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
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.
Claims 1, 2, 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent Publication 2016/0220005 to Steele.
In Reference to Claim 1
Steele discloses a hair dryer comprising: a main body (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner); a fan (Fig. 2, 24) disposed inside the main body and configured to generate a flow of air in the main body; and a nozzle connected to the main body so that the air in the main body flows into the nozzle, wherein the nozzle includes: a nozzle body (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) having an inner space, a nozzle partition wall (Fig. 2, 28) inside the nozzle body and dividing the inner space into a first nozzle passage (Fig. 2, 14a) and a second nozzle passage (Fig. 2, 14b), a plurality of first nozzle holes (As showed in Fig.1, the Office considers that the mesh opening forms a plurality of holes) formed in the nozzle body so as to communicate with the first nozzle passage, and a plurality of second nozzle holes (As showed in Fig.1, the Office considers that the mesh opening forms a plurality of holes) formed in the nozzle body so as to communicate with the second nozzle passage, and the nozzle is configured so that air flowing from the main body into the first nozzle passage is discharged through the plurality of first nozzle holes in a first direction, and air flowing from the main body into the second nozzle passage is discharged through the plurality of second nozzle holes in a second direction that is different from the first direction. (As showed in Fig. 2, the air passage 14a and 14b are separated from each other)
In Reference to Claim 2
Steele discloses the nozzle includes: a nozzle inlet formed in the nozzle body and through which the air flows from the main body into the nozzle, and the nozzle inlet includes: a first nozzle inlet (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) through which the air flows from the main body into the first nozzle passage, and a second nozzle inlet (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) through which the air flows from the main body into the second nozzle passage, the second nozzle inlet being divided from the first nozzle inlet by the nozzle partition wall (Fig. 2, 28).
In Reference to Claim 9
Steele discloses the first nozzle passage is formed between a first end at which the first nozzle inlet (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) is disposed and a second end (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) located opposite to the first end, and the nozzle partition wall (Fig. 2, 28) extends from the first end to the second end.
In Reference to Claim 10
Steele discloses the nozzle includes: a communication portion (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) in the inner space and through which the first nozzle passage and the second nozzle passage communicate.
In Reference to Claim 11
Steele discloses the nozzle includes: a first nozzle (Fig. 2, 14a), and a second nozzle (Fig. 2, 14b), spaced apart from the first nozzle (AS showed in Fig. 2, they spaced by the separation wall 28).
PNG
media_image1.png
619
698
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steele.
In Reference to Claims 12-14
Steele discloses the nozzle holes (The Office considers the mesh holes are the nozzle holes)
Steele does not teach the orientation and shape of those nozzle holes.
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 orientation and shape are merely a design choice.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-8 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 2/27/26
Prosecution Insights