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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/19/25 has been entered.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 7/31/24. The replacement figures did not address all of the drawing objections. The outstanding objections are repeated below for convenience:
Replacement Figures 1-7 is/are objected to for failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(p)(3), which requires reference characters measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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: “liquid evacuation pathway” of claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-15.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11-15 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: this claim recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
108
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the “configured for” functional language following “a liquid evacuation pathway” is indefinite because based on a review of applicant’s disclosure, this “pathway” is nothing more than a hole in the device that liquid is capable of leaking from depending on the orientation of the device. The opening, or pathway, is not “configured” to guide liquid any more than any other opening nor is it “configured” to remove liquid as this would require some kind of pump or suction means that is not disclosed by the specification. Instead it appears this is simply an opening that is capable of allowing liquid to escape depending on the orientation of the device. It would seem that the peristaltic pump itself is what is “configured to guide the liquid” and the peristaltic pump is the “liquid transporting system” not the “liquid evacuation pathway”, so it would seem this “pathway” is simply a hole on the housing and the pump is the component “configured” to evacuate liquid, not a hole. This language is confusing because it is confusing if applicant is trying to claim an additional pump or some other kind of suction means that causes this functional recitation to take place. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “a liquid evacuation pathway”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 4: this claim recites “further comprises a first branch and a second branch articulated between each other by a hinge”; however, claim 1 already recites “a hairstyling appliance” and a “housing” in claim 1 so why is there no structural relationship set forth between the branches and the housing? It would appear these branches must be part of the “appliance” and the “housing”. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “The hair styling appliance according to claim 1, wherein the housing includes a first branch and a second branch articulated between each other by a hinge to form the hairstyling appliance”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 8: This claim creates similar issues to claim 1 by reciting “a liquid draining aperture configured in case of rupture of the pump’s deformable hose, to drain the liquid from the chamber to outside of the pump according to a controlled trajectory, and wherein said draining system is configured to communicate with said evacuation system”. Based on a review of applicant’s disclosure, this “liquid draining aperture” is simply a hole and nothing more, so it is unclear how this “hole” is “configured in case of rupture of the pump’s deformable hose, to drain the liquid from the chamber to outside of the pump according to a controlled trajectory, and wherein said draining system is configured to communicate with said evacuation system” without some sort of additional pump, valve, or suction means, similar to claim 1. It is unclear why applicant uses the functional language presented because the hole is not “configured” to do anything other than allow leakage of liquid when the device is in a particular orientation via gravity making the language unclear. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “a liquid draining aperture”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 8: the last lines recite “said draining system” without antecedent basis and without structurally linking this is any way to the “liquid draining aperture” in line 4 making it unclear what exactly is being claimed. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting in the last lines “wherein said liquid draining aperture”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 9: recites “the liquid draining system”, but claim 8 was amended to remove this language making it unclear what exactly is being claimed. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “the liquid draining aperture”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 11: recites “the liquid draining aperture comprises at least one hole”; it is unclear how this adds any structure to the term “aperture”. While applicant could claim that the liquid draining aperture is a certain size or shape, stating that it comprises a “hole” or “at least one hole” is not further limiting and is confusing because does applicant think that “aperture” and “hole” mean different things? What additional structure should “hole” imply different from aperture? For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “wherein the liquid evacuation pathway and the liquid draining aperture face each other”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 12: recites “the liquid draining system”, but claim 8 was amended to remove this language making it unclear what exactly is being claimed. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “the liquid draining aperture”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 14: recites “wherein said peristaltic pump comprises a seal configured to contain the liquid inside the chamber in an event of rupture of the deformable base”; however, this appears to directly contradict claim 8 from which claim 14 depends because claim 8 explicitly requires “a liquid draining aperture configured in case of rupture of the deformable hose, to drain the liquid from the chamber” so this “seal” would not “contain the liquid inside the chamber in an event of rupture of the deformable base”. The functional recitations are contradictory, making the metes and bounds of the claims unclear. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “wherein the pump comprises a seal”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 15: this new claim recites “wherein the liquid evacuation pathway is defined by a branch of the housing”; however, while the pathway is in a branch of the housing, it is unclear what the language “defined by a branch” is supposed to mean because the hole in the housing is not the entire pathway making the claim language confusing and unclear. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “wherein the liquid evacuation pathway is located in a branch of the housing”. Clarification or correction is requested.
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 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) 1-6, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vacheron (US 20120111356).
Claims 1-2: Vacheron discloses a hairstyling appliance (see Figs 1-2) comprising a housing (see Figs 1-2) comprising a liquid transportation system (pump 6 & tubes 21; [0059]) and a liquid storage system (interior of tank 19); the liquid transportation system is configured to transport the liquid from the liquid storage system to a vaporization system (7) including at least one opening (75) for ejecting steam, and at least one electrical component (see switches & power cord, Fig 2). The housing comprises a liquid evacuation hole/opening/pathway (opening in tank 19) that is ”spaced” from the interior of the tank since it is on the exterior of the tank and thereby is spaced from the liquid storage system. This pathway/hole/opening is “configured” to guide the liquid out of the tank of the housing along a path different from the vaporization openings (75) during use of the appliance and in an event of leakage from the liquid storage system, since the “pathway” is not leading to the circuit, the pathway is “configured” to prevent the liquid contacting the electrical components. The opening/pathway constitutes at least a pair of openings (see annotations) and the entire device is “defined by the housing”.
PNG
media_image2.png
327
511
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: the pathway can include a series of holes (see annotations) and the opening in the lid to container with the tube feeding the pump is illustrated to be about the same size as the vaporization hole openings (7’, see Fig 1). The vaporization hole/opening has a diameter that is less than 3.5mm because the width of the distribution chamber (7”) is 3.5mm [0061] (see Fig 7) and the holes are illustrated as having a diameter in the range of about ¼ of the width of the chamber which is about 1mm and which falls in the range of 0.5-4mm. So since the tube/opening/pathway hole is illustrated to have approximately a same diameter as the vaporization openings (see Fig 1), the pathway hole is interpreted to also have a diameter of about 1mm, thereby meeting the claim limitations.
Claims 4 and 6: the hair styling appliance comprises a first branch (2) carrying at least a portion of the housing and the first branch can have a first surface (4) for treating hair by contact, as well as carry the liquid storage system [0055], which would result in them also carrying the liquid evacuation pathway between the storage system and the treatment surfaces (see Figs 1-2). The first branch is hinged to a second branch (3) where the first and second branches can be articulated relative to each other via a hinge (see Figs 1-2).
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 8-13, and 15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dejin (WO 2017174035).
Claims 1-2: Dejin discloses a hair styling appliance (see Figs 7-8) comprising: a housing comprising a liquid transporting system (pump 2, & tube 1193+1194, see Figs 13-14 and hoses/pipes) and a liquid storage system (interior of 1191, see Fig 12), the liquid transportation system is configured to transport the liquid from the liquid storage system to a vaporizing system (line 510-540) including at least one steam ejection opening (1145) and at least one electrical or electronic component (175 & 177). The housing includes a liquid evacuation pathway/opening/hole (11923, 11924, 11925, hole covered by 1195, see Fig 12) that is spaced away from the liquid storage system because it is on an exterior of the tank and the interior if the “storage system” and these pathways are “configured” to guide the liquid out of the tank of the housing along a path different from the steam ejection opening in an event of leakage from the liquid storage system and the evacuation system is configured such that the liquid cannot come into contact with the electrical component(s) since these holes are capable of draining or leaking water when unsealed.
PNG
media_image3.png
423
441
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claims 4 and 15: Dejin discloses the hairstyling appliance being formed as a styling iron with a first branch (11) and a second branch (17, see Fig 7) hinged (13) together (see Fig 7) and the first branch forms part of the housing (see Fig 7). The liquid evacuation pathway is defined in or by a branch of the housing because it is part of the branches (see Figs 1-12).
Claim 6: Dejin discloses the first branch comprising the liquid storage system (see Fig 10) and a first treatment surface (115) for treating hair by contact and the liquid evacuation pathway is located between the liquid storage system and the first treatment surface (see Figs 10-12).
Claim 8: Dejin discloses the liquid transporting system including a peristaltic pump (see Figs 13-14) comprising a pump body defining a chamber housing a deformable hose (224) configured to contain the liquid and a pair of liquid draining holes (see annotations) configured to drain liquid outside of the pump in the event of the hose rupturing because that is what holes do under the influence of gravity and since applicant’s own “draining system” and “evacuation system” are just holes.
PNG
media_image4.png
396
395
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 9: the liquid drain holes pass through a lid of the pump body (see annotations).
Claim 11: the liquid evacuation pathway and the liquid draining aperture are both holes (see annotations) that pass through the housing and the drain holes face the liquid storage tank with the liquid evacuation holes, so the holes “face each other” as best understood.
Claim 12: the liquid draining system includes a sealing element (11922) arranged between the draining and evacuation holes/pathways (see Figs 10-13).
Claim 13: the sealing element comprises at least one “O-ring” extending from a bottom surface thereof for fitting into the opening (11923, see annotations).
PNG
media_image5.png
210
441
media_image5.png
Greyscale
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) 7 and 14, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dejin (WO 2017174035).
Claim 7: Dejin discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the liquid evacuation hole(s) being 10-50mm from an edge of the first treatment surface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of Dejin by providing the evacuation system at a distance of 10-50mm from an edge of the first treatment surface, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim 14: Dejin discloses the device including a series of sealing elements (11922) and one-way valves (1195) and Dejin discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the pump comprising an additional sealing element or one way valve to contain the liquid inside the pump chamber.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of Dejin to include an additional sealing element or one way valve on the pump, as well, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/19/25 have been considered but are moot because they rely upon the newly presented claim limitations, which have been addressed with a modified ground of rejection above.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the references failed to disclose individually, or suggest in combination, the pathway/holes being “configured to guide the liquid out of the housing along a path different from the at least one opening during use of the hairstyling appliance in an event of liquid leakage fromt eh liquid transporting system or the liquid storage system, and wherein said evacuation pathway is configured such that the liquid cannot come into contact with said at least one electrical or electronic component” the applicant is respectfully advised that, while features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In this case, applicant is structurally claiming just a hole and nothing more. What the “hole” is “configured to do” is not relevant to patentability in this case because a hole by definition would allow fluid to exit along it in the event of fluid being present near said hole, thereby meeting the claim limitations.
The office respectfully recommends amending the claims to set forth the actual structure that makes up the device instead of using broad terms like “liquid storage system” and “vaporizing system” and “liquid evacuation pathway” which are not definite structures of any kind. Applicant could amend the claims to require a first arm, a second arm hinged to the first arm, a tank of liquid with an opening and a tube, etc. in order to distinguish the claims from the prior art.
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