DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Heat source configured to emit heat in claim 1.
Location determination module configured to determine a location of target hair in claim 1.
Guide mechanism for use in guiding emitted heat from the heat source to the location of the target hair in claim 1.
Infrared emitter configured to emit infrared radiation in claim 3
Optical element configured to interact with the infrared radiation emitted by the infrared emitter in claims 4, 7
Hair sensor to determine a property of hair in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The corresponding structures described in the specification are (see pgpub for citations):
Heat source [Wingdings font/0xE0] infrared emitter, laser, convective heat source (paras. 7, 11, 53)
Location determination module [Wingdings font/0xE0] imaging sensor and processor, temperature sensor and moisture sensor (paras. 17, 19, 57)
Guide mechanism [Wingdings font/0xE0] digital light processing chip, lenses, movable baffle, mirrors (paras. 46, 50, 53)
Infrared emitter [Wingdings font/0xE0] laser (paras. 11, 14)
Optical element [Wingdings font/0xE0] digital micromirror device such as a DLP chip, mirror, lens (paras. 12, 15)
Hair sensor [Wingdings font/0xE0] temperature sensor, moisture sensor (paras. 21, 22)
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Karbakhsh (US 20180103741 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Karbakhsh discloses a haircare appliance comprising
a heat source configured to emit heat (a hair dryer is disclosed and a hair dryer has a heat source; para. 2),
a location determination module configured to determine a location of target hair (para. 65), and
a guide mechanism for use in guiding emitted heat from the heat source to the location of the target hair in response to an output of the location determination module (para. 45).
Regarding claim 2, Karbakhsh discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 1, wherein the guide mechanism comprises a movable member movable in response to the output of the location determination module (para. 45).
Regarding claim 8, Karbakhsh discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 1, wherein the location determination module comprises an imaging sensor (camera) configured to capture an image, and an image processor (inherently disclosed) configured to determine the location of the target hair within the captured image (para. 65).
Regarding claim 14, Karbakhsh discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 1, wherein the heat source is configured to be inoperable when the location determination module cannot determine a location of target hair (this can occur when the system, including the heat source and location determination module, is turned off).
Regarding claim 15 Karbakhsh discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 1, wherein the haircare appliance comprises an airflow generator configured to generate an airflow directed toward the determined location of the target hair (para. 10).
Regarding claim 16 Karbakhsh discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 1, wherein the haircare appliance comprises a main body (Fig. 1, 20), and an attachment releasably attached to the main body, the attachment (100) comprising any of the heat source, the location determination module (para. 65), or the guide mechanism (para. 45).
Regarding claim 17, Karbakhsh discloses (see rejection of claim 1 for citations) an attachment for a haircare appliance, the attachment comprising a heat source configured to emit heat, a location determination module configured to determine a location of target hair, and a guide mechanism for use in guiding emitted heat from the heat source to the location of the target hair in response to an output of the location determination module.
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.
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karbakhsh (US 20180103741 A1) in view of Wang (CN 213962188 U).
Regarding claim 3, Karbakhsh discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 1, except wherein the heat source comprises an infrared emitter configured to emit infrared radiation.
However, Wang teaches a hair dryer having a heat source comprising an infrared emitter configured to emit infrared radiation (pg. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Karbakhsh’s hair dryer holder system to hold a hair dryer having a heat source comprising an infrared emitter configured to emit infrared radiation, since Karbakhsh’s hair dryer holder system is designed to hold a wide variety of hair dryers and Wang teaches an example hair dryer. Moreover, the Wang teaches that an IR operated hair dryer has advantages over a traditional convective hair dryer (pg. 2).
Regarding claim 4, modified Karbakhsh discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 3, wherein the guide mechanism comprises an optical element (e.g., reflector) configured to interact with infrared radiation emitted by the infrared emitter (Wang, top of pg. 3).
Regarding claim 5, modified Karbakhsh discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 4, wherein the infrared emitter is configured to emit infrared radiation in a first direction, and the optical element is configured to interact with the emitted infrared radiation such that infrared radiation downstream of the optical element travels in a second direction different to the first direction (Wang, pg. 3).
Regarding claim 6, modified Karbakhsh discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 4, wherein the optical element comprises a plurality of mirrors (Wang; reflectors 6032).
Regarding claim 7, modified Karbakhsh discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 4, wherein the guide mechanism comprises a further optical element, the further optical element (convex or concave lens) configured to refract the infrared radiation (Wang; third paragraph on pg. 9).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karbakhsh (US 20180103741 A1) in view of Murakami (US 20050128291 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Karbakhsh discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 8, except wherein the imaging sensor comprises at least one of a thermal imaging sensor and a visible light imaging sensor.
However, Murakami teaches an object tracking camera system comprising a thermal (IR) imaging sensor and a visible light imaging sensor (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Karbakhsh wherein the imaging sensor comprises at least one of a thermal imaging sensor and a visible light imaging sensor. The motivation to combine is to improve the tracking capability of the location determination module. This feature would be especially useful in low light conditions when visible light levels are low.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karbakhsh (US 20180103741 A1) in view of Kim (KR 200369961 Y1).
Regarding claim 13, Karbakhsh discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 1, except wherein the heat source comprises a laser light source.
However, Kim teaches a hair dryer wherein the heat source comprises a laser light source (abstract).
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Karbakhsh wherein the heat source comprises a laser light source, in order to stimulate the scalp, prevent hair loss, etc (see pgs. 1 and 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/JASON LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762