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 is objected to. Claims 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 21, 2023, July 06, 2023, February 13, 2024, and July 15, 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 is rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim is narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Regarding Claim 10, Lines 4-5 appear to merely recite intended use and advantages upon using the invention. It is unclear what structure this imparts or what portion of the advantages forms necessarily required structure of the claim. For instance, are the “different lengths of flow path” and “different numbers of annular elements” required of the claimed heater assembly? How would they be reflected in the structure? Additionally, the term “can” makes it unclear if what follows is necessarily required. For purposes of interpretation, the intended use will be treated as not necessarily required of the structure.
Claims 11-12 are subsequently rejected for their dependencies upon a previously rejected claim.
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 1-2, 4-5, 7-9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen (US 2007/0278204 A1), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 1-2 of Chen disclose a heater assembly for a haircare appliance, the heater assembly comprising: an air duct (interior of 12) defining an air flow path extending from an upstream end (right end of 12 in Figure 1) to a downstream end (left end of 12, at 13); a first heater element (60C) positioned in the flow path, the first heater element (60C) having a first electrical path (C1 to C2) defined between cut-outs in a first sheet, the air flow path extending through said cut-outs; and a second heater element (60B) positioned in the flow path downstream of the first heater element (60C), the second heater element (60B) having a second electrical path (B1 to B2) defined between cut-outs in a second sheet, the air flow path extending through said cut-outs, wherein: the heater assembly comprises electrical circuitry for connection to a power source (see connection from 20); the first and second electrical paths are provided in respective first and second circuit branches; and the first and second circuit branches are connected in electrical parallel within said circuitry [0023-0026, 0032-0034]. Paragraph [0034] describes a parallel arrangement mode of the electrical paths of (60B) and (60C). The limitation of “cut-outs” in the respective “sheet” are treated as product-by-process claims. Determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not on its method of production (see MPEP 2113). Chen describes the heater elements (60) as coils [0032]. There is currently no evidence of record that forming the coil by cutting out of a sheet compared to another method that produces a single-piece coil imparts distinctive structural characteristics to the final product. If by “cut-outs” and “sheet”, Applicant intended to impart specific structure to the heater elements, such structure should be particularly recited in the claim. It would be improper to import limitations from elsewhere in the disclosure, such as what is illustrated in the figures, into the claims that are not explicitly recited.
Regarding Claim 2, Chen discloses the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1-2 of Chen disclose a third heater element (60A) positioned in the flow path downstream of the second heater element (60B), the third heater element (60A) having a third electrical path (A1 to A2) defined between cut-outs in a third sheet, the air flow path (through interior of 12) extending through said cut-outs [0023-0026, 0032-0034]. The limitation of “cut-outs” and “sheet” are interpreted to be product-by-process claims, as explained in Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claims 4-5, Chen discloses the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1-2 of Chen disclose wherein one/each of said heater elements is connected in series with a (respective) further heater element, within the corresponding circuit branch. The coils (60B, 60C) are interpretable to comprise multiple heater elements, such as each loop, that are considered connected in series as they form a continuous circuit.
Regarding Claim 7, Chen discloses the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
The limitation of wherein the cut-outs of each of said electrical paths 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). Chen describes the heater elements (60) as coils [0032]. 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.
Regarding Claim 8, Chen discloses the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1-2 of Chen disclose wherein each of said electrical paths (formed by 60B, 60C) has a generally domed shape. A “dome” may either be the loop around (50) or the loop of the coils themselves, as they have curvature in their shapes.
Regarding Claim 9, Chen discloses the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1-2 of Chen disclose wherein each of said electrical paths is generally planar. Paragraph [0032] describe the heater elements (60B, 60C) as coils. As such, a path of electricity is interpretable as generally planar because a coil is essentially comprising of a linear component.
Regarding Claim 13, Chen discloses the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Figures 1-2 of Chen disclose wherein the electrical path of each heater element (60B, 60C) is positioned substantially entirely within the air flow path (interior of 12).
Regarding Claim 15, Chen discloses the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Figure 1 of Chen discloses a haircare appliance comprising the heater [0002].
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 2-5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen. Claim 2 is rejected again for purposes of addressing Claim 3. For purposes of expediting prosecution, Claims 4-5 are rejected again assuming a narrower interpretation of “heater elements” that does not allow for the interpretation in the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection above to be taken.
Regarding Claims 2-3, Chen teaches the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Chen does not expressly teach the combination of a third heater element positioned in the flow path downstream of the second heater element, the third heater element having a third electrical path defined between cut-outs in a third sheet, the air flow path extending through said cut-outs, and wherein the third electrical path is provided in a third circuit branch which is connected in parallel with the first and second circuit branches 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, Figure 2 of Chen already teaches two heater elements (60C, 60B) in parallel with one downstream of another that allow for the generation of radiation and heat [0032-0034]. Thus, it would be expected for an additional coil 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 Chen such that a third heater element positioned in the flow path downstream of the second heater element, the third heater element having a third electrical path defined between cut-outs in a third sheet, the air flow path extending through said cut-outs, and wherein the third electrical path is provided in a third circuit branch which is connected in parallel with the first and second circuit branches, since the mere duplication of parts with no new and unexpected results is considered an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding Claims 4-5, Chen teaches the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Chen 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, Chen already teaches heater elements (60B, 60C). Chen explains they allow for the generation of radiation and heat [0032-0034]. Thus, it would be expected for an additional coil attached, thereby extending the coils (60B, 60C) 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 Chen 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 14, Chen teaches the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Chen 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 Chen 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 10, as far as it is definite and understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Wonka et al. (US 5,701,681 A), hereinafter Wonka.
Regarding Claim 10, Chen teaches the heater assembly as set forth in Claim 1.
Chen does not expressly teach wherein the air duct is formed by a stack of annular elements each of which defines an axial portion of the air duct as claimed. However, a stack of elements would have been obvious in view of Wonka.
Figures 1-3 of Wonka teach a heater assembly wherein the air duct (see path of 64) is formed by a stack of annular elements (20, 22, 24) each of which defines an axial portion of the air duct. The modular construction allows flexibility in which variations of the individual components of the air duct is possible for cost benefits (Col. 3, Lines 54-61).
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 Chen such that the air duct is formed by a stack of annular elements each of which defines an axial portion of the air duct as suggested by Wonka, to provide the benefit of allowing variation of portions of the duct.
It is unclear if the limitation of This can make the heater assembly more customisable, allowing different lengths of flow path to be formed for different applications by utilizing different numbers of annular elements is required of the claim due to “can”. Even assuming it is required, it is treated as intended use of the claimed invention. Recitation with respect to the manner in which claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (see MPEP 2114, II). As noted above, all structural limitations of the claimed heater assembly are met by the art of record.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is 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, Chen, 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, paragraph [0034] of Chen discusses (B2, C1) being in contact for parallel arrangements. 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, Chen, 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 Chen due to the differences in construction. 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
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