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
Claims 11 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: The word “or” is missing before “an elastomeric material having a Shore hardness of between 00 and 70”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17 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.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the opening is “sized to removably receive a barrel of a hair dryer” where “sized to” renders the claim indefinite as barrels are not a particular size. It is suggested Applicant amend the claim to recite the opening is configured to receive a barrel or the opening is adapted to receive a barrel. Additionally claims 1 and 12 recite “a top horizontal surface of said barrel” where it is unclear how the top surface of a barrel can be described as horizontal, as the surface is curved.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by White (US 20020078587).
Regarding claim 1, White discloses a hair dryer attachment (Refer to Figures 1-3) comprising: an elastomeric cylindrical ring (15,11) including an opening defining an interior surface (surface of 15,11 intended to contact a hair dryer) opposite an exterior surface (exposed surface of 15,11 when attachment is on a hair dryer), and a spike base (portion of 11 having spikes 12 protruding therefrom) formed integral with said exterior surface (the spikes are integrated with the surface); a plurality of spikes (12) each including a distal end opposite a proximate end integral with said spike base (spikes are integrated with the spike base, Refer to paragraph 0012) each of said plurality of spikes extending outwards from said spike base, and each tapering in diameter from said proximate end towards said distal end (Refer to Figure 2); and wherein said opening is sized to removably receive a barrel of a hair dryer such that said plurality of spikes are oriented along a top, horizontal surface of said barrel when said hair dryer attachment is inserted onto said barrel (Refer to Figure 1).
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 2-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White and Hillebrecht et al. (US D899092).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, White discloses the hair dryer attachment of claim 1 above, where the spikes are arranged in spaced-apart rows and form open channels; however, White does not disclose the rows being staggered and each spike varying in length based on its position on the spike base, such that the tips of the spikes form a flat brush surface.
White teaches “the number of bristles and their arrangement is not critical and may follow an individual user’s taste” (Refer to paragraph 0011). Hillebrecht et al. disclose a similar hair brush for hair drying and styling where spikes project from an arcuate surface (Refer to Figures 1-6). The spikes are arranged in a plurality of rows such that the rows are in a staggered or offset configuration (Refer to Figure 3). The spikes have lengths which vary based on their position on the arcuate exterior surface of the base from which they project, such that longer spikes are arranged at a position furthest from the center and shorter spikes are arranged toward the center and the distal ends of the spikes form a flat brush (Refer to Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spike arrangement of White such that the spikes be in staggered rows and of different lengths based on their position such that the distal ends/tips thereof collectively form a flat brush as taught by Hillebrecht et al. since White states any arrangement of the bristles is permitted and Hillebrecht et al. demonstrates the claimed arrangement is well-known and conventional in the art.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. disclose the hair dryer attachment of claim 3, wherein said staggered rows comprises a first row including a first number of spikes of said plurality of spikes, a second row including a second number of spikes of said plurality of spikes, a third row including a third number of spikes of said plurality of spikes, and a fourth row including a fourth number of spikes of said plurality of spikes. The combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. provide staggered rows of bristles and White explains there may be three to five rows and each row may have from about four to about 7 spikes per row or more (Refer to paragraph 0011).
Regarding 5, the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. disclose the hair dryer attachment of claim 4, wherein said first, second, third, and fourth number of spikes comprises the same number of spikes (Refer to Figures 1-3 of White, where each row has the same number of spikes).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, White discloses a hair dryer attachment comprising: a cylindrical body (11,15) having a body length including an opening formed therethrough defining an interior surface (surface of 11, 15 intended to contact a hair dryer) opposite an exterior surface (exposed surface of 11, 15 when attachment is coupled to hair dryer); a plurality of spikes (12) each including an elongate body having a distal end opposite a proximate end made integral with said cylindrical body (the bristles are integrated with the body, Refer to paragraph 0012), said plurality of spikes disposed on said body length and arranged in a plurality of rows, said spikes spaced apart from each other to form channels therebetween, each spike of said plurality of spikes tapering in diameter along said body from said proximate end towards said distal end (Refer to Figure 2) and wherein said opening is sized to removably receive a barrel of a hair dryer therein such that said plurality of spikes are oriented along a top, horizontal surface of said barrel when said hair dryer attachment is fully inserted onto said barrel (Refer to Figure 1).
However, White does not disclose a first group of said plurality of spikes having a first length, a second group of said plurality of spikes having a second length, and a third group of said plurality of spikes having a third length, wherein said first length, said second length, and said third length are different from each other and said length of each spike of said plurality of spikes varies based on a position of each spike on said cylindrical body, said distal end of each of said plurality of spikes terminating at a same horizontal axis to form a flat brush surface.
White teaches “the number of bristles and their arrangement is not critical and may follow an individual user’s taste” (Refer to paragraph 0011). Hillebrecht et al. disclose a similar hair brush for hair drying and styling where spikes project from an arcuate surface (Refer to Figures 1-6). The spikes are arranged in a plurality of rows where the spikes have lengths which vary based on their position on the arcuate exterior surface of the base from which they project, such that longer spikes are arranged at a position furthest from the center and shorter spikes are arranged toward the center and the distal ends of the spikes form a flat brush (Refer to Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spike arrangement of White such that the spikes of the rows be of different lengths based on their position such that the distal ends/tips thereof collectively form a flat brush as taught by Hillebrecht et al. since White states any arrangement of the bristles is permitted and Hillebrecht et al. demonstrates the claimed arrangement is well-known and conventional in the art.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. disclose the hair dryer attachment of claim 13, wherein said plurality of rows comprises a first row including a first number of spikes, a second row including a second number of spikes, a third row including a third number of spikes, and a fourth row including a fourth number of spikes. White explains there may be 3 to 5 rows of spikes and each row may have from about 4 to about 7 spikes per row or more (Refer to paragraph 0011).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. disclose the hair dryer attachment of claim 14, wherein said first number of spikes comprises five spikes, said second number of spikes comprises five spikes, said third number of spikes comprises five spikes, and said fourth number of spikes comprises five spikes. White depicts the rows having the same number of spikes and explains each row may have from about 4 to about 7 spikes per row or more (Refer to paragraph 0011), meaning each row may have 5 spikes.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Djuric (US 5091630).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. disclose the hair dryer attachment of claim 4; however, the combination does not disclose said first, second, third, and fourth number of spikes comprises a different number of spikes such that said first number of spikes comprises five spikes, said second number of spikes comprises four spikes, said third number of spikes comprises five spikes, and said fourth number of spikes comprises four spikes. White explains there may be 3 to 5 rows of spikes and each row may have from about 4 to about 7 spikes per row or more (Refer to paragraph 0011), meaning White provides for the rows having four or five spikes, but White does not explicitly state the number of spikes in the even rows is one less than the number of spikes in the odd rows. Djuric discloses a similar hair dryer attachment having a plurality of spikes (20) thereon, where the spikes are arranged in alternating rows, where first and third rows have one more spike than the second and fourth rows (e.g. Refer to Figures 5-7 which show alternating rows of 4 spikes and 3 spikes and Figure 3 which shows alternating rows of 3 spikes and 2 spikes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment of the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. such that the first and third rows have five spikes and the second and fourth rows have four spikes, as Djuric demonstrates it is well-known and conventional in the art and an obvious matter of design choice to provide alternating number of spikes between rows and White teaches the number of spikes may be four or five.
Regarding claims 5 and 7, the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. disclose the hair dryer attachment of claim 4; however, the combination does not disclose said first, second, third, and fourth number of spikes comprises a different number of spikes such that said first number of spikes comprises six spikes, said second number of spikes comprises five spikes, said third number of spikes comprises six spikes, and said fourth number of spikes comprises five spikes. White explains there may be 3 to 5 rows of spikes and each row may have from about 4 to about 7 spikes per row or more (Refer to paragraph 0011), meaning White provides for the rows having five or six spikes, but White does not explicitly state the number of spikes in the even rows is one less than the number of spikes in the odd rows. Djuric discloses a similar hair dryer attachment having a plurality of spikes (20) thereon, where the spikes are arranged in alternating rows, where first and third rows have one more spike than the second and fourth rows (e.g. Refer to Figures 5-7 which show alternating rows of 4 spikes and 3 spikes and Figure 3 which shows alternating rows of 3 spikes and 2 spikes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment of the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. such that the first and third rows have six spikes and the second and fourth rows have five spikes, as Djuric demonstrates it is well-known and conventional in the art and an obvious matter of design choice to provide alternating number of spikes between rows and White teaches the number of spikes may be five or six.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over White and Hillebrecht et al. as applied to claims 5 and 13 above, and further in view of Johnson (US 20160022004).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. disclose the hair dryer attachment of claims 5 and 13 above; however, the combination does not disclose a textured grip that is provided on said exterior surface of said cylindrical ring/body, said textured grip comprising any of ridges, protrusions, nubs, indentations, raised patterns, dimples, or any combination thereof. Johnson discloses a similar hair dryer attachment (Refer to Figure 3) where a portion of the cylindrical body/ring is provided with a textured grip (61) in the form of a plurality of ridges/protrusions /raise patterns (61) and indentations (spaced between adjacent ridges/protrusions) which serve to permit easy installation and removal of the attachment (Refer to paragraph 0033). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair dryer attachment of the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. to include a textured grip comprising a plurality of ridges/protrusions/raised patterns and indentations on the exterior surface of the cylindrical ring/body as taught by Johnson in order to facilitate installation and removal of the attachment from a hair dyer.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Moloney et al. (US 20160143409).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. disclose the hair dryer attachment of claim 3 above, wherein said elastomeric cylindrical ring includes one or more magnets embedded therein, said one or more magnets surrounding said opening of said cylindrical ring. White is silent regarding the mechanism used to retain the attachment on a hair dryer during use; however, the engagement appears to be a friction fit. Moloney et al. disclose a hair dryer attachment (600, Refer to Figures 13-16) which is removably secured to a hair dryer via a magnetic connection surround the opening of the attachment and the hair dryer, where the magnetic connection includes an embedded magnetic ring (662) and a plurality of radially spaced embedded magnets (364) (Refer to paragraphs 0209-0210 and 0214). Moloney et al. explains such a magnetic connection provides the advantage of not introducing extra stress or strain on the hair dryer (Refer to paragraph 0212-0213). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment of the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. such that the cylindrical ring include one or more magnets embedded therein and surrounding the opening as taught by Moloney et al. as a magnetic connection is a well-known alternative securing means and provides the advantage of reducing stress and strain on a hair dryer.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. as applied to claims 3 and 13 above, and further in view of Kim (US 20060112586).
Regarding claims 10 and 17, the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. disclose the hair dryer attachment of claims 3 and 13, further including one or more gripping elements, each disposed along an inner circumference of said interior surface of said ring. White is silent regarding the mechanism used to retain the attachment on a hair dryer during use; however, the engagement appears to be a friction fit. Kim discloses a hair dryer attachment (80, Refer to Figure 9) where the attachment provides a gripping element (82a) on an inner circumference of an interior surface of the ring thereof and the gripping element (82a) serves to secure the attachment to a hair dryer (Refer to paragraph 0055). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment of the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. to include a gripping element disposed along an inner circumference of the interior surface of the ring as taught by Kim as this connection mechanism is a well-known alternative and functionally equivalent connection means.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jacob et al. (US 20130055518).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. disclose the hair dryer attachment of claim 3, wherein White further discloses the elastomeric cylindrical ring comprises an elastomeric material having a Shore hardness between 00 and 70 (Refer to paragraph 0011 which explains the ring is made of neoprene and neoprene provides Shore hardness values within the claimed range, Refer to NPL reference cited in Conclusion section and PTO-892); however, White does not disclose the specific material from which the spikes are constructed and therefor does not disclose the spikes comprise i) a non-metallic, non-ionizing, silicon material including any of a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) material with a Shore hardness ratings between 60A-90A, ii) a fluor silicone rubber compound material, iii) an ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) elastomer, iv) a thermoplastic vulcanizate (TPV) with a Shore hardness ratings between 40A-90A or v) an elastomeric material having a Shore hardness of between 00 and 70. Jacob et al. disclose a hair brush having a plurality of spikes (6) where the spikes are made from “polymers including silicone elastomers, thermoplastic elastomers”, “thermoplastic polyurethane elastomers”, “Nitrile or EPDM”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spikes of the combination of White and Hillebrecht et al. to be constructed of EPDM, as Jacob et al. demonstrate it is well-known and conventional to construct such spikes of EPDM and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kang (KR 200412372) and Hillebrecht et al. ().
Regarding claim 18, Kang discloses a hair styling tool integrated with a cylindrical barrel (32, Refer to Figures 7 and 8) of a hairdryer (Refer to title), said hair styling tool comprising: a plurality of spikes (33) each including an elongate body having a distal end, and a proximate end integrated with said cylindrical barrel, said plurality of spikes extending outwards from a top, planar surface of said cylindrical barrel, and arranged in parallel rows on said cylindrical barrel forming open channels for receiving a person’s hair during use, each of said plurality of spikes tapering in diameter along said body from said proximate end towards said distal end (Refer to Figures 7 and 8 which depict tapered spikes); however, Kang does not disclose each of said plurality of spikes comprises a length that varies based on a position of each spike on said barrel such that a first group of spikes includes a first length, a second group of spikes includes a second length, and a third group of spikes includes a third length; and wherein said distal end of each of said plurality of spikes terminates at a same horizontal axis above said top planar surface of said cylindrical barrel to form a flat brush surface.
Hillebrecht et al. disclose a similar hair brush for hair drying and styling where spikes project from an arcuate surface (Refer to Figures 1-6). The spikes are arranged in a plurality of rows (Refer to Figure 3) and the spikes have lengths which vary based on their position on the arcuate exterior surface of the base from which they project, such that the longest spikes are arranged at a position furthest from the center, the shortest spikes are arranged at the center and the spikes between the shortest and longest spikes progressively increase in length in a direction away from the center. This configuration results in the distal ends of the spikes forming a flat brush surface (Refer to Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spike arrangement of Kang such that the spikes be of different lengths based on their position, as claimed, such that the distal ends/tips thereof collectively form a flat brush surface since Hillebrecht et al. demonstrates the claimed arrangement is well-known and conventional in the art.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kang and Hillebrecht et al. as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Jacob et al. (US 20130055518).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Kang and Hillebrecht et al. disclose the hair dryer attachment of claim 18; however, the combination does not disclose the specific material from which the spikes are constructed and therefor does not disclose the spikes comprise i) a non-metallic, non-ionizing, silicon material including any of a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) material with a Shore hardness ratings between 60A-90A, ii) a fluor silicone rubber compound material, iii) an ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) elastomer, iv) a thermoplastic vulcanizate (TPV) with a Shore hardness ratings between 40A-90A or v) an elastomeric material having a Shore hardness of between 00 and 70.
Jacob et al. disclose a hair brush having a plurality of spikes (6) where the spikes are made from “polymers including silicone elastomers, thermoplastic elastomers”, “thermoplastic polyurethane elastomers”, “Nitrile or EPDM”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spikes of the combination of Kang and Hillebrecht et al. to be constructed of EPDM, as Jacob et al. demonstrate it is well-known and conventional to construct such spikes of EPDM and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Kang, Hillebrecht et al. and Jacob et al. disclose, where the plurality of spikes are integral with the cylindrical barrel (Refer to Figure 8 of Kang). The claimed phrase “over-molded” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is the spikes are formed on the barrel via an over-molding processes. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (integrated structure). Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kang and Hillebrecht et al. as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Duru (FR 2996109).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the combination of Kang and Hillebrecht et al. the hair styling tool of claim 18, Kang depicts the spikes being integrated with the barrel but does not explicitly state how they are formed or connected. The combination does not disclose the specific material from which the spikes are constructed and therefor does not disclose the spikes comprise i) a non-metallic, non-ionizing, silicon material including any of a thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) material with a Shore hardness ratings between 60A-90A, ii) a fluor silicone rubber compound material, iii) an ethylene propylene diene monomer (EPDM) elastomer, iv) a thermoplastic vulcanizate (TPV) with a Shore hardness ratings between 40A-90A or v) an elastomeric material having a Shore hardness of between 00 and 70.
Duru et al. disclose a heated brush/comb for use on hair where the spikes (14) are integrally molded with/over the support from which they project (Refer to Abstract and second paragraph on page 4 of translation) and the spikes are made of various elastomeric materials such as silicone, latex, EPDM, nitril, etc. (Refer to last paragraph on page 3 of translation). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spikes of the combination of Kang and Hillebrecht et al. to be constructed of EPDM, as Duru et al. demonstrate it is well-known and conventional to construct such spikes of EPDM and it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
The claimed phrase “over-molded” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is the spikes are formed on the barrel via an over-molding processes. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps (integrated structure). Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113. The spikes of the combination of Kang, Hillebrecht et al. and Duru et al. are integrated with the barrel and therefore meet the structural requirements of the claim. Alternatively, Duru et al. demonstrates it is well-known and convention to use molding or over-molding manufacturing processes to form spikes which are integrated with their support/base and for this reason, it would have been obvious to modify the combination of Kang, Hillebrecht et al. and Duru et al. such that the spikes be made by over-molding.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patent documents provide hair dyer attachments with protrusions (teeth, bristles, etc.) for styling hair: US 2827060, US 20070034225, US 6097837, US D252220, US 20210007457 and US 4538362. The following patent documents disclose hair dryers with protrusions (teeth, bristles, etc.) on the barrel: US 5842286, US 12376660 and US 573437.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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 at 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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights