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:
Airflow generator for generating an airflow, as recited in claims 1 and 18.
Signal generator configured to generate a signal indicative of hair contacting the haircare appliance, as recited in claims 1 and 17.
Movable member configured to move in response to contact with hair, and movement of the moveable member acts as a trigger for the signal generator to generate the signal, as recited in claim 4.
Contact portion for contacting hair, as recited in claim 17.
Receiver configured to receive a signal indicative of hair contacting the haircare appliance, as recited in claim 18.
Engagement mechanism for engaging the movable member, as recited in claim 5.
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 structure described in the specification (see pgpub for citations) is/are:
Airflow generator [Wingdings font/0xE0] impellor with electric motor (para. 55)
Signal generator [Wingdings font/0xE0] RFID tag, sensor (e.g., capacitive sensor), switches, electrically conductive rings (paras. 65, 68, 69, 71, 74)
Moveable member [Wingdings font/0xE0] bristle pad (para. 15)
Contact portion [Wingdings font/0xE0] bristles (para. 38)
Receiver [Wingdings font/0xE0] none disclosed
Engagement mechanism [Wingdings font/0xE0] switch (paras. 19, 20)
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 § 112
Claim limitation, “receiver configured to receive a signal indicative of hair contacting the haircare appliance”, in claim 18, invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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) 1-3, 14, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Yoda (JP 2012239615 A).
Regarding claim 1, Yoda discloses (see Figures and English translation for citations) a haircare appliance comprising:
an air inlet (22);
an air outlet (23);
an airflow generator (blower/fan 5) for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet; and
a signal generator (friction sensor 10) configured to generate a signal indicative of hair contacting the haircare appliance (abstract);
wherein the airflow generator comprises a first operating mode (mode during time period t > T1; see Figs. 4, 9, 10) in which the airflow generator generates airflow at a first flow rate (i.e., a rate, including zero flow, below the second flow rate), and a second operating mode (mode during time period t < T1) in which the airflow generator generates airflow at a second flow rate greater than the first flow rate (the air flow changes based on the measured friction coefficient detected from the friction sensor 10; see bottom of pg. 2), and the airflow generator is configured to operate in the first operating mode (t > T1) in the absence of the signal (the signal is the measured friction coefficient corresponding to a ratio of 6/8 of the initial friction coefficient μ0, or lower, which is a period t >T1; therefore, a signal that does not correspond to this particular ratio or lower, i.e., a period of t <T1, is considered an absence of that signal) and in the second operating mode in the presence of the signal (a signal during the period t < T1).
Regarding claim 2, Yoda discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 1, wherein the haircare appliance comprises a plurality of bristles (Fig. 1, 41) for contacting hair, and the signal generator is configured to generate the signal when hair contacts the plurality of bristles (the friction sensor 10 is positioned within the bristles 41).
Regarding claim 3, Yoda discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 1, wherein the signal generator comprises a sensor (friction sensor 10) for detecting the presence of hair, and the signal generator is configured to generate the signal based on an output of the sensor (abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Yoda discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 1 wherein the haircare appliance comprises a handle unit (Fig. 1, 2) within which the airflow generator (5) is disposed, and an attachment (Fig. 2, 4) comprising a contact portion (41) for contacting hair, the attachment defining the air outlet (Fig. 1, 23) and housing the signal generator (Fig. 2: the friction generator 10 is housed within the bristles 41).
Regarding claim 17, Yoda discloses an attachment for a haircare appliance comprising an airflow generator (Fig. 1, blowing part 5) disposed in a handle unit (2), the attachment comprising an air outlet (blower port 23), a contact portion (bristles 41) for contacting hair, and a signal generator (friction generator 10) for generating a signal indicative of hair contacting the contact portion.
Regarding claim 18, Yoda discloses (see rejection of claim 1 for citations unless otherwise noted) a handle unit for a haircare appliance, the handle unit comprising a receiver (Fig. 1 shows an electrical connection, i.e., receiver, connecting the friction sensor 10 with the control part 8) configured to receive a signal indicative of hair contacting the haircare appliance,
and an airflow generator for generating an airflow through the haircare appliance, wherein the airflow generator comprises a first operating mode in which the airflow generator generates airflow at a first flow rate, and a second operating mode in which the airflow generator generates airflow at a second flow rate greater than the first flow rate, and the airflow generator is configured to operate in the first operating mode in the absence of the signal and in the second operating mode in the presence of the signal.
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) 4, 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda (JP 2012239615 A).
Regarding claim 4, Yoda discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 1, wherein the haircare appliance comprises a movable member configured to move in response to contact with hair, and movement of the moveable member acts as a trigger for the signal generator (see Comment 1 below) to generate the signal (portion of the friction sensor that comprises a silicon contact, or piezoresistive element, that detects a change in force, which means it moves in response to the force; see pg., 2, “As the friction sensor 10, a sensor having…”).
Comment 1. For this claim, there is no signal generator disclosed since the friction sensor is cited to be the movable member. It is unclear how the friction sensor 10 generates the signal after detecting the force from the silicon contact or piezoresistive element. However, Official Notice is taken that it is well-known and common knowledge for sensors to have signal amplifiers (i.e., signal generators) for amplifying the detected signal, and it would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify the friction sensor 10 to have a signal generator so that the control part 8 can receive a clear signal. The resulting modification would reduce errors in reading the signal from the movable member.
Regarding claim 11, modified Yoda discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 4, wherein the haircare appliance comprises a plurality of movable members configured to move individually in response to contact with hair, and the movement of any of the plurality of movable members acts as a trigger for the signal generator to generate the signal (pg. 11, “Moreover, in each said embodiment, although the friction sensor…”).
Regarding claim 12, modified Yoda discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 11, wherein the plurality of movable members are spaced about the haircare appliance (pg. 11, “Moreover, in each said embodiment, although the friction sensor…”).
Regarding claim 13, Yoda discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 1, except wherein the signal generator is configured to transmit the signal wirelessly to the airflow generator. However, Official Notice is taken that it is well-known and common knowledge for a sensor to communicate wirelessly with another device.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to modify Yoda wherein the signal generator is configured to transmit the signal wirelessly to the airflow generator for ease of assembly. This is because wireless communication reduces the need for running electrical wires.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoda (JP 2012239615 A) in view of Liu (CN 207148588 U).
Regarding claims 4, 5, Yoda discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in claim 1, except wherein the signal generator comprises an engagement mechanism for engaging the movable member, the movable member comprises a rest position in which the movable member is spaced from the engagement mechanism, and an engaged position in which the movable member is in contact with the engagement mechanism, and the movable member is biased into the rest position.
However, Liu teaches a force sensor comprising wherein the signal generator comprises an engagement mechanism (Fig. 4, 2) for engaging the movable member (Fig. 4, 4), the movable member comprises a rest position in which the movable member is spaced from the engagement mechanism (Fig. 4), and an engaged position in which the movable member is in contact with the engagement mechanism (Fig. 4), and the movable member is biased into the rest position (Fig. 4) (see also second to last paragraph on pg. 3). Liu further teaches that the movable member acts as a trigger for the signal generator (1, 3, 5, and 7) to generate the signal.
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art at the time of effective filing of the application to substitute Yoda’s friction sensor (i.e., force sensor 10) with Liu’s force sensor since it is a simple substitution of one type of force sensor for another.
Regarding claim 6, modified Yoda discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 5, wherein the engagement mechanism comprises a switch (Liu, 2) that changes a state of an electrical circuit when the switch is engaged by the movable member (Liu, 4), and a change in state of the electrical circuit causes provision of the signal (see Liu, second to last paragraph on pg. 3).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-10, 15, 16 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