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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 is construed to be indefinite because the recitation “said one insulative sheet” (singular sheet) lacks a positive antecedent basis. Since claims 5-6 depend upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herrmann, Jr. (US 4,116,521). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Herrmann as teaching:
a sleeve for a barrel of a handheld dryer (construed to be a statement of intended use and not give patentable weight since the recitation “for a barrel of a handheld dryer” merely gives what a sleeve may be used and is not a limitation in the body of the claim), the sleeve comprising:
an alternating arrangement of elastic sheets 20 (column 2 line 46 through column 3 line 5) and insulative sheets 76 (column 3 lines 19-34), wherein said sheets are joined by way of their longitudinal edges or inward thereof to define a tubular body (figures 2, 3 wherein the lateral joints meet the structure and function of the claimed longitudinal edges or inward thereof because both define a tubular body); and
a securement mechanism connecting along one of the insulative sheets for selectively stretching adjacent elastic sheets joined thereto (column 3 line 35-41 wherein the disclosed seal meets the claimed securement mechanism because both connect components in a secure means and wherein the disclosed integral connection meets the claimed selective stretching because both have the same structure and function using the disclosed elastomeric silicon rubber 20 and jacket 76 of an inward radial joint). Herrmann also disclosed the claim 2 feature wherein the elastic sheets bias the tubular body toward a flat condition (column 4 lines 16-41 wherein the disclosed crimp meets the claimed flat condition because both are in the claimed flat or crimped condition), the claim 3 feature wherein the insulative sheets are approximately coextensive, and wherein the flat condition is defined by the insulative sheets aligned in a stacked position (figures 2, 3 which shows the claimed stack in a radial direction).
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 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Shoshani et al. (US 2018/0085060). Herrmann discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the claimed zipper securement mechanism. Shoshani, another sleeve type device, teaches that feature in paragraph [0049]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a zipper fastener, since both the claimed invention and the teaching prior art show that zippers can be used to fasten components.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Shoshani et al. in further view of Moloney et al. (US 9,808,066). Herrmann in view of Shoshani discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the claimed nozzle attachment. Moloney, another sleeve type device, teaches that feature at column 11 lines 16-34 and shown in figures 5, 6. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use a nozzle attachment, since both the claimed invention and the teaching prior art show that nozzle attachments can be operatively associated with a barrel.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this action, may teach one or more claim features but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting such that a rejection would be proper or reasonable under current Office practice and procedure. Reference A, cited with this action is a patent publication from the same inventive entity as the current application. References B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, N, O, cited with this action, teach sleeve type devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753 Monday, November 24, 2025