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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 9, 2026, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on August 26, 2026, have been entered.
The previously raised claim objection has been withdrawn considering the amendment submitted by the Applicant on August 26, 2026.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10, 12-15, 17, 19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiko Inoue (JP2019126703A, hereinafter “Kazuhiko”).
Regarding claim 1. Kazuhiko discloses a haircare appliance (¶0001 and Fig 1-11) comprising first (annotated Fig 5(a), A) and second arms (annotated Fig 5(a), B) that define a hair treatment chamber (annotated Fig 5(a), C. “C” is the area between first arm “A” and second arm “B” for hair treatment), wherein each of the first and second arms extends longitudinally in a first direction parallel to a first axis (Fig 5(a) and Fig 9, both arms “A” and “B” extends longitudinally in a direction parallel to a first axis. The first axis runs parallel to first and second arms “A” and “B”), an infrared emitter (13 and ¶0023) configured to emit infrared radiation into the hair treatment chamber (The infrared emitter 13 is capable to emit infrared radiation into the hair treatment chamber), and an airflow generator (blower fan 10) configured to generate an airflow within the hair treatment chamber (blower fan 10 is capable to generate an airflow within the hair treatment chamber through outlet 27); and wherein the hair treatment chamber is further defined by hair contacting ribs (Fig 5(b), 28) disposed at a first end of the hair treatment chamber (Fig 5(b), D) and open sides at a second end of the hair treatment chamber (annotated Fig 5(b), E. The Examiner notes that the term “open” is being interpreted by “being in a position or adjustment to permit passage : not shut, sealed, or locked” according to its definition found in OPEN Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster. Open sides “E” permit passage of hair), wherein the first end of the hair treatment chamber is spaced from the second end of the hair treatment chamber in a second direction parallel to a second axis (Fig 5(b). the second axis runs transversely in a direction from “D” to “E”), and wherein the first axis is perpendicular to the second axis (Fig 5(b). the first axis extends longitudinally parallel to the first and second arms “A” and “B”, which is perpendicular to the second axis that runs transversely in a direction from “D” to “E”).
PNG
media_image1.png
980
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Kazuhiko is silent to the hair treatment chamber comprises a minimal width of greater than 5mm. However, Kazuhiko teaches the hair treatment chamber comprises a width of greater than 0 mm (annotated Fig 5 (a) above, W, since press body 5 of the upper and lower arms have width greater than 0 mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the hair treatment chamber to have a minimal width of greater than 5mm to efficiently accommodate different hair types inside the hair treatment chamber and meet different user’s needs with different hair lengths, hair density, and desired style.
Regarding claim 3. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 1. Kazuhiko further teaches the first and second arms (arms “A” and “B”) are movable relative to one another to selectively vary a width of the hair treatment chamber (¶0007 and annotated Fig 5(a), swingable arms A and B are movable to one another to selectively vary width of the hair treatment chamber to accommodate the user’s hair).
Regarding claim 4. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 1. Kazuhiko further teaches the infrared emitter (13) is configured to emit the infrared radiation comprising a peak wavelength greater than 900nm (¶0023, the infrared emitter 13 is capable of emitting infrared radiation comprising a peak wavelength greater than 900nm).
Regarding claim 5. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 1. Kazuhiko further teaches the infrared emitter (13) is configured to emit infrared radiation comprising a peak wavelength in the region of 1000-3500nm (¶0023, the infrared emitter 13 is capable of emitting infrared radiation comprising a peak wavelength in the region of 1000-3000nm).
Regarding claim 6. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 1. Kazuhiko further teaches the infrared emitter (13) extends along at least 50% of the length of the hair treatment chamber (13 is at least 50% of the length in the region “C” as shown in the annotated Fig 9 above).
Regarding claim 7. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 1. Kazuhiko further teaches the infrared emitter (13) is located in one of the first and second arms (annotated Fig (5(a), first infrared emitter 13 is located inside first arm “A”), and the haircare appliance comprises a further infrared emitter located in the other of the second and first arms (annotated Fig (5a), second infrared emitter 13 is located inside second arm “B”).
Regarding claim 8. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 1. Kazuhiko further teaches the further infrared emitter (Fig 9, second infrared 13 located in the second arm 2) extends along at least 50% of the length of the hair treatment chamber (13 is at least 50% of the length in the region “C” as shown in the annotated Fig 9).
PNG
media_image2.png
334
770
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 1. Kazuhiko further teaches one of the first and second arms comprises an air outlet (air outlet 27) through which airflow from the airflow generator (blower fan 10) is discharged into the hair treatment chamber (Fig 8 and ¶0008).
Regarding claim 10. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 9, but silent to the air outlet comprises a length greater than or equal to a length of the infrared emitter.
However, Kazuhiko appears to further teaches the air outlet comprises a length (total length of multiple air outlet 27 in arm 1) greater than length of the infrared emitter (length of infrared emitter 13) (Fig 1).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the length size of the air outlet to have a length greater than the length of the infrared emitter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the length size/shape of the air outlet. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In this instance, it is within the skill of the ordinary skilled in the art to modify the length size of the air outlet to have a length greater than the length of the infrared emitter. Thus, it would provide the user with a wide and efficient flow of air over a significant portion of the hair in order to improve drying the user’s hair.
Regarding claim 12. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 9, but silent to the air outlet has a maximal width of less than 4 mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the size of the air outlet to have maximal width of less than 4 mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of the air outlet. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In this instance, it is within the skill of the ordinary skilled in the art to modify the size of the air outlet to have a maximal width of less than 4mm. Thus, it would efficiently increase the air velocity directed toward the user’s hair while styling the hair and efficiently dry the user’s hair.
In addition, the instant disclosure describes the selection of the maximal width of the air outlet as merely preferable [page 5, 4th paragraph “The air outlet may comprise a width of less than or equal to 4mm, for example less than or equal to 2mm, less than or equal to 1.5mm, or less than or equal to 1mm] and does not describe it as contributing any unexpected result to the haircare appliance. As such, the selection of the width dimension is deemed matters of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Regarding claim 13. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 9. Kazuhiko further teaches the haircare appliance comprises an air inlet (Fig 3, suction port 30), the airflow generator (fan blower 10) is configured to generate airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet along an airflow path (Fig 3, airflow is generated along air passage 26), and the infrared emitter (13) is disposed in the airflow path (Fig 3 and ¶0026).
Regarding claim 14. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 9. Kazuhiko further teaches the other of the second and first arms comprises a further air outlet (Fig 8, air outlet 27 located in the second arm 2) through which airflow from the airflow generator is discharged into the hair treatment chamber (Fig 8 and ¶0008).
Regarding claim 15. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 14, but silent to the further air outlet comprises a length greater than or equal to a length of the infrared emitter.
However, Kazuhiko appears to further teach the air outlet comprises a length (total length of multiple air outlet 27 in arm 2) greater than length of the infrared emitter (length of infrared emitter 13) (Fig 1).
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the length size of the air outlet to have a length greater than the length of the infrared emitter, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the length size/shape of the air outlet. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In this instance, it is within the skill of the ordinary skilled in the art to modify the length size of the air outlet to have a length greater than the length of the infrared emitter. Thus, it would provide the user with a wide and efficient flow of air over a significant portion of the hair in order to improve drying the user’s hair.
Regarding claim 17. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 14, but silent to the further air outlet has a maximal width of less than 4mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the size of the further air outlet to have maximal width of less than 4mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of the air outlet. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In this instance, it is within the skill of the ordinary skilled in the art to modify the size of the further air outlet to have a maximal width of less than 4mm. Thus, it would efficiently increase the air velocity directed toward the user’s hair while styling the hair and efficiently dry the user’s hair.
