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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “gripping surface” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent 8,475,510 to Simon.
In Reference to Claims 1 and 6
Simon discloses a diffuser, comprising: a hollow rectangular head piece having an outer surface (Fig. 1, 110) and an inner surface (Fig. 1, 120) connected to the outer surface by a flange (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner), wherein the hollow rectangular head piece is bent (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner); an air inlet (Fig. 1, 50) disposed on the outer surface of the hollow rectangular head piece and configured to receive air discharged from a hair dryer, wherein the hair dryer may be removably (As showed in Fig. 1) coupled to the air inlet; a plurality of holes (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) distributed sporadically on the inner surface of the hollow rectangular head piece; and a plurality of protrusions (Fig. 1, 132) distributed sporadically on the inner surface of the hollow rectangular head piece, wherein each of the plurality of protrusions extends from the inner surface toward a center of the semi-circle, wherein an interior of the hollow rectangular head piece forms a channel for air flow, wherein the channel directs air from the air inlet through said plurality of holes.
Simon discloses a bend inner surface. Simon does not teach the inner surface is bent to a semi-circle shape. According to MPEP: “the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Therefore, the Office considers that the shape of the bent inner surface is merely a design choice.
PNG
media_image1.png
670
725
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Reference to Claim 2
Simon discloses the claimed invention except for “ the plurality of holes has different sizes and the spacing from each other is not uniform.” It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the air passage holes since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
In Reference to Claim 3
Simon discloses the protrusions contain holes from which the air is also distributed. (as showed in Fig. 1, the protrusion is hollow tube)
In Reference to Claim 4
Simon discloses the claimed invention except for “ the protrusion has different lengths.” According to MPEP: “the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to determine the length of the protrusions.
In Reference to Claim 5
Simon discloses said holes and protrusions are evenly distributed throughout said inner surface. (As showed in Fig. 1)
In Reference to Claim 9
Simon discloses A method of drying hair, said method comprising the steps of: providing a diffuser including: a hollow rectangular head piece (As showed in Fig. 1) having an outer surface (Fig. 1, 110) and an inner surface (Fig. 1, 120) connected to the outer surface by a flange, wherein the head piece is bent (As showed in Fig. 1); an air inlet (Fig. 1, 50) disposed on the outer surface of the hollow rectangular head piece and configured to receive air discharged from a hair dryer, wherein the hair dryer may be removably coupled to the air inlet; a plurality of holes (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) distributed sporadically on the inner surface of the hollow rectangular head piece; and a plurality of protrusions (Fig. 1, 132) distributed sporadically on the inner surface of the hollow rectangular head piece, wherein each of the plurality of protrusions extends from the inner surface toward a center of the semi-circle; wherein an interior of the hollow rectangular head piece forms a channel (Fig. 1, show a chamber is formed between the outer surface and the inner surface) for air flow, wherein the channel directs air from the air inlet through said plurality of holes; coupling said hair dryer with said air inlet so that air discharged from the hair drying is directed from the air inlet through the hollow rectangular head piece to said plurality of holes; bringing said inner surface with a plurality of holes and protrusions into a close proximity of a person's wet hair; manipulating said hair dryer so the air is discharged from the hair dryer and is pushed through said inlet to flow and be-released through a plurality of holes on the-inner surface; manipulating the diffuser around the person's wet hair, resulting in hair falling among the protrusions and getting dry while curling around said protrusions. (Since Simon discloses the hair diffuser, the process of using the hair diffuser on the user is an obvious process)
Simon discloses a bend inner surface. Simon does not teach the inner surface is bent to a semi-circle shape. According to MPEP: “the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device.” Therefore, the Office considers that the shape of the bent inner surface is merely a design choice.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon in view of US Patent Publication 2018/0064227 to Matheny.
In Reference to Claim 7
Simons discloses an annular insert (Fig. 1, 50) disposed in the air inlet
Simons does not teach the material of the insert.
Matheny teaches the annular insert (Fig. 3, 34) is made of silicone (Paragraph 36)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Matheny into the design of Simon. Doing so, would result in the inlet connector is made in silicon. Both inventions of Simons and Matheny have inlet connectors between the air source and the outlet port. Matheny teaches a silicon air connector which has an improved flexibility in terms of size and shape.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon in view of US Patent Publication 2013/0174439 to Ragosta.
In Reference to Claim 8
Simon discloses the diffuser.
Simon does not teach the inner surface is covered with a gripping finish.
Ragosta teach the inner surface (Fig. 2, 39) is cover by a gripping finish (Fig. 2, 26, the office considers that the mesh 26 is the griping finish)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to incorporate teachings from Rogosta into the design of Simon. Doing so, would result in a mesh surface being attached to the inner surface of the Simon. Both inventions of Simon and Rogosta are in the same field of endeavor, Rogosta teaches a mesh surface reduces the velocity of the heated air passing through the mesh to achieve a fast drying (Paragraph 23)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent 5,235,759, US Patent 5,488,783, USD462141.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at 5712705614. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3748
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 10/9/25