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 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: “operational signal receiving module”, “external expansion device”, “proximity sensing module”, “cold-hot air generation module”, “power module”, and “expansion device power supply module” in claim 1 and “relative electrical connection module”, “signal generation module”, and “identification unit” in claim 7.
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.
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
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 1-9 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 limitations “operational signal receiving module” in claim 1 and “relative electrical connection module” in claim 7 invoke 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. The Specification describes the above modules in terms of function but fail to specify any corresponding structure for performing the recited 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.
Claims 2-6 and 8-9 are also rejected by virtue of their dependence on claims 1 and 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2022146119 A1 to Kim et al. (Kim). For the purposes of examination, the English-language equivalent US 20240057739 A1 will be used for the claim analysis below.
In reference to independent claim 1, Kim discloses:
A hairdryer (10), comprising:
an operational signal receiving module (700) configured to receive operational signals transmitted by an external expansion device (200) when the external expansion device is connected to the hairdryer (100) (see [0064], [0098]);
a proximity sensing module (130) configured to sense an identification signal of the external expansion device (see [0085]);
a cold-hot air generation module (310 and 120, see 0056] and [0060]) coupled with the operational signal receiving module and configured to provide an output airflow, wherein when the external expansion device (200) is connected to the hairdryer (100), the cold-hot air generation module adjusts an operating temperature and airflow volume of the output airflow based on the operational signals (see [0064]);
a power module coupled (500 and 700) with the proximity sensing module (130) and configured to determine whether to supply power required to operate the hairdryer based on the identification signal (see [0064]-[0065], see also [0070] in the case that the diffuser 200 performs additional functions); and
an expansion device power supply module (250) coupled with the power module and configured to provide power required to operate the external expansion device when connected to the hairdryer (see [0069]-[0070]).
In reference to dependent claim 9, Kim further discloses the proximity sensing module (130) is a Hall sensor (131, see [0086]).
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(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of WO 2022146119 A1 to Kim et al. (Kim) in view of CN 102309122 A to Yasui et al. (Yasui).
In reference to dependent claim 2, Kim further discloses a housing or shell (not numbered, see e.g. Fig. 4 and diffuser housing 240). However, Kim is silent regarding a transparent protective shell, and a pattern layer is disposed between the transparent protective shell and the outer shell.
Yasui teaches a similar hairdryer (1) having a housing (3) provided with a transparent or semi-transparent shell including a decorative shell (20 and 21) (see [0048]), the decorative shall including a diamond pattern (see Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shell of the hair dryer of Kim to include a transparent shell and a decorative shell as taught by Yasui as the shell provides a protective housing for the mechanical and electronic components of the hair dryer and the diamond pattern is merely decorative and would have been a matter of design choice to one having ordinary skill in the art.
In reference to dependent claim 3, Kim further discloses the outer shell (see Fig. 4) comprises a gripping portion (handle 300) provided with an operational interface (“power button”, see [0062] and Fig. 4) for performing functional operations of the hairdryer (see [0062]).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of WO 2022146119 A1 to Kim et al. (Kim) in view of CN 102309122 A to Yasui et al. (Yasui), further in view of KR 20190071878 A to Bae et al. (Bae).
In reference to dependent claim 4, Kim further discloses power button (see [0062] and Fig. 4). However, Kim and Yasui are silent regarding a timer button, an airflow adjustment button, and a temperature adjustment button.
Bae similarly teaches a hair dryer. The hair dryer of Bae includes a power button (510), a wind speed (i.e. airflow adjustment) button (520), an air temperature button (530) and a timer button (on a remote control, see claims).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the hair dryer of Kim and Yasui to include a timer button, an airflow adjustment button, and a temperature adjustment button as taught by Bae in addition to the power button for more targeted control of the hair dryer as desired by the user. Even though the hair dryer of Bae is a wall mounted dryer whereas the hair dryers of Kim and Yasui are handheld, implementing the different buttons onto the handle of the hair dryer of Kim in view of Yasui would have made tailored control of the device more accessible and convenient to the user.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of WO 2022146119 A1 to Kim et al. (Kim) in view of CN 102309122 A to Yasui et al. (Yasui), further in view of CN 116648164 A to Peel et al. (Peel).
In reference to dependent claim 5, Kim and Yasui are silent regarding a display screen coupled with the operational interface for displaying operational information of the hairdryer.
Peel teaches a hair care appliance (10) that is used for similarly drying hair. The appliance of Peel further includes a user interface (32) which may also include a touch screen (see highlighted and underlined portion on page 6 of the attached Clarivate generated translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hair dryer of Kim and Yasui to include a screen as taught by Peel in order to display information of interest to the user as part of the user interface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to dependent claim 6, though Yasui teaches a decorative shell with a diamond cut pattern, the decorative shell of Yasui is not an electronic paper. In addition, usage of electronic paper in display devices for hair dryers is known as evidenced by US 20170033287 A1 to Chida (see [0428]). However, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach the pattern layer being an electronic paper coupled with the power module.
In reference to dependent claim 7, Kim further discloses a module (250) of the diffuser (200) that performs various functions (see [0069]) and when the hair dryer (10) recognizes that it is coupled to the diffuser (200), power is supplied to the module (250) to performed such functions (see [0070]); and a magnetic body (211) inside the diffuser (200) which produces magnetism sensed by the sensor assembly (130) (see [0085]). However, the prior art of record does not disclose or teach a signal generation module configured to generate the operational signals when the external expansion device is powered on.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ngoc T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7176. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at (571) 270-7878. 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.
/NGOC T NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799