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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/22/26 has been entered.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 1/22/26, these drawings are accepted and overcome the previous objection(s). --
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, 4-5, 7, 12, 15-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fereyre (WO 2013128092).
Claim 1: Fereyre discloses a steam hair styling appliance for shaping hair comprising: a first jaw (2) and a second jaw (3) arranged opposite one another and hinged (20) together, a first treatment surface (4) is supported by the first jaw and a second treatment surface (5) supported by the second jaw with the first and second treatment surfaces configured to grip at least one lock of hair [0055]. A liquid reservoir (19); the first jaw additionally comprising: a system for vaporizing a liquid from the liquid reservoir to form steam [0045] and comprising at least one vaporization chamber (interior of 7) having an inner surface in communication via an injection tube (15) having a free end (end past 16 inserted into 7, see Fig 5) which forms a point for injecting the liquid into the at least one vaporization chamber; a system for dispensing the steam from the at least one vaporization chamber and comprising at least one steam dispensing port (7”) directed toward the at least one lock of hair (see Fig 4). The injection tube comprises an opening extending substantially along an entire length of the injection tube from the free end and the free end forms the point, the opening is defined such that a first portion of a perimeter of the injection tube extends a first distance (the portion extending from the free end to elbow 16, Fig 5 extends a first longitudinal distance or length) and a second portion of a perimeter of the injection tube extends a second distance (15, Fig 5 extends a second longitudinal distance or length) with the second distance along the length being greater than the first and the tube allows the liquid from the reservoir to run into the at least one vaporization chamber in the event of accumulation and deposition of scale at the free end of the injection tube since the device is described as having a scale absorber (17) [0063] downstream from the opening meaning scale is expected to exit the opening. So the office interprets this to mean “the opening is configured allows the liquid from the reservoir to run into the at least one vaporization chamber in the event of accumulation and deposition of scale at the free end of the injection tube”.
Claims 4-5: Fereyre further discloses the opening being a cut-out over both half-sections of the injection tube extending in an axial direction substantially parallel to the injection tube. Since the claims recite “comprising” the opening being a cut-out over the entire section of the injection tube extending in an axial direction substantially parallel to the injection tube constitutes the opening being a cut-out over at least a half-section of the injection tube. The cut-out opening of the tube is arranged in the at least one vaporization chamber (see Figs 4 & 6) such that the cut-out or its inner surface/interior is opposing an inner surface of the at least one vaporization chamber (see Figs 2 & 4 & 6).
Claim 7: Fereyre further discloses the diameter of the injection tube being illustrated to be about 2/3 the height of the vaporization chamber (see Fig 6), which results in the ratio of the injection tube diameter to the height of the vaporization chamber to be about 0.67, which falls in the claimed range of 0.55-0.75.
Claim 12: Fereyre further discloses the at least one vaporization chamber comprising a hydrophobic layer (17) [0063] arranged below the injection tube at the point (see Figs 2 & 4 & 6).
Claim 15: Fereyre further discloses the hydrophobic layer is mounted in the at least one vaporization chamber (see Fig 6) and held in position by an immobilization device (see annotations) comprising an element (bottom walls of 11) for centering the hydrophobic layer relative to the point (see Fig 6).
Claim 16: Fereyre further discloses the at least one vaporization chamber including first and second vaporization chambers (see annotations) with the second vaporization chamber communicating fluid to the first vaporization chamber and comprising a plurality of baffles (see annotations).
PNG
media_image1.png
187
236
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
352
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 17 and 18: Fereyre further discloses the system for dispensing including a dispensing chamber in which the at least one steam dispensing port is arranged (see annotations), the dispensing chamber receiving steam from the at least one vaporization chamber (see annotations). The dispensing chamber is arranged “laterally” to the first vaporization chamber and the second vaporization chamber since they are stacked vertically and offset horizontally and since “side by side” depends on how you orient the device. So the chambers are side by side to each other (see annotations).
Claim 20: at the exit point of the tube, at least a portion of an interior surface (the interior of the opening) of the injection tube is unopposed by another portion of the injection tube because the injection tube does not obstruct itself, thereby meeting this limitation (see annotations).
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 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fereyre (WO 2013128092) in view of Leventhal (US 8709362).
Claim 6: Fereyre discloses the invention of claim 1 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the injection tube having the free end beveled and forming the point of injection of the liquid.
Leventhal, however, teaches a tube (100) that can have its stalk (101) attached to a suction device (Col 23, 40-55), or in other words attached to a pump, with the opposite end forming a shovel shape (102) and the opening in the tube opposite the suction device (pump) end is beveled (end near 105, see Fig 4B). Leventhal teaches that this type of tube is very versatile for a series of different applications including use with a pump (Col 23, 40-55) and use as a pipette (Col 17, 25-35). So Leventhal teaches this type of tube to be useful as tubes in pump applications for delivering fluid from one place to another. 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 device of Fereyre to comprise the tube geometry prescribed by Leventhal since Leventhal teaches these tubes to be useful in pump applications and that is what the tube in Fereyre is.
Claim(s) 8-11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fereyre (WO 2013128092) in view of Vacheron (US 20120111356).
Claims 8-9: Fereyre discloses the invention of claim 1 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for a hydrophilic layer extending over the entire inner surface of the at least one vaporization chamber.
Vacheron, however, teaches a steam hair styling appliance (see Figs 1-2) [0048] wherein the interior surface of the vaporization chamber is coated with silicate, ludox or other hydrophilic material over the entire inner surface [0039] in order to attract the liquid to the walls of the chamber [0039] because this helps prevent sputtering of fluid in use. 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 appliance of Fereyre by providing the vaporization chamber with a hydrophilic layer extending over the entire inner surface of the at least one vaporization chamber.
Claim 10: Modified Fereyre discloses the invention of claim 8 and the proposed modification is to coat the entire inner surface of the vaporization chamber with the hydrophilic material. Modified Fereyre discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the hydrophilic material being woven. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the hydrophilic coating to be a woven hydrophilic layer, since the applicant has not disclosed that a woven hydrophilic layer solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the hydrophilic non-woven coating of modified Fereyre.
Claim 11: Modified Fereyre discloses the invention of claim 8 and the proposed modification is to coat the entire inner surface of the vaporization chamber with the hydrophilic material, which would result in the hydrophilic layer extending near the free end of the injection tube. So modified Fereyre discloses these limitations.
Claim 13: Fereyre discloses the invention of claim 12 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the hydrophobic material comprising PTFE.
Vacheron, however, teaches a steam hair styling appliance (see Figs 1-2) [0048] and indicates that scale buildup is a known issue in these types of devices [0031]. Vacheron indicates that PTFE is a known hydrophobic material used in these types of devices to prevent scale buildup. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the device of Fereyre by providing the hydrophobic material comprising PTFE since Vacheron teaches PTFE to be a known hydrophobic material used in hair steamers and since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fereyre (WO 2013128092).
Claim 14: Fereyre discloses the invention of claim 12 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the hydrophobic layer measuring between 10-2000mm2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of Fereyre by providing the hydrophobic layer measuring between 10-2000mm2, 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(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fereyre (WO 2013128092) in view of Vacheron (US 20120111356) as applied to claim 8 above and further in view of Xu (Cn 206090905).
Claims 10 and 19: Modified Fereyre discloses the invention of claim 8 and Vacheron further states that any anti-boiling hydrophilic agent can be used for the hydrophilic layer. Modified Fereyre discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the hydrophilic material being woven glass fabric.
Xu, however, teaches that glass wool (a known woven glass fabric) is an old and well-known material used for absorbing moisture [0004] (see abstract). In other words, Xu, teaches that glass wool or woven glass fabric is a known hydrophilic material. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the hair appliance of modified Fereyre by providing the hydrophilic layer of woven glass fabric since Xu teaches this to be a known hydrophilic material for moisture absorbing applications and since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/22/26 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the opening end of the tube (15/16) of Fereyre does not comprise an opening along a length of the tube; the office respectfully disagrees. The hollow interior of the tube is an opening, so is the opening at the end of the tube and any cross section taken along the tube perpendicular to a length of the tube would also have an “opening”. The language is broad and that is why Fereyre teaches these limitations. Applicant could amend the claims to require the tube is a cylindrical tube and at the point it is a half-circle, or half tube, in cross section to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues the claims require “the first and second portions extend along the same length”; this is not required by the claims. In Fereyre both go in the length direction of the pipe. The claims do not require the length is in a single direction. The length direction of the pipe changes in Fereyre, but still meets the claims. Applicant can amend the claims to require these are in only one direction to overcome the rejection.
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
Prosecution Insights