles of the plurality of bristles, and wherein the at least two bristles are in different locations along a longitudinal axis extending between a proximal end and a distal end of the brush head.
Ihne includes a hair brush with a brush head (MT, para 3) comprising: channels of a first plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of the top comb), a second plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of the left comb; Fig. 1), and a third plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of the right comb; Fig. 1). The hair brush of Ihne includes a brush head having combs on the top, left, and right sides of its brush head (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to modify the brush head to include a comb on the top, as taught by Ihne, and more combs allowing hair to be combed more effectively, wherein at least one channel of the first or the second plurality of channels is laterally aligned (The teeth of the comb on top extend vertically) with at least two bristles of the plurality of bristles (The bristles on c also extend vertically), and wherein the at least two bristles are in different locations along a longitudinal axis (A horizontal line extending through the brush head and the handle) extending between a proximal end and a distal end of the brush head (The two horizontal ends of the head).
As to claim 15, Charles includes a hair brush (Fig. 1) comprising a brush head (c, e, f), the brush head comprising: a first side (The left side of the brush head) opposite a second side (The right side of the brush head), a first plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of comb e) disposed at the first side of the brush head; a second plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of comb f) disposed at the second side of the brush head; and a plurality of bristles (c) positioned between the first side and the second side [See machine translation (MT), page 1].
Charles does not include wherein at least one channel of the first or the second plurality of channels is laterally aligned with at least two bristles that in different locations along a longitudinal axis extend between a proximal end and a distal end of the brush head.
Ihne includes a hair brush with a brush head (MT, para 3) comprising: channels of a first plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of the top comb), a second plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of the left comb; Fig. 1), and a third plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of the right comb; Fig. 1). The hair brush of Ihne includes a brush head having combs on the top, left, and right sides of its brush head (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to modify the brush head to include a comb on the top, as taught by Ihne, providing at least one channel of the first or the second plurality of channels laterally aligned with each bristle, and more combs allowing hair to be combed more effectively, which provides at least one channel of the first or the second plurality of channels is laterally aligned (The teeth of the comb on top extend vertically) with at least two bristles (The bristles on c also extend vertically) that in different locations along a longitudinal axis (A horizontal line extending through the brush head and the handle) extending between a proximal end and a distal end of the brush head (The two horizontal ends of the head).
As to claim 16, wherein the first and second plurality of channels are substantially U-shaped (A comb’s channel is close to a U shape) or wherein the first and second plurality of channels have opposing sides (A side located at the end of one tooth of a comb, and a side located at an inner edge of that tooth) that are not parallel (90 degrees) to one another (Fig. 2).
As to claim 18, Ihne provides: wherein the brush head further comprises a third plurality of channels (The spaces between the teeth of the top comb) disposed along a third side (The top side) of the brush head.
As to claim 19, wherein the width of each of the first or second plurality of channels defines clumps of hair (Each channel shapes clumps of hair).
As to claim 20, wherein the first and second plurality of channels, in conjunction with the plurality of bristles, are configured to separate and enhance waves, curls, or coils in hair (The channels of the combs and the bristles are capable of doing that due to the spacing between each comb tooth and each bristle while combing occurs).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Charles (CH 181654 A) in view of Reusche (US 2015/0135455).
As to claim 6, Charles does not include wherein the plurality of bristles comprises at least two types of bristles, wherein the bristles protrude from holes arranged in a plurality of rows and the bristles are configured to reduce frizz in hair.
Reusche includes a hair brush with a brush head (22) comprising: a plurality of bristles, wherein the plurality of bristles comprises at least two types of bristles (32, 34; para 56), wherein the bristles protrude from holes (52; para 65) arranged in a plurality of rows (Fig. 2 and 3) and the bristles are configured to reduce frizz in hair (Elements 32/34 are capable of doing that; para 6 and 83 discuss that hair smoothing reduces hair frizz).
It would have been obvious to substitute the bristles of Charles for bristles for the bristles of Reusche, which are a plurality of bristles that have two types of bristles, wherein the bristles protrude from holes arranged in a plurality of rows and the bristles are configured to reduce frizz in hair, in order to detangle hair (para 81).
As to claim 7, Reusche provides: wherein the two types of bristles comprise a first bristle type (34) with a first predetermined height and a second bristle type (32) 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 (34 is a bundle of bristles and 32 has only one) and the first predetermined height is less than the second predetermined height (34 has a height less than 32).
As to claim 8, Charles does not include the two types of bristles comprise bristles with a geometric feature positioned at the bristle’s end and bristles without a geometric feature at the bristle’s end.
Reusche includes a hair brush with a brush head (22) comprising: a plurality of bristles, wherein the plurality of bristles (32) with a geometric feature (62) positioned at the bristle’s end (para 62) and bristles (34) without a geometric feature at the bristle’s end (para 56), wherein the bristles protrude from holes (52; para 65) arranged in a plurality of rows (Fig. 2 and 3) and the bristles are configured to reduce frizz in hair (Elements 32/34 are capable of doing that; para 6 and 83 discuss that hair smoothing reduces hair frizz).
It would have been obvious to substitute the bristles of Charles for bristles for the bristles of Reusche, so that the two types of bristles comprise bristles with a geometric feature positioned at the bristle’s end and bristles without a geometric feature at the bristle’s end, the first bristle type for distributing natural oils and hairstyling/conditioning products throughout the user’s hair, and the second bristle type for detangling hair (para 81).
It would have been obvious to substitute the bristles of Charles for bristles for the bristles of Reusche, which are a plurality of bristles that have two types of bristles, wherein the bristles protrude from holes arranged in a plurality of rows and the bristles are configured to reduce frizz in hair, in order to detangle hair (para 81).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Charles (CH 181654 A) in view of Ihne (DE 2422916 A1), and further in view of Reusche (US 2015/0135455).
As to claim 17, Charles does not include a hair brush with a brush head comprising: the plurality of bristles comprise a first bristle type with a first predetermined height and a second bristle type with a second predetermined height.
Reusche includes a hair brush with a brush head (22) comprising: the plurality of bristles comprise a first bristle type (34) with a first predetermined height and a second bristle type (32) 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 (34 is a bundle of bristles and 32 has only one) and the first predetermined height is less than the second predetermined height (34 has a height less than 32).
It would have been obvious to substitute the bristles of Charles for bristles for the bristles of Reusche, which are a plurality of bristles that have two types of bristles, wherein the bristles protrude from holes arranged in a plurality of rows and the bristles are configured to reduce frizz in hair, in order to detangle hair (para 81), which include the plurality of bristles comprising a first bristle type with a first predetermined height and a second bristle type with a second predetermined height.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/5/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-13, Applicant argued that Charles does not have the first and the second plurality of channels being configured to separate and enhance waves, curls, or coils in hair, as seen in claim 1.
Charles includes the first and the second plurality of channels being configured to separate and enhance waves, curls, or coils in hair because bunched hairs of straight, wavy, or curled shape would get separated by the set of comb teeth, which naturally happens when hair is combed. Such a thing is an enhancement of hair when the person combing desires that. In addition, hair having a slight wave pattern (a low wave height) only requires a standard hair comb, like the one in Fig. 1, to separate or enhance hairs. People normally use the standard comb when combing hair and also I do (The claim requires only that the comb enhance one of waves, curls, and coils due to the word “or” in the last line of the claim, and therefore, it only must enhance waved hair).
On page 14, Applicant argued that Charles does not have the features of claim 2. The comb’s channel is substantially a U shape because it is rectangular and open at one end.
On page 14, Applicant argued that Charles does not have the features of claim 3.
The term “side” is understood to mean a face or surface. Differently oriented faces exist on the comb teeth. A horizontal tooth surface of the left comb is not parallel to a vertical tooth surface of the right comb.
On page 14, Applicant argued that Charles does not have the features of claim 9.
Hair is aligned around the brush head by the bristles plus channels because the channels are aligned with one another and that causes the hair to get aligned the same way once combing happens.
On page 15, Applicant argued that Charles does not have the features of claim 12.
Each channel shapes clumps of hair and that defines the hair. The left and right combs do have channels because all combs have them. A quick Google search of the word “comb” online proves that.
On pages 16-17, Applicant argued that Charles in view of Ihne does not have the features of claim 4.
It would have been obvious to substitute combs e and f for the comb taught by Ihne, in order to permit a person to comb using less effort because there is more spacing between the comb teeth, and using less effort would be desired because often hair is too thick to be combed with a conventional comb, and therefore, wider channels for the comb teeth are needed.
On page 18, Applicant argued that Charles in view of Ihne does not have the features of claim 10.
It would have been obvious to modify the brush head to include a comb on the top, by adding the brush head further comprising a third plurality of channels disposed along a third (top) side of the brush head, as taught by Ihne, and more combs allowing hair to be combed more effectively. The first side is the left side of the head and the second side is the ride side of the head. Modifying a rectangular (four sided) shape to have a comb on its top side provides combs on three sides/faces/surfaces of the head. Combining Charles and Ihne together would not merge the two references together in a hybrid manner as argued. Also, Ihne includes that because each comb rests on an interior surface of the head in the first place.
On pages 18-19, Applicant argued that Charles in view of Ihne does not have the features of claim 5.
See the explanation of claim 5.
On pages 19-21, Applicant argued that Charles in view of Ihne does not have the features of claim 15, which includes bristles that are staggered relative to each other.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 15 have been considered but are moot because a new ground of rejection was written. See the explanation of claim 15. In addition, channels that are aligned do not have to be staggered relative to each other.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW A. HORTON whose telephone number is (571)270-5039. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Monica S. Carter can be reached at (571) 272-4475. 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.
/ANDREW A HORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723
