DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Claims 1-12 are examined
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yamaguchi (WO 2019073942, wherein translation is used for reference).
Regarding Claim 7: Yamaguchi discloses a wireless hair straightener (see annotated figure ‘942 comprising: a first switch (22; Fig. 5), a first heating resistor (12; Fig. 5), a second heating resistor (11; Fig. 5), a second switch (23; Fig. 5), and a battery (15; Fig. 5) sequentially connected in series (see annotated figure ‘942) between a first end (see annotated figure ‘942) of an external power supply (27; Fig. 5) and a reference node (see annotated figure ‘942); and a controller (see [0048] wherein a user control the switch) configured to control on and off operations of the first switch and the second switch (see [0048]), wherein: the battery is configured to be charged by the external power supply (see path 36, 23, 15; Fig. 5), a connection point (see annotated figure ‘942) between the first heating resistor and the second heating resistor is connected to the reference node (see annotated figure ‘942), and a second end (positive terminal of 28; Fig. 5) of the external power supply is connected to the reference node.
PNG
media_image1.png
1104
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 12: Yamaguchi discloses all the limitations of Claim 7, and further discloses wherein the reference node is a ground node (see Fig.5 wherein all the return path arrives on the positive).
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (WO 2019073942) in view of Dhadwal (US 2022/0113750).
Regarding Claim 8: Yamaguchi discloses all the limitations of Claim 7, as stated above, but I silent regarding the first switch comprises a P-channel metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET), and the second switch comprises a P-channel MOSFET.
However, Dhadwal teaches a heating system (see title) having a switch comprises a P-channel metal-oxide-semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET) ([0167]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second switches of Yamaguchi to have the first and second switches comprise P-channel transistor MOSFET, as taught by Dhadwal. Such a modification will allow to automatically turn on or off the switches.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaguchi (WO 2019073942) in view of Persons (US 2020/0194398).
Regarding Claim 9: Yamaguchi discloses all the limitations of Claim 9, as stated above, and further discloses the first heating resistor and the second heating resistor are ceramic heaters (see [0081]), but is silent the first heating resistor having a higher resistance value than the second heating resistor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reverse the first and second heating resistors (in Fig. 5 the first resistor is shorter than the second resistor 9), since it has been held that mere relocation of an element would not have modified the operation of the device. (In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)).
(In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950)). (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Yamaguchi teaches all the above limitations, but is silent regarding the heating resistor using palladium as a heating element.
However, Persons a heating system (Title) having a heating resistor using palladium as a heating element ([0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first and second heating resistor of Yamaguchi to have the first and second heating resistor using palladium as a heating element, as taught by Persons. Such a modification will allow to have a low intrinsic resistivity.
Allowable subject matter
Regarding Claims 1-6, and 10-11:
Claims 1-6 are allowed.
Claims 10-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the above objections, if present, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Prior art fails to teach, “a first switch, a first heating resistor, and a second heating resistor which are sequentially connected in series between a first end of the external power supply and a reference node;a second switch, wherein a first end of the second switch is connected to a connection point between the first switch and the first heating resistor, and a second end of the second switch is connected to the reference node; a third switch, wherein a first end of the third switch is connected to a connection point between the first heating resistor and the second heating resistor, and a second end of the third switch is connected to a first end of the battery” (for Claim 1) ; “the controller is configured to: when the external power supply is not connected, control the first switch to be off and the second switch to be on, and when the external power supply is connected, control the first switch to be on and the second switch to be on” (for Claim 11); “he controller is configured to:when the external power supply is not connected, control the first switch to be off, and control switching operations of the second switch according to a pulse width modulation (PWM) duty ratio for maintaining the target temperature, and 28 when the external power supply is connected, control switching operations of the first switch according to the PWM duty ratio for maintaining the target temperature, and control the second switch to be off.” (for Claim 12)
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571- 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights