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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 26, 2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention Group II in the reply filed on May 26, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claimed method (Group I) and device (Group II) are not patentably distinct but are linked by the same or corresponding special technical features because they share the same core inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because as elaborated in pages 2-4 of the previous Office Action, the inventions listed as Groups I-II do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
The special technical feature of Group II is a device for generating nano-sized water particles. The device of claim 15 does not present a contribution over the prior art because it appears to lack an inventive step. In support of this position, the examiner cites Hirano et al. (JP 2019018195 A1). This reference has been written in Japanese; as such, the examiner has provided a translation as of Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2019018195A/en?oq=JP+2019018195+ accessed 23 March 2026, 11 printed pages). Hirano et al. (hereafter referred to as Hirano) is drawn to a fine water particle emitting device capable of emitting nanosize water particles, as of Hirano, page 1, title and abstract. The device of Hirano appears to be designed in the following manner, as of Hirano, figures 1-2 and 22-27, reproduced below.
PNG
media_image1.png
458
682
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This device has a controller, as of page 2 of translation, top line of translation, which is a controlling means. This device also has an emitting element, as of page 1 of translation, 7th line of claims, which appears to read on the required applying means.
As such, Group II does not share a special technical feature with the instant claims of Group I. Therefore, the claims are not so linked within the meaning of PCT Rule 13.2 so as to form a single inventive concept, and unity between Groups I-II is broken.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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: “fine water particle generating element” and “operation part” in claim 1 where “element” and “part” are the placeholder and “fine water particle generating” and “operation” are the functional language. And obviously, the limitations “means for applying” and “means for controlling” are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph for lacking sufficient written description of the invention. The terms "means for applying" and “means for controlling” are not adequately defined in the specification so as to lack proper written description under 112, first paragraph. The specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the entire claim function of terms “"means for applying" and “means for controlling.” See MPEP 2181.IV.
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 15-20 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.
Regarding claim 15, the terms "means for applying" and “means for controlling” are not adequately defined in the specification so as to lack clarity under 112, second paragraph. Consequently, the same clauses set forth above under the 112, first paragraph rejection obscure the metes and bounds of the terms "means for applying" and “means for controlling” to the extent that the scope of the limitation is indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the terms "means for applying" and “means for controlling” would be interpreted, as best understood, by the Examiner as a fan and a switch.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the applying means" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if "the applying means" refers to the "means for applying," in line 6. Clarification is respectfully requested. For the purpose of examination, "the applying means" will be interpreted as "means for applying."
The positively recited method steps/limitations such as “applying means for applying… (line 6 of claim 1)” and “controlling means for controlling… (line 9 of claim 1)” rendering the claim indefinite because claims 15-20 are apparatus claims. It is unclear what is the intention of the Applicant or significant of these positively recited method steps/limitations in apparatus claims. Clarification is respectfully requested. For the purpose of examination, these limitations are being interpreted as functional limitations.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 further recites the functional limitations of an apparatus, therefore, claim 16 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends (adding or further limiting the apparatus with structure). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Similar rejection applies to claim 17, where claim 17 further define a non-positively recited limitation, the fine water particles, having a temperature not exceeding 40°C to the target head part. Similar rejection applies to claim 18.
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 further recites the non-positively recited limitation, the “target head part” of a human body that uses the apparatus, therefore, claim 19 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends (adding or further limiting the apparatus with structure). Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Similar rejection applies to claim 20.
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) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hirano et al. (JP 2020116032. Hirano hereinafter).
With respect to claim 15, Hirano discloses a hair/scalp care device (Figs. 1-9) comprising: a fine water particle generating element (10) caused to be, by a temperature decrease, in an absorption state of absorbing moisture on a surface, and caused to be, by a temperature increase, in a release state of releasing moisture, having been absorbed, as fine water particles (paragraph 23) having a size of 50 nanometers or less (paragraph 22); applying means for applying (40) the fine water particles having been released from the fine water particle generating element to a target head part that is one or both of hair and a scalp of a human body; controlling means for controlling (64) the fine water particle generating element and the applying means; and an operation part (34 and 64) operated for (capable of) causing the fine water particles to be applied to the target head part between a period before execution of washing of the target head part and a period after execution of drying of the target head part (the blow dryer device 10 can used before, during and after the step of washing the hair of a user).
With respect to claim 16, Hirano discloses the hair/scalp care device according to claim 15, wherein the operation part is operated for (capable of) causing the fine water particles to be applied to the target head part between a period before execution of agent application to the target head part prior to the execution of the washing and a period after execution of drying of the target head part (the blow dryer device 10 can used before, during and after the step of washing the hair of a user).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hirano.
With respect to claim 17, Hirano discloses the hair/scalp care device according to claim 15, wherein the controlling means (capable of) applies fine water particles having a temperature not exceeding 40°C to the target head part (since the blow dryer device 10 uses heater 45 that composed of a metal plate, a heating wire, or the like, and can certainly heats the air flowing through the air flow passage 26 to a predetermined temperature. Paragraph 14).
Alternatively, Hirano fails to disclose wherein the controlling means applies fine water particles having a temperature not exceeding 40°C to the target head part.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply fine water particles having a temperature not exceeding 40°C to the target head part, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 18, Hirano discloses the hair/scalp care device according to claim 15, wherein the controlling means applies fine water particles having a temperature equal to or higher than a glass-transition temperature of a protein structure of hair to the target head part (since the blow dryer device 10 uses heater 45 that composed of a metal plate, a heating wire, or the like, and can certainly heats the air flowing through the air flow passage 26 to a predetermined temperature. Paragraph 14).
Alternatively, Hirano fails to disclose wherein the controlling means applies fine water particles having a temperature equal to or higher than a glass-transition temperature of a protein structure of hair to the target head part.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply fine water particles having a temperature equal to or higher than a glass-transition temperature of a protein structure of hair to the target head part, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 19, Hirano discloses the hair/scalp care device according to claim 15, wherein the target head part to which fine water particles are applied by the applying means includes hair (of the user), and the fine water particle generating element releases the fine water particles larger than a single molecule of water (before fully heating the water) to (capable of) allow the fine water particles to remain in hair and to improve a state of cuticles of hair.
Alternatively, Hirano fails to disclose wherein the target head part to which fine water particles are applied by the applying means includes hair, and the fine water particle generating element releases the fine water particles larger than a single molecule of water to allow the fine water particles to remain in hair and to improve a state of cuticles of hair.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fine water particles larger than a single molecule of water, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
With respect to claim 20, Hirano discloses the hair/scalp care device according to claim 15, wherein the target head part to which fine water particles are applied by the applying means includes hair (of the user), and the fine water particle generating element releases the fine water particles that are uncharged (paragraph 19) to allow the fine water particles to permeate into hair and to improve a state of cuticles of hair
Alternatively, Hirano fails to disclose wherein the target head part to which fine water particles are applied by the applying means includes hair, and the fine water particle generating element releases the fine water particles that are uncharged to allow the fine water particles to permeate into hair and to improve a state of cuticles of hair.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have fine water particles that are uncharged, since the claimed values are merely an optimum or workable range. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patents are cited to show the art with respect to a blow dryer device: Ono, Mailand, Harris et al., Lee et al., Taylor et al., Lindsay et al., Nakagawa et al., Saida, Takizawa et al. and Sabbatini.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHEE-CHONG LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am -5pm.
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, Arthur O. Hall can be reached at (571)270-1814. 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.
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 5, 2026
Prosecution Insights