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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 19 February 2026, with respect to the rejection of dependent claim 16 under § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Office had previously understood the power sensor of claim 16 to not necessarily be functionally related to the hair damage sensing discussed in independent claim 1, but now the Office sees that the power drawn use characteristic is meant to tie in with the determination of hair damage parameters, and this is not disclosed or rendered obvious by Mathiaszyk and Moore. The rejection under § 103 of claim 16 has been withdrawn. Because new independent claim 18 is the same as unamended claims 1 and 16 together, the same judgment applies.
Applicant’s remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the objection to the drawings has been resolved by the replacement sheet. While the replacement sheet does properly depict remote device 260, it does not also depict the user interface of the remote device that was requested to be added in the objection to the drawings in the previous Office action.
Claim 1 has been amended to incorporate the limitations of previously pending dependent claim 9, and now requires an alert relating to the one or more hair damage parameters. The primary reference Mathiaszyk was relied upon to disclose this feature. Applicant argues that Mathiaszyk does not relate to hair damage parameters, and instead relates to executing a handling instruction (p. 10). Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive. ¶ 30 of Mathiaszyk explains that “the processor further is configured to derive handling instructions from the evaluated sensor data.” Furthermore, nearby ¶ 33 states that “the sensor for detecting a hair condition parameter has a hair damage sensor.” Therefore, it naturally follows that Mathiaszyk discloses that the handling instruction in ¶ 32, including the “warning light” or “warning tone,” can be responsive to the hair damage sensor. This also carries over to the way that claim 18 has been amended, since ¶¶ 66 and 70 of Mathiaszyk discuss conveying recommendations or instructions (which would include handling instructions) related to hair damage via a smartphone.
Because the non-statutory double patenting rejection has been changed such that it now rejects dependent claim 16, as well as the limitations that formed unamended claims 1 and 16 together in new independent claim 21, this Office action is non-final.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the user interface of the remote device of claims 5, 7, and 18 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
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 1–5, 8, 10, 13, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mathiaszyk et al. (US Pub. 2020/0146413).
Claim 1: Mathiaszyk discloses a hairstyling device (100) operable to apply heat to hair of a user (via “a controllable or regulatable heating device” (¶ 164)), the hairstyling device comprising:
sensor equipment (106) configured to generate sensor output dependent on at least one use characteristic of the hairstyling device indicative of current use of the hairstyling device (see ¶¶ 165 and 166); and
a controller (104) configured to:
receive the sensor output from the sensor equipment (via 108, see ¶ 170);
process the sensor output to determine one or more hair damage parameters indicative of damage to hair being heated by the hairstyling device (see e.g. ¶ 175, “hair damage”); and
cause, during heating of the hair by the hairstyling device, a user interface to provide an output dependent on the one or more hair damage parameters (clearly suggested given ¶ 171, “use the sensor data to provide a recommendation to the user 220,” and ¶ 192, “The display device 228 is configured in various embodiments to receive data from the hair treatment device 100c, for example, a recommendation determined by the electronic circuit device 104 and/or the external data processing device 226, for example, a hair treatment recommendation and/or a recommended hair care agent”), wherein the output provided by the user interface comprises an alert relating to the one or more hair damage parameters (¶ 32, “warning light,” “warning tone”).
Claim 2: Mathiaszyk discloses that the one or more hair damage parameters are indicative of pre-existing damage to the hair (evident from ¶¶ 33 and 48 discussing the specifics of the hair damage sensor which would operate on pre-existing damage).
Claim 3: Mathiaszyk discloses that the one or more hair damage parameters are indicative of predicted damage due to the heating of the hair by the hairstyling device (evident at least from the temperature control discussed in ¶¶ 60 and 70, where high temperature is inherently indicative of predicted hair damage; see also ¶ 118 specifying that temperature sensors can be used).
Claim 4: Mathiaszyk discloses that the one or more hair damage parameters are indicative of at least one of physical damage, thermal damage and chemical damage of the hair (at least ¶ 33 discusses at least physical or chemical damage of the hair).
Claim 5: Mathiaszyk discloses that the user interface is comprised in a remote device (see ¶ 80 disclosing “a display device, which is preferably a component of a computer, a smartphone, a tablet, a smart mirror, a smart watch or a laptop,” and ¶¶ 66 and 70 discussing conveying recommendations or instructions related to hair damage via a smartphone), wherein the controller is configured to output a signal to the remote device to cause the user interface to provide the output (ibid.).
Claim 8: Mathiaszyk discloses the output provided by the user interface comprises an audio, visual and/or haptic output (display device 228 would provide visual feedback; see also ¶¶ 32 and 78 discussing audio and haptic feedback).
Claim 10: Mathiaszyk discloses that the output provided by the user interface comprises a notification notifying the user to take corrective action (¶ 66, “a degree of hair damage and based thereon, to determine at least one control parameter and possibly at least one recommendation”).
Claim 13: Mathiaszyk discloses that the sensor equipment comprises an inertial measurement unit, IMU (see ¶ 82, “gyroscopes, acceleration sensors,” where these form an IMU), and wherein the at least one use characteristic is indicative of movement of the hairstyling device (¶ 82, “detecting movements and location changes of the device body”).
Claim 15: Mathiaszyk discloses that the sensor equipment comprises a temperature sensor (¶ 149, “temperature sensor”) configured to sense an operating temperature of the hairstyling device, and wherein the at least one use characteristic comprises the operating temperature of the hairstyling device (¶ 176, “the hair treatment device 100 is configured to regulate the actuator 110, for example, a temperature for the hair treatment corresponding to the degree of hair damage”; see also ¶ 117, “the hair treatment device 100 is configured to regulate the actuator 110 based solely on temperature sensor data”).
Claim 17: Mathiaszyk discloses that the hairstyling device comprises a hair straightening device and/or a hair curling device (¶ 178, “a straightening iron or a curling iron”).
Claim 18: Mathiaszyk discloses a system comprising:
a hairstyling device (100) operable to apply heat to hair of a user (via “a controllable or regulatable heating device” (¶ 164)); and
a remote device comprising a user interface (see ¶ 80 disclosing “a display device, which is preferably a component of a computer, a smartphone, a tablet, a smart mirror, a smart watch or a laptop,” and ¶¶ 66 and 70 discussing conveying recommendations or instructions related to hair damage via a smartphone), the remote device being communicatively coupled to the hairstyling device (¶ 70, “data exchange can be made wirelessly”), wherein the hairstyling device comprises:
sensor equipment (106) configured to generate sensor output dependent on at least one use characteristic of the hairstyling device indicative of current use of the hairstyling device (see ¶¶ 165 and 166); and
a controller (104) configured to:
receive the sensor output from the sensor equipment (via 108, see ¶ 170);
process the sensor output to determine one or more hair damage parameters indicative of damage to hair being heated by the hairstyling device (see e.g. ¶ 175, “hair damage”); and
output a signal to the remote device to cause, during heating of the hair by the hairstyling device, the user interface to provide an output dependent on the one or more hair damage parameters, wherein the output provided by the user interface comprises an alert relating to the one or more hair damage parameters (¶ 32, “warning light,” “warning tone”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathiaszyk.
Claim 11: Mathiaszyk discloses that the controller is configured to change one or more settings of the hairstyling device based on the one or more hair damage parameters to prevent damage and/or prevent further damage to the heated hair (evident at least from the temperature control discussed in ¶¶ 60 and 70, where proper temperatures inherently prevent damage; see also ¶ 70, “a temperature can be adjusted, with which the hair can be treated without further damage”).
Mathiaszyk does not seem to disclose that the output provided by the user interface comprises a notification notifying the user that the one or more settings have been changed.
However, given the wide breath of types of information conveyable to the user interface shown in Mathiaszyk, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to output such a notification for the benefit of a user, particularly seeing as the user interface already outputs temperature information (see ¶ 70).
Claim 12: Mathiaszyk discloses that the one or more settings comprise an operating temperature of the hairstyling device (see ¶ 70 discussing “control or regulation instructions” and “temperature”).
Claims 6, 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathiaszyk as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nowak et al. (US Pub. 2019/0387856).
Claim 6: Mathiaszyk does not disclose that the hairstyling device comprises the user interface.
However, Nowak discloses a highly similar apparatus with a hairstyling device (100) that comprises a user interface (160, 162, 164, 166, 168; ¶ 40, “display screen”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a user interface on the hairstyling device of Mathiaszyk, as suggested by Nowak, so that a separate device is not (or less) necessary.
Claim 7: Although both Mathiaszyk (see e.g. ¶ 70) and Nowak (see ¶ 40) envision the use of a remote device, neither reference discloses that the output provided by the user interface comprises a notification notifying the user that a feedback message is available on a remote device.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate such a notification output for a user’s convenience, particularly as Mathiaszyk discloses greater control of the hairstyling device through a remote device (¶ 70, “a smartphone app that can act as the heart of the system”), whereas the user interface taught by Nowak seems simpler than a smartphone but could still be useful in this way.
Claim 14: Mathiaszyk does not disclose that the hairstyling device comprises a hair contact member, the hair contact member comprising opposing first and second hair-contactable surfaces, the hair contact member being moveable between an open configuration and a closed configuration, and wherein the at least one use characteristic is indicative of whether the hair contact member is in the open configuration or in the closed configuration.
However, Nowak discloses a highly similar apparatus including a hairstyling device (100) that comprises a hair contact member (142, 144), the hair contact member comprising opposing first and second hair-contactable surfaces (ibid.), the hair contact member being moveable between an open configuration (fig. 1) and a closed configuration (fig. 5), and wherein the at least one use characteristic is indicative of whether the hair contact member is in the open configuration or in the closed configuration (¶ 72, “242′ is operative to communicate to controller 170 occurrences of arms 106 and 108 moving from an open condition to a closed condition”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the hairstyling device of Mathiaszyk to have the hair contact member of Nowak as a known, effective construction for a hair straightening iron, and to implement the open and closed configuration characteristic sensing of Nowak to help effectuate automatic control of the device.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 5–7, 16, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/017,635 in view of Mathiaszyk et al. (US Pub. 2020/0146413).
Pending Claims
Reference Claims
Claim 1: A hairstyling device operable to apply heat to hair of a user, the hairstyling device comprising:
sensor equipment configured to generate sensor output dependent on at least one use characteristic of the hairstyling device indicative of current use of the hairstyling device; and
a controller configured to:
receive the sensor output from the sensor equipment;
process the sensor output to determine one or more hair damage parameters indicative of damage to hair being heated by the hairstyling device; and
cause, during heating of the hair by the hairstyling device, a user interface to provide an output dependent on the one or more hair damage parameters, wherein the output provided by the user interface includes an alert relating to the one or more hair damage parameters.
Claim 16: The hairstyling device according to claim 1,
wherein the sensor equipment comprises a power sensor configured to sense power drawn by a heating element of the hairstyling device during heating of hair, and
wherein the at least one use characteristic comprises the power drawn by the heating element.
Claim 1: A hairstyling device comprising:
a heatable hair contact member having a hair-contactable surface, the hair contact member being operable to apply heat to hair via the hair-contactable surface; and
a controller configured to:
monitor power draw associated with heating of the hair contact member during heating of hair of a user via the hair-contactable surface;
based on the monitored power draw, calculate one or more hair damage parameters indicative of damage of the heated hair; and
control the hairstyling device based on the one or more calculated hair damage parameters.
Claim 10: The hairstyling device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to cause a user interface to provide an output based on the one or more calculated hair damage parameters.
The reference claims do not explicitly disclose sensor equipment that generates a sensor output dependent upon at least one use characteristic of the hairstyling device.
However, the reference claims including monitoring a power draw, which involves a type of sensor and output dependent upon at least one use characteristic of the hairstyling device.
The reference claims do not disclose that the output provided by the user interface includes an alert relating to the one or more hair damage parameters.
However, Mathiaszyk discloses a similar apparatus wherein the output provided by the user interface comprises an alert relating to the one or more hair damage parameters (¶ 32, “warning light,” “warning tone”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the alert taught by Mathiaszyk as the specific type of output from the reference claims as a clearly suitable means of relaying to a user that hair is being damaged.
The reference claims do not disclose a power sensor configured to sense the power drawn by the heating element.
However, given that the reference claims feature a controller configured to monitor power draw associated with heating of the hair contact member, they necessarily involve an element that would qualify as such a power sensor.
Claim 5: The hairstyling device according to claim 1, wherein the user interface is comprised in a remote device, wherein the controller is configured to output a signal to the remote device to cause the user interface to provide the output.
The reference claims do not disclose that the user interface is comprised in a remote device, wherein the controller is configured to output a signal to the remote device to cause the user interface to provide the output.
However, Mathiaszyk discloses that the user interface is comprised in a remote device (see ¶ 80 disclosing “a display device, which is preferably a component of a computer, a smartphone, a tablet, a smart mirror, a smart watch or a laptop,” and ¶¶ 66 and 70 discussing conveying recommendations or instructions related to hair damage via a smartphone), wherein the controller is configured to output a signal to the remote device to cause the user interface to provide the output (ibid.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference claims to have the user interface on a remote device, as suggested by Mathiaszyk, given the convenience, and easy technological superiority, of such a computer interface and display system.
Claim 6: The hairstyling device according to claim 1, wherein the hairstyling device comprises the user interface.
The reference claims do not explicitly disclose that the hairstyling device comprises the user interface.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the user interface of the reference claims on the hairstyling device itself as it is the only element in the reference claims on which the interface could be installed.
Claim 7: The hairstyling device according to claim 6, wherein the output provided by the user interface comprises a notification notifying the user that a feedback message is available on a remote device.
The reference claims do not disclose that the output provided by the user interface comprises a notification notifying the user that a feedback message is available on a remote device.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate such a notification output for a user’s convenience, particularly as Mathiaszyk discloses greater control of the hairstyling device through a remote device (¶ 70, “a smartphone app that can act as the heart of the system”), whereas the user interface that is obvious to install on the hairstyling device would likely be simpler than a smartphone but could still be useful in this way.
Claim 18: A system comprising:
a hairstyling device operable to apply heat to hair of a user; and
a remote device comprising a user interface, the remote device being communicatively coupled to the hairstyling device,
wherein the hairstyling device comprises:
sensor equipment configured to generate sensor output dependent on at least one use characteristic of the hairstyling device indicative of current use of the hairstyling device; and
a controller configured to:
receive the sensor output from the sensor equipment;
process the sensor output to determine one or more hair damage parameters indicative of damage to hair being heated by the hairstyling device; and
output a signal to the remote device to cause, during heating of the hair by the hairstyling device, the user interface to provide an output dependent on the one or more hair damage parameters, wherein the output provided by the user interface includes an alert relating to the one or more hair damage parameters.
Claim 1: A hairstyling device comprising:
a heatable hair contact member having a hair-contactable surface, the hair contact member being operable to apply heat to hair via the hair-contactable surface; and
a controller configured to:
monitor power draw associated with heating of the hair contact member during heating of hair of a user via the hair-contactable surface;
based on the monitored power draw, calculate one or more hair damage parameters indicative of damage of the heated hair; and
control the hairstyling device based on the one or more calculated hair damage parameters.
Claim 10: The hairstyling device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to cause a user interface to provide an output based on the one or more calculated hair damage parameters.
The reference claims do not explicitly disclose sensor equipment that generates a sensor output dependent upon at least one use characteristic of the hairstyling device.
However, the reference claims including monitoring a power draw, which involves a type of sensor and output dependent upon at least one use characteristic of the hairstyling device.
The reference claims do not disclose a remote device comprising the user interface.
However, Mathiaszyk discloses a similar apparatus with a remote device comprising a user interface (see ¶ 80 disclosing “a display device, which is preferably a component of a computer, a smartphone, a tablet, a smart mirror, a smart watch or a laptop,” and ¶¶ 66 and 70 discussing conveying recommendations or instructions related to hair damage via a smartphone).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the reference claims to have the user interface on a remote device, as suggested by Mathiaszyk, given the convenience, and easy technological superiority, of such a computer interface and display system.
The reference claims do not disclose that the output provided by the user interface includes an alert relating to the one or more hair damage parameters.
However, Mathiaszyk discloses a similar apparatus wherein the output provided by the user interface comprises an alert relating to the one or more hair damage parameters (¶ 32, “warning light,” “warning tone”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the alert taught by Mathiaszyk as the specific type of output from the reference claims as a clearly suitable means of relaying to a user that hair is being damaged.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 21 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of copending Application No. 18/017,635 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every element of the pending claims is disclosed or rendered obvious by the reference claims with one-way distinctness.
Claim 21: A hairstyling device operable to apply heat to hair of a user, the hairstyling device comprising:
sensor equipment configured to generate sensor output dependent on at least one use characteristic of the hairstyling device indicative of current use of the hairstyling device; and
a controller configured to:
receive the sensor output from the sensor equipment;
process the sensor output to determine one or more hair damage parameters indicative of damage to hair being heated by the hairstyling device; and
cause, during heating of the hair by the hairstyling device, a user interface to provide an output dependent on the one or more hair damage parameters,
wherein the sensor equipment includes a power sensor configured to sense power drawn by a heating element of the hairstyling device during heating of hair, and
wherein the at least one use characteristic includes the power drawn by the heating element.
Claim 1: A hairstyling device comprising:
a heatable hair contact member having a hair-contactable surface, the hair contact member being operable to apply heat to hair via the hair-contactable surface; and
a controller configured to:
monitor power draw associated with heating of the hair contact member during heating of hair of a user via the hair-contactable surface;
based on the monitored power draw, calculate one or more hair damage parameters indicative of damage of the heated hair; and
control the hairstyling device based on the one or more calculated hair damage parameters.
Claim 10: The hairstyling device according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to cause a user interface to provide an output based on the one or more calculated hair damage parameters.
The reference claims do not explicitly disclose sensor equipment that generates a sensor output dependent upon at least one use characteristic of the hairstyling device.
However, the reference claims including monitoring a power draw, which involves a type of sensor and output dependent upon at least one use characteristic of the hairstyling device.
The reference claims do not disclose a power sensor configured to sense the power drawn by the heating element.
However, given that the reference claims feature a controller configured to monitor power draw associated with heating of the hair contact member, they necessarily involve an element that would qualify as such a power sensor.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 16 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimed was filed to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in this office action, and was amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 21 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer was filed to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Moore et al. (US Pub. 2017/0360174) was previously relied upon to show the limitations of claims 16, which are now also a part of new independent claim 21. Applicant persuasively argues that Moore does not disclose its power sensor used to determine hair damage. Applicant’s disclosure explains that the power sensor can determine hair damage by gauging that a comparatively low power draw means that the hair has low moisture and is therefore at risk of damage. This feature, or an equivalent, is not shown in the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761