In addition, the instant disclosure describes the selection of the maximal width of the air outlet as merely preferable [page 5, 4th paragraph “The air outlet may comprise a width of less than or equal to 4mm, for example less than or equal to 2mm, less than or equal to 1.5mm, or less than or equal to 1mm] and does not describe it as contributing any unexpected result to the haircare appliance. As such, the selection of the width dimension is deemed matters of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Regarding claim 19. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 1. Kazuhiko further teaches the infrared emitter (13) comprises an incandescent source of infrared radiation (¶0021 and ¶0023).
Regarding claim 24. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 1. Kazuhiko further teaches said hair contacting ribs (28) comprise first and second hair contacting ribs (Fig 9, upper and lower hair contacting ribs 28) provided on the first and second arms (Fig 9), respectively, wherein the first and second hair contacting ribs are configured to clamp and tension hair therebetween (Fig 4, the upper and lower hair contacting ribs 28 are capable to clamp and tension hair therebetween).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiko Inoue (JP2019126703A, hereinafter “Kazuhiko”) in view of Boateng et al (US 10702037 B2, hereinafter “Boateng”).
Regarding claim 2. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 1, but silent to the airflow generator is configured to generate airflow at a flow rate of greater than 4L/s.
Boateng teaches similar hair drying device (abstract and Fig 1-14) including airflow generator (Fig 1, fan 26) is configured to generate airflow at a flow rate of greater than 4L/s (Col 14 lines 55. Air flow rate 0.03 m.sup.3/min to 2 m.sup.3/min which is equivalent to 0.5L/s to 33.33L/s) to provide good heat transfer (Col 14 lines 51-52) and to dry hair in a relatively quick manner, whilst also facilitating styling of the hair (Col 2 lines 5-6).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the airflow generator of Kazuhiko’s device to generate airflow at a flow rate of greater than 4L/s, as taught by Boateng, to provide good heat transfer and to dry hair in a relatively quick manner, whilst also facilitating styling of the hair in order to meet the user’s needs and preferences.
Claim 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiko Inoue (JP2019126703A, hereinafter “Kazuhiko”) in view of Richmond et al (US 20130247407 A1, hereinafter “Richmond”).
Regarding claim 11. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 9. Kazuhiko silent to the air outlet comprises a single aperture.
Richmond teaches similar hair style device including an air outlet (¶0019, air discharge orifice 25) comprises a single aperture (Fig 1 and ¶0019, single air discharge orifice 25) to focus the distribution of airflow along the length of the single, long and continuous, aperture to efficiently reduce the overall drying time for long hair, and to meet preference of different users.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify air outlet of Kazuhiko’s device to be a single aperture, as taught by Richmond, to focus the distribution of airflow along the length of the single, long and continuous, aperture to efficiently reduce the overall drying time for long hair, and to meet the preference of different users.
Regarding claim 16. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 14, but silent to the further air outlet comprises a single aperture.
Richmond teaches similar hair style device including an air outlet (¶0019, air discharge orifice 25) comprises a single aperture (Fig 1 and ¶0019, single air discharge orifice 25) to focus the distribution of airflow along the length of the single, long and continuous, aperture to efficiently reduce the overall drying time for long hair, and to meet preference of different users.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the further air outlet of Kazuhiko’s device to be a single aperture, as taught by Richmond, to focus the distribution of airflow along the length of the single, long and continuous, aperture to efficiently reduce the overall drying time for long hair, and to meet the preference of different users.
Claim 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiko Inoue (JP2019126703A, hereinafter “Kazuhiko”) in view of Altmann Berthold (DE102012210273A1, hereinafter “Berthold”).
Regarding claim 20. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 1, but silent to the infrared emitter is configured to output infrared radiation comprising a power density greater than 10W/cm2.
