DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/20/26 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (e) with reference to Provisional Application Number: 62/746794 filed on 10/17/18.
The office notes that the provisional application does not provide support for the subject matter in Figures 2-7. For example, the shape of the teeth is different in the non-provisional application currently under examination than in the provisional application, the provisional application does not provide support for a series of openings (126) as now illustrated in applicant’s figures, the provisional does not provide support for the interior surface of the bottom portion to be “flexible” as required by claim 5. All of these features have an effective filing date of 10/16/2019.
The office also notes that the provisional application does not provide support for the claim limitations newly amended into claim 1, specifically, “an airflow regulator…opens and closes the at least one regulator aperture allowing air to transmit to the top and bottom projections”; claim 12, specifically “the heat conductive material substantially covers the groove portions between projections” and “the air flow regulator comprise a plate, wherein the plate includes a plurality of air flow regulator openings”,
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 12 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 12: line 3, replace “a a” with ---a---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 19: recites “wherein the heat conductive material spans the entire length of the inside surfaces of the plurality of top projections and the plurality of bottom projections”; however, this is not present in applicant’s originally filed disclosure and instead appears to directly conflict with applicant’s disclosure. The disclosure as originally filed illustrates the head conductive material spanning a portion of the length of an inside surface of the plurality of top and bottom projections; it does not illustrate or disclose the heat conductive material spanning the entire length of multiple inside surfaces of the projections as applicant now attempts to claim. This is a new matter rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8-12, 16-22 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1: recites in lines 7-9, “an air flow regulator…configured to control air flow through at least one regulator aperture, wherein the airflow regulator opens and closes the at least one regulator aperture”; however, this language is confusing because does “regulator aperture” mean an aperture formed on the “air flow regulator” or is this “regulator aperture” located on the top portion of the attachment? If the language is meant to require an aperture on the regulator, then the functional language requiring the regulator to “open and close the at least one regulator aperture” is confusing. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “at least one regulator aperture on the top portion, wherein the airflow regulator opens and closes the at least one regulator aperture”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 12: recites “a first projection and a second projection” in line 4 and then in line 12 recites “wherein first and second projections comprises”; however, are these the same or different?
Claim 16: this claim was amended to recite “the heat conductive material is at least one of plastic, polymer, silicone, or rubber”; however none of these are conductive materials, they are insulators making the claim unclear. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “the heat resistant material…”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 20: recites “wherein the heat conductive material is exposed in separated distinct regions”; however, it is unclear what structural limitation this is meant to add to the claims. What does “exposed in separated distinct regions” means? Exposed to what? Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 21: recites “respectively”, but this does not make sense in the context of the claim; Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 8, 10-12, and 16-22, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andis (US 5275339) in view of Choi (US 8602038).
Claims 1, 8, 10-12, 16-18, 21-22: Andis discloses a hair styling attachment for attachment to a hair dryer (see Fig 3) the attachment comprising: a bottom portion carrying a series of lug (66) for attachment to a hair dryer and an opposite top portion comprising a top projection area (see annotations) having a plurality of top projections (134) and a bottom projection area having a plurality of bottom projections (134); an air flow regulator in the form of a rotating plate (see Fig 11) on a top surface of the top portion configured to control air flow through a series of regulator apertures (112) formed in the top portion (see Figs 1-11) such that the air flow regulator opens and closes the regulator apertures to control the air flow through and around the top and bottom projections (see Figs 1-11 & annotations). The top projections and bottom projections extend away from a base plate of the top portion and each ends at an apex (see Fig 4). The entire device can be made of a heat resistant plastic (Col 2, 40-50) and each of the projections/teeth includes openings for discharging the heated air from the hair dryer to dry hair. The air flow regulator plate is adapted to concentrate airflow to the plurality of projections by opening and closing the various apertures in the attachment (see Figs 1-11).
PNG
media_image1.png
518
697
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Andis discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the projections/teeth each including a heat conductive material in addition to the heat resistant substrate/plastic material.
Choi, however, teaches a heated hair styling device comprising a plurality of projections (440, see Figs 17-19) extending from a top portion of the device for styling hair. Choi teaches providing a heat conductive plate that receives the insulated projections (see Figs 17-19) resulting in the heat conductive material being positioned along depressions between the projections (see Figs 17-19). Choi teaches providing each of the projections with a heat conductive metallic material (Col 1, 55-65) and the rest of the projection formed of a heat resistant plastic (Col 2, 1-10) with this type of arrangement in order to allow a user to heat and style their hair without burning their scalp (Col 1, 30-45). In other words, Choi teaches providing hair styling attachments having projections/teeth with teeth that are made of a heat conductive material surrounding an insulating heat resistant plastic material in order to safely heat styling the hair and reducing the risk of burns. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the attachment of Andis by providing the projections of the attachment with the heat resistant and heat conductive material arrangements taught by Choi in order to allow a user to apply heat to their hair using the attachment without burning their scalp. The proposed modification is to modify the attachment of Andis by providing the projections with the plate like heat conductive shell arrangement taught by Choi (see Figs 17-19), which would result in the heat conductive material being positioned along the concavity/depression between at least two projections of the top projection area and an inside surface of the projections and along a second concave area/depression between at least two projections of the bottom projection area and along the inside surfaces between bottom projections and top projections. As best understood, these “groove portions” or “depressions” are simply the gaps between the adjacent teeth (see applicant’s disclosure [0026] that confirms this) and the proposed modification teaches the region between adjacent teeth (or grooves) being made of the heat conductive metallic material, so it is a “groove” in as much as applicant teaches one.
Claim 4: Modified Andis discloses the invention of claim 1 and Andis further discloses the bottom portion having an interior that receives a hair dryer and defining an air flow conduit extending along a dimension of the bottom portion (see Figs 1-11).
Claim 5: Modified Andis teaches the bottom portion being made of plastic (Col 2, 40-50), which is more flexible than metal so it is “flexible to expand to fit the hair dryer”.
Claim 19: Choi teaches the heat conductive material to span an entire length of the attachment and of the inside surfaces of the plurality of projections (see Figs 17-19) and the proposed modification is to provide this type of plate with the projections of Andis. So the proposed modification would result in the heat conductive material spanning the entire length of the inside surfaces of the plurality of top projections and the plurality of bottom projections because the heat conductive material would cover/form these inside surfaces of each projection with the modification proposed above. So modified Andis discloses these limitations.
Claim 20: Modified Andis discloses the invention of claim 1 and the proposed modification already teaches the heat conductive material being exposed in separate distinct regions (around each projection) along the inside surfaces of the plurality of projections. So the proposed modification teaches these limitations.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andis (US 5275339) in view of Choi (US 8602038) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Aizenberg (US 20180249801).
Claim 9: Modified Andis discloses the invention of claim 1 and further indicates that the heat conductive material can be metal (see above rejection). Modified Smal discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the heat conductive material being ceramic.
Aizenberg, however, discloses that metal and ceramics [0005] are both known thermally conductive materials in the art of hair styling devices. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one possessing ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of modified Andis to include ceramic as the heat conductive material instead of metal in view of Aizenberg, since Aizenberg teaches these to be known equivalent materials known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Gill whose telephone number is (571)270-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, can be reached on 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER GILL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
