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 Amendment
The proposed amendments filed 02/17/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are currently pending. Claim 8 has been cancelled.
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, 5, 7, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0335128 (Larkin hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Larkin teaches a hair dryer (Figure 1) that discloses a heater housing (Casing 12 with heater 46 in Figure 3a), a heater assembly disposed in the heater housing (Heater 46 per ¶ 84 and 86), an airflow generator for generating an airflow through the heater housing (Fan unit 50 per ¶ 84 and 91), the airflow generator disposed in the heater housing (Figure 3a), a circuitry housing remote from the heater housing (Housing of PSU 44 in Figure 8), airflow generator control circuitry disposed in the circuitry housing (¶ 106-107), and a wire extending from the circuitry housing to the heater housing (Wire 42 in Figure 8), the wire coupling the airflow generator control circuitry to the airflow generator (Evident from Figure 8 and the operation of the hair dryer), the haircare appliance comprises a power converter for providing electrical power to the airflow generator control circuitry, the power converter disposed in the circuitry housing (Power converter per ¶ 106-107 with Figures 8-11), the heater assembly comprises a heater controller (AC Relay 86 per ¶ 107 and 112 with Figures 9-11), the heater controller is in communication with the airflow generator control circuitry via a pair of communication wires extending from the circuitry housing to the heater housing (Wires from 44 connecting to 86 in Figure 11), and the power converter is configured to supply electrical power to the heater controller via the pair of communication wires (Inherent operation of Figure 11 and ¶ 107, 109, and 112).
Regarding claim 2, Larkin’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Larkin further discloses that the airflow generator control circuitry comprises a switch for controlling current flow to the airflow generator (Switch SW1 per ¶ 108 and Figure 10).
Regarding claim 3, Larkin’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Larkin further discloses that the airflow generator comprises a motor and an impeller driven by the motor (¶ 51-52 and 96), and a rotational position of the impeller is calculated using current and/or voltage values communicated to the airflow generator control circuitry over the wire (¶ 51-52).
Regarding claim 5, Larkin’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Larkin further discloses that the haircare appliance comprises a pair of power supply wires for providing electrical power to the heater assembly (Power lines within wires 42 and the wire from 46 to 44 in Figure 8), the pair of power supply wires extending from the circuitry housing to the heater housing (Evident form Figure 8), and a relay disposed within the circuitry housing, the relay interrupting a current supply path from a mains power supply to one of the power supply wires (Relay per ¶ 45).
Regarding claim 7, Larkin’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where Larkin further discloses that the haircare appliance is configured to be powered by a mains power supply (Power supplied from 46 of Larkin).
Regarding claim 18, Larkin teaches a hair dryer (Figure 1) that discloses a heater housing (Casing 12 in Figure 3a), a circuitry housing remote from the heater housing (PSU housing 44 in Figure 8), an airflow generator for generating an airflow through the heater housing (Fan 50 per ¶ 84 and 91 in Figure 3a), an airflow generator controller for controlling the airflow generator (¶ 106-107), a heater for heating an airflow through the heater housing (Heater 46 per ¶ 84 and 86 and Figure 3a), a heater controller for controlling the heater (¶ 107 and controller portion connected to the heater and receiving control signals), and a power converter for supplying DC electrical power to the airflow generator controller and the heater controller (Power converter per ¶ 106-107 with Figures 8-11), wherein the airflow generator, the heater and the heater controller are disposed in the heater housing (Evident from Figure 3a), the airflow generator controller and the power converter are disposed in the circuitry housing (¶ 106-107 with PSU in Figures 8-11), and the heater controller is electrically coupled to the power converter and communicatively coupled to the airflow generator controller by a pair of wires extending from the circuitry housing to the heater housing (Inherent operation of Figure 11 and ¶ 107, 109, and 112 and the wired connections from PSU 44 to the heater 85 as part of 46 in Figures 9-11 shows a plurality of wires), wherein the pair of wires supplies both electrical power to the heater controller and communications between the heater controller and the airflow generator controller (Wires from 44 connecting to 86 in Figure 11).
Regarding claim 19, Larkin’s teachings are described above in claim 18 where Larkin further discloses that he haircare application comprises communication circuitry for injecting communication signals onto and decoding communication signals from, the pair of wires, the communication circuitry disposed in both the circuitry housing and the heater housing (Inherent control scheme of the hair dryer provided by Larkin in ¶ 106-112 and Figures 9-11).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0335128 (Larkin) in view of US 2016/0365757 (Li hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4, Larkin’s teachings are described above in claim 3 but are silent with respect that the motor is a single-phase motor.
However, Li teaches a brushless motor able to place into a hair dryer that utilizes a single-phase motor (¶ 78 and 170).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to replace the motor of Larkin with the single-phase motor of Li via simple substitution to provide the well-known and predictable function of driving the fan impeller while also being a generally cheaper motor design.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0335128 (Larkin) in view of US 4256127 (Tsujimoto hereinafter).
Regarding claim 6, Larkin’s teachings are described above in claim 5 but are silent with respect that the haircare appliance comprises a thermal protection circuit disposed within the circuitry housing, and the relay is controlled by the thermal protection circuit.
However, Tsujimoto teaches a hair treatment device that discloses a thermal protection circuit and the relay is controlled by the thermal protection circuit (Column 5 Line 59 through Column 6 Line 4). The resultant combination would place the thermal protection circuit within the circuitry housing of Larkin and the relay is controlled by the thermal protection circuit.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the circuitry housing of Larkin with the thermal protection circuit of Tsujimoto to ensure that the operating temperature is maintained in the required range.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0335128 (Larkin) in view of US 2011/0133772 (Shau hereinafter).
Regarding claim 9, Larkin’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the heater controller is configured to communicate with the airflow generator control circuitry using low voltage differential signaling.
However, Shau teaches a fan driver system that discloses control circuitry that utilizes low voltage differential signaling (¶ 114). The resultant combination would implement the low voltage differential signaling control into the heater controller of Larkin while being in communication with the airflow generator control circuitry.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control circuitry of Larkin with the low voltage differential signaling control of Shau to save power while increasing performance per Shau ¶ 114.
Regarding claim 20, Larkin’s teachings are described above in claim 8 but are silent with respect that the heater controller is configured to communicate with the airflow generator controller using low voltage differential signaling.
However, Shau teaches a fan driver system that discloses control circuitry that utilizes low voltage differential signaling (¶ 114). The resultant combination would implement the low voltage differential signaling control into the heater controller of Larkin while being in communication with the airflow generator control circuitry.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control circuitry of Larkin with the low voltage differential signaling control of Shau to save power while increasing performance per Shau ¶ 114.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 10 requires the structure of “wherein the power supply connector is connected to the circuitry housing, the airflow generator, the heater assembly and the temperature sensor are disposed in the heater housing, the airflow generator control circuitry, the thermal protection circuit and the power converter are disposed in the circuitry housing, the airflow generator control circuitry comprises an airflow generator controller and airflow generator drive circuitry, the airflow generator drive circuitry is electrically coupled to the airflow generator by a first coupling, the heater controller is communicatively coupled to the airflow generator controller by a second coupling, the temperature sensor is electrically coupled to the thermal protection circuit by a third coupling, the power converter is electrically coupled to the heater controller and the airflow generator controller by a fourth coupling, the heater drive circuitry is electrically coupled to the power supply connector by a fifth coupling, and the first, second third, fourth and fifth couplings collectively comprise no more than eight wires extending between the circuitry housing and the heater housing in an electrical cable.” The detail provided by the Applicant would make a potential combination using Larkin (US 2015/0335128), Tsujimoto (US 4256127), Sha (CN 209898567), and required additional references would not be obvious in the Examiner’s point of view due to the reliance on hindsight rationales and the modification of already modifying references. Therefore independent claim 10 and dependent claims 11-17 are found to be allowable over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the primary reference of Larkin (US 2015/0335128) have been reviewed but are not found to be persuasive. Applicant initially argues that the Larkin reference fails to disclose the claimed pair of communication wires. The Examiner points towards Figures 9-11 of Larkin to show that the PSU 44 (circuitry housing) being in wired communication with the heater 46 which also encompasses 85 and 86 in the figures. Applicant would be advised to further clarify the specifics of the wiring to overcome the interpretation of the Larkin reference. Applicant then argues that the PSU is external and not internal as required. However, the Examiner is of the belief that the claim language is broad and allows for the use of the external PSU 44. Applicant is advised to further clarify the relative structure and housing requirements to overcome the prior art of record. At this point in time, arguments regarding claims 1-7, 9, and 18-20 are not found to be persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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, MICHAEL HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights