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 18 June 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 13 under § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Mathiaszyk et al. (US Pub. 2020/0146413) in view of Altmann (EP 2359710 A1, cited by Applicant).
Because this is the third non-final action in this prosecution, and the second time the Office has had to correct its misunderstanding about the claimed link between the at least one use characteristic and the determination of one or more hair damage parameters that affected the prior art rejections of the initial Office action, the Office has thoroughly checked through the prior art rejections of the dependent claims. As a result, it withdraws the prior art rejection of dependent claim 14 for reasons indicated below. Furthermore, although the subject matter added into independent claims 1 and 18 came from dependent claim 13, Applicant’s amendment to claim 13 gives it allowable subject matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–8, 10–18, and 22 objected to because of the following informalities:
Each of independent claims 1 and 18 now recite that “the at least one use characteristic is a movement of the hairstyling device.” The language is in articulate, because it recites as if “the at least one use characteristic” (i.e. possibly plural characteristics) is a single characteristic (i.e. the movement of the hairstyling device). It’s the Office’s understanding that this would be more articulate if it recited, “wherein the at least one use characteristic [[is]] includes a movement of the hairstyling device.” Other acceptable constructions are likely available. See also the comment attached to the prior art rejection of claim 2.
The last line of claim 13 should be amended to recite “along [[to]] a tress of hair.”
Similar to claim 1, claim 14 should be amended to recite “wherein one of the at least one use characteristics is indicative,” or adopt a possible alternative acceptable construction.
Claims 2–8, 10–12, 15–17, and 22 are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
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 1–5, 8, 10–12, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathiaszyk et al. (US Pub. 2020/0146413) in view of Altmann (EP 2359710 A1, cited by Applicant, translation provided by the Office).
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 indicative of 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”).
Although Mathiaszyk discloses sensing movement of the hairstyling device (see ¶ 82), Mathiaszyk does not disclose that its at least one use characteristic is movement of the hairstyling device.
However, Altmann discloses a similar apparatus that senses movement of its hairstyling device to determine damage to hair:
The invention is based on the general idea of providing a per se known, electrically operated Haarformungs- / care device, in particular a hair straightener, with at least one sensor, said sensor is capable of relative movement / acceleration between the Haarformungs- / care device and to capture the hair and / or movement / acceleration of the Haarformungs- / care facility itself and under / exceeded a predefined Limit value, that is, a predefined speed or acceleration to generate a corresponding signal. For example, if a user moves his hair to be smoothed too slowly through the hair straightener, it may cause overheating due to the low speed and thereby damage the hair. With the hair styling / care device according to the invention, the user, in particular an unskilled person, is given assistance in the correct application of the hair styling / care device, whereby damage to the hair, in particular, can be reliably avoided. Especially users or users who use the hair straightener for the first time or only rarely, this is a great help.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the movement-based damage sensing taught by Altmann into Mathiaszyk to allow the device to teach users an appropriate smoothing speed to prevent hair damage.
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).
Comment: Independent claim 1 now recites that “the at least one use characteristic is movement of the hairstyling device.” Applicant’s disclosure does not seem to provide support for the idea of using movement sensing to detect pre-existing damage to the hair. However, this is not a written description issue, because the claim is simply broad enough to encompass the inclusion of other use characteristics that make such a determination.
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 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”).
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 22: Mathiszyk discloses that the output provided by the user interface includes an alert relating to the one or more hair damage parameters (¶ 32, “warning light,” “warning tone”).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mathiaszyk in view of Altmann 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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,588,743 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 indicative of at least one use characteristic of the hairstyling device indicative of current use of the hairstyling device, wherein the at least one use characteristic is movement 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.
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 4: The hairstyling device according to claim 1, wherein the hairstyling device comprises sensor equipment configured to generate a sensor output dependent on movement of the hair contact member, and
wherein the controller is configured to calculate the one or more hair damage parameters based on the sensor output.
The reference claims do not disclose a user interface to provide an output dependent upon the one or more hair damage parameters.
However, Mathiaszyk discloses a similar apparatus with a user interface to provide an output dependent upon 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 employ the user interface taught by Mathiaszyk as a suitable means of relaying to a user that hair is being damaged.
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 13: The hairstyling device according to claim 1, wherein the sensor equipment comprises an inertial measurement unit, IMU,
wherein the at least one use characteristic is further indicative of a displacement of the hairstyling device along a tress of hair.
Claim 5: The hairstyling device according to claim 4, wherein the hair contact member is operable to apply heat to the hair of the user by movement of the hair contact member along a tress of the hair between a hair-root end of the tress and a hair-tip end of the tress, and
wherein the controller is configured to:
determine, based on the sensor input, a displacement of the hair contact member from the hair-root end of the tress; and
calculate the one or more hair damage parameters based on the determined displacement.
The reference claims do not disclose an inertial measurement unit.
However, Mathiaszyk discloses a similar apparatus with an inertial measurement unit (see ¶ 82, “gyroscopes, acceleration sensors,” where these form an IMU).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the IMU taught by Mathiaszyk as a known effective means of sensing movement for the function of the reference claims.
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, wherein the at least one use characteristic is a movement 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.
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 4: The hairstyling device according to claim 1, wherein the hairstyling device comprises sensor equipment configured to generate a sensor output dependent on movement of the hair contact member, and
wherein the controller is configured to calculate the one or more hair damage parameters based on the sensor output.
The reference claims do not disclose a user interface to provide an output dependent upon the one or more hair damage parameters.
However, Mathiaszyk discloses a similar apparatus with a user interface to provide an output dependent upon 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 employ the user interface taught by Mathiaszyk as a suitable means of relaying to a user that hair is being damaged.
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 mention of the movement of the hairstyling device would necessarily involve a sensor for that purpose.
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.
Claim 22: The hairstyling device according to claim 1, wherein the output provided by the user interface includes an alert relating to the one or more hair damage parameters.
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 has been damaged.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,588,743. 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 16 would be allowable if a terminal disclaimer 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:
Regarding claim 13, although Altmann teaches discerning damage by considering hairstyling device movement, it does not teach discerning damage by considering a displacement of the hairstyling device along a tress of hair. Such a feature acknowledges the dynamics of heat loss as the device applies heat over the tress, which is generally known in the art, but for which the specific claimed function is not known.
Regarding claim 14, although sensors indicating that a hair contact member is in an open or closed configuration are known in the art (including in the previously-cited Nowak reference), the prior art does not disclose such a feature being used as part of hair damage determination. Applicant’s disclosure explains that “the likelihood of mechanical and/or thermal damage being done to hair may increase if the hair contact member 225 is in the closed configuration for an extended period of time.”
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
Prosecution Insights