Berthold teaches similar hairdryer device (¶0001 and Fig 1-11) with electromagnetic radiation source (¶0009. The Examiner notes that the electromagnetic radiation includes the infrared radiation, and that infrared is a part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum) is configured to output radiation comprising power density greater than 10W/cm2 (¶0030, the radiation source is therefore preferably configured such that the hair dryer in the treatment section has a power density of about 0.5 to 20 W/cm 2). Thus, the radiation sources are preferably radiation sources which can be regulated, the radiation power of which can be adjusted continuously or stepwise by means of corresponding regulators or switches. This allows the user or the device itself to set to the desired drying strength or drying time (¶0027).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the infrared emitter of Kazuhiko’s hair device to be configured to comprise a power density greater than 10W/cm2, as taught by Berthold’s device, so that the radiation sources are preferably radiation sources which can be regulated, the radiation power of which can be adjusted continuously or stepwise by means of corresponding regulators or switches. This allows the user or the device itself to set to the desired drying strength or drying time.
Regarding claim 21. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 1, but silent to the haircare appliance comprises a first mode of operation in which the infrared emitter is configured to output infrared radiation comprising a first power density, and a second mode of operation in which the infrared emitter is configured to output infrared radiation comprising a second power density less than the first power density, and the first power density is greater than 10W/cm2.
Berthold teaches similar hairdryer device (¶0001 and Fig 1-11) including an air flow with power that can be regulated or controlled (¶0036), an electromagnetic radiation source (¶0009. The Examiner notes that the electromagnetic radiation includes the infrared radiation and that infrared is a part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum) is configured to output radiation comprising a first mode of operation in which the radiation emitter is configured to output radiation comprising a first power density (¶0030, the hair dryer in the treatment section has a power density of about 0.5 to 20 W/cm 2), and a second mode of operation in which the radiation emitter is configured to output radiation comprising a second power density less than the first power density (¶0030, the hair dryer in the treatment section has a power density of about 0.5 to 10 W/cm 2), and the first power density is greater than 10W/cm2 (¶0030, the hair dryer in the treatment section has a power density of about 0.5 to 20 W/cm 2.). Thus, the radiation sources are preferably radiation sources which can be regulated, the radiation power of which can be adjusted continuously or stepwise by means of corresponding regulators or switches. This allows the user or the device itself to set to the desired drying strength or drying time (¶0027) in order to meet the user’s needs and preference.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the infrared emitter of Kazuhiko’s hair device to be configured to comprise a first mode of operation in which the infrared emitter is configured to output infrared radiation comprising a first power density, and a second mode of operation in which the infrared emitter is configured to output infrared radiation comprising a second power density less than the first power density, and the first power density is greater than 10W/cm2, as taught by Berthold’s device, so that the radiation sources are preferably radiation sources which can be regulated, the radiation power of which can be adjusted continuously or stepwise by means of corresponding regulators or switches. This allows the user or the device itself to set to the desired drying strength or drying time in order to meet the user’s needs and preference.
Regarding claim 22. Kazuhiko and Berthold teach the invention of claim 21, but silent to airflow generator is configured to generate airflow at a first flow rate in the first mode of operation, and at a second flow rate less than the first flow rate in the second mode of operation.
However, Berthold further teaches that the air flow can be regulated and controlled in terms of their power (¶0036) and allow the user himself can individually adjust the air volume flow according to his or her choice. Alternatively, the air volume flow can also be adapted to the moisture or residual moisture of the hair by means of corresponding sensors (¶0036).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the air flow of the combination of Kazuhiko and Berthold device to be configured to generate airflow at a first flow rate in the first mode of operation, and at a second flow rate less than the first flow rate in the second mode of operation. Thus, it would allow the user himself can individually adjust the air volume flow according to his or her choice. Alternatively, the air volume flow can also be adapted to the moisture or residual moisture of the hair by means of corresponding sensors.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazuhiko Inoue (JP2019126703A, hereinafter “Kazuhiko”) in view of Altmann Berthold (DE102012210273A1, hereinafter “Berthold”) and Conrad (US 20210307472 A1, hereinafter “Conrad”)
Regarding claim 23. Kazuhiko teaches the invention of claim 1. but silent to the haircare appliance comprises a temperature sensor configured to sense a temperature of hair within the hair treatment chamber in use, and a controller configured to modify power supplied to the infrared emitter in response to an output of the temperature sensor.
Berthold teaches similar hairdryer device (¶0001 and Fig 1-11) including an air flow with power that can be regulated or controlled (¶0036), an electromagnetic radiation source (¶0009. The Examiner notes that the electromagnetic radiation includes the infrared radiation and that infrared is a part of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum), a controller (¶0043, temperature limiter) configured to modify power supplied to the radiation emitter in response to an output of the temperature sensor (¶0043, the temperature limiter is capable to modify and switch off the radiation source when a previously defined temperature is exceeded) in order to exclude a risk to the device, a temperature limiter is preferably installed, which further preferably reversibly switches off the radiation source when a previously defined temperature is exceeded (¶0043).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Kazuhiko’s hair device to incorporate a controller configured to modify power supplied to the infrared emitter in response to an output of the temperature sensor, as taught by Berthold, in order to exclude a risk to the device, a temperature limiter is preferably installed, which further preferably reversibly switches off the radiation source when a previously defined temperature is exceeded.
Concard teaches similar hair dryer device (abstract) including infrared emitter (¶0014), a temperature sensor (¶0308) configured to sense a temperature of hair (¶0308) so that a sensor operable to monitor a temperature of a portion of the hair of the person at which the air and heat are directed; and, a controller, which in a first operating mode, is operable to adjust an operating parameter of the hair dryer when the sensor issues a signal indicative of the temperature of the portion of the hair being outside a predetermined temperature range, whereby, after issuance of the signal, the fan and motor assembly continue to operate and the temperature of the portion of the hair is within the predetermined range (¶0308).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Kazuhiko and Berthold hair device and incorporate a temperature sensor, as taught by Concard. In this instance, it would be within the level of an ordinary skilled in the art to place to the temperature sensor in the hair treatment chamber of the combination of Kazuhiko and Berthold hair device. Thus, would allow monitoring temperature of a portion of the hair of the person at which the air and heat are directed, prevents unwanted heat damage of the user’s hair and protects the user’s scalp from overheating.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant remark and argument: The Applicant alleges Kazuhiko fails to disclose the newly amended features of claim 1, "the hair treatment chamber is further defined by hair contacting ribs disposed at a first end of the hair treatment chamber and open sides at a second end of the hair treatment chamber." Succinctly, Kazuhiko discloses bristles provided at both ends of the hair treatment chamber (spaced from one another in a direction perpendicular to a longitudinal extend of the haircare appliance). As such, Kazuhiko's hair treatment chamber is not defined by "open sides at a second end" thereof, as recited in claim 1.
In response, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion.
Regarding the newly amended features of claim 1, Kazuhiko teaches wherein each of the first and second arms extends longitudinally in a first direction parallel to a first axis (Fig 5(a) and Fig 9, both arms “A” and “B” extends longitudinally in a direction parallel to a first axis. The first axis runs parallel to first and second arms “A” and “B”); wherein the hair treatment chamber is further defined by hair contacting ribs (Fig 5(b), 28) disposed at a first end of the hair treatment chamber (Fig 5(b), D) and open sides at a second end of the hair treatment chamber (annotated Fig 5(b), E. The Examiner notes that the term “open” is being interpreted by “being in a position or adjustment to permit passage : not shut, sealed, or locked” according to its definition found in OPEN Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster. Open sides “E” permit passage of hair), wherein the first end of the hair treatment chamber is spaced from the second end of the hair treatment chamber in a second direction parallel to a second axis (Fig 5(b). the second axis runs transversely in a direction from “D” to “E”), and wherein the first axis is perpendicular to the second axis (Fig 5(b). the first axis extends longitudinally parallel to the first and second arms “A” and “B”, which is perpendicular to the second axis that runs transversely in a direction from “D” to “E”).
PNG
media_image3.png
967
667
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIM ASQIRIBA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 pm.
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, Eric Rosen, can be reached on 571-270- 7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARIM ASQIRIBA/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights