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 § 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 1-2, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scott (US 3,645,007). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Scott as teaching:
a combination mist steamer and dryer (see title and abstract), comprising:
a top member comprising one or more hoods 15 and a mist outlet;
a mist generator 26 configured to expel mist through the mist outlet; and
a hair dryer motor 13, 20,
wherein the one or more hoods are configured to removably attach to the top member, substantially contain mist expelled by the mist outlet, and substantially contain air pushed by the hair dryer motor (figure 2). Scott also discloses the claim 2 feature of an intermediate member connected to the top member by a first hinge; and a bottom member connected to the intermediate member by a second hinge, wherein the first hinge and the second hinge are configured to allow the top member, the intermediate member, and the bottom member to collapse into a storage configuration when each of the first hinge and the second hinge are closed, in which each of the top member, the intermediate member, and the bottom member lie in parallel planes, the top member abuts the intermediate member, and the intermediate member abuts the bottom member, and adopt one or more use configurations when one or more of the first hinge and the second hinge are open (figures 1, 2, 5), the claim 7 feature wherein the one or more hoods comprise one or more air vents 40, 42 configured to accept at least a first portion of air pushed by the hair dryer motor; and one or more diffuser rods configured to accept at least a second portion of air pushed by the hair dryer motor, wherein the one or more hoods are configured to facilitate hair drying of one or more of textured hair and curly hair (column 3 line 70 through column 4 line 46), the claim 8 feature of an intermediate member connected to the top member; a bottom member connected to the intermediate member, the bottom member comprising an attachment slot; a mist tank, wherein the mist tank, the mist generator, and the hair dryer motor are each configured to attach to the attachment slot; and a hose attached to each of the top member and the bottom member (figures 1, 2), and the claim 11 feature wherein the hair dryer motor is configured to pump air at one or more of: a first setting comprising a low flow rate and a high temperature, a second setting comprising a high flow rate and a low temperature, and a third setting comprising a medium flow rate and a medium temperature, and the hair dryer motor is configured to allow a user to independently switch between each of the first setting, the second setting, and the third setting (column 4 line 69 through column 5 line 15).
Claim 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tadaka et al. (US 7,028,348). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Tadaka as teaching:
a method of treating hair (see title and abstract), comprising:
providing a combination mist steamer and dryer in a use configuration (column 8 lines 12-23 wherein the disclosed water vapor meets the claimed mist steam because both have the same structure and function and are used as a combination in a use® configuration);
steaming the hair with mist using the combination mist steamer and dryer in the use configuration (column 8 lines 42-49);
drying the hair with air using the combination mist steamer and dryer in the use configuration (column 9 lines 52-57),
wherein the combination mist steamer and dryer in the use configuration is configured to perform the steaming and drying independently or consecutively (column 3 lines 53-63). Tadaka also discloses the claim 19 feature wherein the combination mist steamer and dryer comprises the use configuration and a storage configuration, and the providing the combination mist steamer and dryer in the use configuration comprises changing from the storage configuration to the use configuration (figures 1, 4, 5).
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.
Claims 3-5, 9-10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scott in view of Tadaka. Scott discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the recited shape, one or more hoses, flow rate, temperature, heating coil operation, centrifugal ducted fan, mist tank volume, or digital control panel configuration. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite those features since the teachings of Scott would perform the invention as claimed regardless of those features and applicant has not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability. Furthermore, Scott discloses the claimed invention, except for the claim 5 drain. Tadaka discloses that feature at column 3 lines 4-32. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Scott with Tadaka to remove moisture from a hair dryer in order to provide dry air. Finally Scott in view of Tadaka discloses the claimed invention, except for the claim 6 semi-permeable cover. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite that feature since the teachings of Scott in view of Tadaka would perform the invention as claimed regardless of that feature and applicant has not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
Double Patenting
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,779,092. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to include the currently claimed hair dryer motor or dryer, with the patent claimed invention, since both have the same structure and function and applicant has not claimed or specified the criticality of that feature as being necessary for patentability.
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 reasonable or proper under current Office practice and procedure. References A, B, cited with this action, are patent publications from the same inventive entity. References C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, N, O, P, Q, R, cited with this action teach dryers and methods thereof.
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.
Monday, January 5, 2026
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753