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 .
Claims 1-15 are currently pending. Claim 6, 11-12 are objected to. Claims 1-5, 7-10, and 13-15 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5 of the remarks, filed April 24, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. The rejections of Claims 10-12 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Pg. 5-7 of the remarks, filed with respect to the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Holtz et al. (US 2016/0309786 A1), hereinafter Holtz.
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Applicant argues Chen (US 2007/0278204 A1) fails to teach the amended limitations which clarify the structure to require a sheet with cut-outs in the sheet itself. Applicant explains how the coils of Chen do not satisfy such a limitation. The Office agrees with the arguments. However, the claims are still believed to be anticipated by Holtz as detailed in the rejection below.
No further argument has been provided with respect to the remaining dependent claims.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on January 13, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 7 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 7, Line 2 recites a “third” sheet. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since it has not been previously introduced. It is unclear which sheet this is in reference too. Note that Claim 7 depends upon Claim 1, which has first and second sheets in its scope. Claim 7 has no dependency upon Claim 2, which recites a third sheet.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3, 7, 9-10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Holtz et al. (US 2016/0309786 A1), hereinafter Holtz.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 3A, 4A, 5A of Holtz disclose a heater assembly (220), the heater assembly comprising: an air duct (interior of 220) defining an air flow path extending from an upstream end to a downstream end (see left and right ends of 220 in Figure 4A); a first heater element (10, could be top 10 in Figure 3A) positioned in the flow path, the first heater element (10) including a first sheet having a first set of cut-outs to define a first electrical path, the air flow path extending through the first set of cut-outs; and a second heater element (10, could be bottom 10 in Figure 3A) positioned in the flow path downstream of the first heater element (10), the second heater element (10) including a second sheet having a second set of cut-outs to define a second electrical path, the air flow path extending through the second set of cut-outs, wherein: the heater assembly comprises electrical circuitry for connection to a power source (250); the first and second electrical paths are provided in respective first and second circuit branches (each circuit of individual 10); and the first and second circuit branches are connected in electrical parallel (see leg portions of 10 in parallel in Figure 3A, also described as electrically connected) within said circuitry [0070-0071, 0075]. Paragraph [0062] describes the electrical path during operation for heater element (10) in reference to Figures 1A-B, namely between portions (30), (40), and (50). The flat structure of the heater elements (10) satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of a “sheet”. The filament portion (50) (see Figure 1A) is a planar portion with cut-out portions (via etching or stamping) forming the shaping of the filaments [0056, 0065]. It is noted that although the preamble recites the heater assembly being “for a haircare appliance”, such a limitation is treated as being the intended use of the claimed heater assembly (see MPEP 2111.02 regarding effect of the preamble). As noted above, Holtz teaches all the required structure of the body of the claim, with sufficient structure to perform the function of heating air. The record does not indicate any further structure would be required of the heater assembly to perform the intended use.
Regarding Claim 2, Holtz discloses the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Holtz discloses a third heater element (10) positioned in the flow path downstream of the second heater element, the third heater element (10) including a third sheet having a third set of cut-outs to define a third electrical path, the air flow path extending through the third set of cut-outs. While Figure 3A of Holtz illustrates two heater elements (10), the disclosure recites “two or more” being stacked [0070-0071]. The amount of “more” immediately after “two” is three, i.e. a third element. Claim 1 above explains the interpretation of the heater element features, such as the sheet, cut-outs, and electrical path.
Regarding Claims 3, Holtz discloses the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 2.
Holtz discloses wherein the third electrical path is provided in a third circuit branch which is connected in parallel with the first and second circuit branches. Claim 1 above explains the interpretation of the electrical path for heater elements (10). As seen in Figure 3A, the stack of heater elements (10) are connected by their respective “legs” (see 30, 40 in Figure 1A), forming a parallel connection.
Regarding Claim 7, as far as it is definite and understood, Holtz discloses the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
The limitation of wherein the set of cut-outs of each of the first, second, and third sheets are formed by etching is treated as a product-by-process limitation. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on its method of production (see MPEP 2113). Figures 1A, 3A of Holtz shows each heater element (10) having a flat portion with cut-out path (50). There is currently no evidence of record that forming the coil by cutting out using etching compared to another process imparts distinctive structural characteristics to the final product.
Alternatively, if it is assumed the process provides a structural characteristic, the process of etching is disclosed by Holtz [0066].
Regarding Claim 9, Holtz discloses the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 3A of Holtz discloses wherein each of said electrical paths is generally planar. See also (50) in Figure 1A. The filament portion forming the electrical path is planar [0056].
Regarding Claim 10, Holtz discloses the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Holtz discloses wherein the air duct (interior of 220) is formed by a stack of annular elements each of which defines an axial portion of the air duct. See for example, Figure 5A where the hollow area through (220) is defined by annular elements (350, 10, 400, 420) stacked together. The claim does not further define the annular elements.
Regarding Claim 13, Holtz discloses the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Holtz discloses wherein the electrical path of each heater element (10) is positioned substantially entirely within the air flow path (interior of 220). Figure 5A shows an exploded view where heater element (10) is placed in an interior of (310). See also (220) in Figure 4A.
Regarding Claim 15, Holtz discloses the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Holtz discloses a haircare appliance comprising the heater assembly (10). The claim does not specify a specific haircare appliance nor what is required to be considered “haircare”. Holtz discloses an appliance with all the necessary requirements of the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1, with capabilities of providing heat to fluids and solids as evidenced in paragraph [0070]. Thus, it meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of such an appliance.
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.
Claims 4-5, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtz.
Regarding Claims 4-5, Holtz teaches the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Holtz does not expressly teach wherein one/each of said heater elements is connected in series with a (respective) further heater element, within the corresponding circuit branch as claimed.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients, requiring only ordinary skill in the art. One such practices includes the duplication of parts. A mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144.04, VI, B). With respect to the instant application, Holtz already teaches heater elements (10) for purposes of providing heat [0070]. Thus, it would be expected for additional sets of heater elements to generate heat.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heater assembly taught by Holtz such that one/each of said heater elements is connected in series with a (respective) further heater element, within the corresponding circuit branch, since the mere duplication of parts with no new and unexpected results is considered an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claim 8, Holtz teaches the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
The embodiment of Figure 3A of Holtz does not expressly teach wherein each of said electrical paths has a generally domed shape as claimed. However, such a shape would have been obvious in view of a different embodiment of Holtz.
Figure 3B of Holtz teaches an alternate embodiment wherein each of said electrical paths has a generally domed shape (see curved portions 70’’’). Holtz treats this as an alternative shaping for the filaments (50) [0072]. Thus, simply substituting one shaping for another would predictably result in similar operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heater assembly taught by Figure 3A of Holtz such that each of said electrical paths has a generally domed shape by simply substituting the shaping for that in Figure 3B of Holtz, predictably resulting in the heater assembly still operating as intended.
Regarding Claim 14, Holtz teaches the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Holtz does not expressly teach wherein at least two neighboring electrical path are spaced apart by no more than 5 mm as claimed.
However, the courts have held various practices to be routine expedients, requiring only ordinary skill in the art. One such practice is the change in size. Limitations relating to size are not sufficient to patentably distinguish over prior art (see MPEP 2144.04, IV, A). With respect to the instant application, the recitation of 5 mm is interpretable as merely a sizing design choice. Particularly, the distance between parts will increase or decrease according to how large or small the overall size of the heater assembly is desired.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heater assembly taught by Holtz such that at least two neighboring electrical path are spaced apart by no more than 5 mm, since one of ordinary skill would change the overall size of the assembly according to design choice.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holtz in view of Wonka et al. (US 5,701,681 A), hereinafter Wonka. Claim 15 is rejected again for purposes of expediting prosecution, assuming a narrower interpretation of “haircare appliance”.
Regarding Claim 15, Holtz teaches the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Holtz does not expressly teach a haircare appliance comprising the heater assembly. However, such an appliance would have been obvious in view of Wonka.
Figures 1 and 5 of Wonka teach a haircare appliance (10) comprising a heater assembly (60) (Col. 1, Lines 5-7, Col. 5, Lines 62-65). The heater assembly (10) taught by Holtz is also capable of heating (Holtz, [0070]). One of ordinary skill in the art would simply substitute between known heater assemblies, predictably resulting in the assembly providing for the haircare appliance.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the heater assembly taught by Wonka such that it is a haircare appliance comprising the heater assembly as exemplified by Wonka, since one of ordinary skill would simply substitute between known heater assemblies, predictably resulting in heat being provided.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11-12 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.
Claims 11-12, as far as they are definite and understood, would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 6, the closest art of record, Holtz, does not expressly teach wherein the circuitry includes power control components arranged to supply the different circuit branches with different voltages and/or currents as claimed. For instance, Holtz teaches of a single power supply section (230) and does not describe supplying different circuit branches with different voltages and/or currents [0075]. The power control components (60a, c) are illustrated in Figure 5 of the instant application filed March 23, 2023. The control components provide different voltage and are managed by a controller in order to provide the smoothest possible heating along the air flow path [0083, 0089].
Regarding Claims 11-12, the closest art of record, Holtz, does not expressly teach wherein each heater element is embedded within a respective one of said annular elements (Claim 10), nor wherein one of said annular elements forms a spacer between adjacent heater elements (Claim 11) as claimed. These limitations reflect structure closer to the heater assembly disclosed by the instant application that is not met by the broadest reasonable interpretation of Holtz due to the differences in construction. Particularly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the annular elements made in Claim 10 in the rejection in view of Holtz would no longer apply due to the narrowing of their arrangements in Claims 11-12. Figure 1 of the instant application illustrates the intended annular elements (12a-c) formed as stacks. Accordingly, this allows for customizability of the heater assembly for different applications [0026-0027]. The spacer additionally allows for support of sensors or smoothing flow [0080, 0088]. As such, this provides advantages over the art of record.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights