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 § 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-5, 7-12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens (US 2016/0367005) in view of Liu (US 2021/0282524).
As for claim 1, Stephens discloses a diffuser for attachment to an airflow outlet end of a hair dryer, the diffuser comprising: at least one air inlet for receiving an airflow from a hair dryer (12, fig. 1); a grille comprising a central portion and a plurality of air outlets for emitting a first part of the airflow from the diffuser (40, fig. 1); and a plurality of projections upstanding from the grille for contacting the hair of a user and for emitting a second part of the airflow, each of the projections comprising a single air outlet (60, 62, fig. 1); wherein the plurality of projections comprise a set of inner projections arranged about the central portion of the grille, and a set of outer projections arranged about the inner projections (60, 62, fig. 1), and the air outlets of the outer projections are arranged to emit air towards the central portion of the grille (62, fig. 1).
Stephens discloses the claimed invention except for the air outlets of a first subset of inner projections are arranged to emit air away from the central portion of the grille and the air outlets of a second subset of inner projections are arranged to emit air towards the central portion of the grille. Liu teaches the air outlets of a first subset of inner projections are arranged to emit air away from the central portion of the grille and the air outlets of a second subset of inner projections are arranged to emit air towards the central portion of the grille ([0047], last sentence) in order to further increase the diversification of the air outlet direction of the diffuser. Stephens would benefit equally from further increasing the diversification of the air outlet direction of the diffuser. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Stephens with the air outlets of a first subset of inner projections are arranged to emit air away from the central portion of the grille and the air outlets of a second subset of inner projections are arranged to emit air towards the central portion of the grille as taught by Liu in order to further increase the diversification of the air outlet direction of the diffuser.
As for claim 2, Stephens discloses the inner projections are arranged in an annular array (60, fig. 1)
As for claim 3, Stephens discloses the inner projections are arranged about some of the air outlets of the grille (60, 42, fig. 1).
As for claim 4, Stephens discloses the claimed invention except for the number of projections in the first subset of inner projections is equal to the number of projections in the second subset of inner projections. Liu teaches the number of projections in the first subset of inner projections is equal to the number of projections in the second subset of inner projections ([0047], last sentence) in order to further increase the diversification of the air outlet direction of the diffuser. Stephens would benefit equally from further increasing the diversification of the air outlet direction of the diffuser. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Stephens with the number of projections in the first subset of inner projections is equal to the number of projections in the second subset of inner projections as taught by Liu in order to further increase the diversification of the air outlet direction of the diffuser.
Examiner notes that Liu does not expressly teach equal number of projections for the first set and second set. However, the teaching of Liu is to increase the diversification of the air outlet direction of the diffuser, which is best accomplished by numbering projections in the first subset of inner projections to be equal to the number of projections in the second subset of inner projections and thus obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
As for claim 5, Stephens discloses the inner projections are arranged at equiangular intervals (60, fig. 1, illustrated at equiangular intervals).
As for claim 7, Stephens discloses the air outlets of first subset of inner projections are arranged to emit air radially away from the central portion of the grille and the second subset of inner projections are arranged to emit air radially towards the central portion of the grille. Liu teaches the air outlets of first subset of inner projections are arranged to emit air radially away from the central portion of the grille and the second subset of inner projections are arranged to emit air radially towards the central portion of the grille ([0047], last sentence) in order to further increase the diversification of the air outlet direction of the diffuser. Stephens would benefit equally from further increasing the diversification of the air outlet direction of the diffuser. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Stephens with the air outlets of first subset of inner projections are arranged to emit air radially away from the central portion of the grille and the second subset of inner projections are arranged to emit air radially towards the central portion of the grille as taught by Liu in order to further increase the diversification of the air outlet direction of the diffuser.
As for claim 8, Stephens discloses the outer projections are arranged in an annular array (62, fig. 1, illustrated in an annular array).
As for claim 9, Stephens discloses the set of inner projections and the set of outer projections are concentric (60, 62, fig. 1).
As for claim 10, Stephens discloses the angular spacing between adjacent inner projections is substantially the same as the angular spacing between adjacent outer projections (60, 62, fig. 1).
As for claim 11, Stephens discloses the outer projections are arranged at equiangular intervals (62, fig. 1, illustrated at equiangular intervals).
As for claim 12, Stephens discloses the air outlets of the outer projections are arranged to emit air radially towards the central portion of the grille (62, fig. 1).
As for claim 19, Stephens discloses the outer projections are located adjacent to the outer periphery of the diffuser (62, fig. 1).
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens in view of Liu as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Sakamoto (EP0940101A2).
As for claims 13-17 Stephens discloses the claimed invention except for a set of intermediary projections located between the inner projections and the outer projections; wherein each of the intermediary projections comprises a single air outlet arranged to emit air towards the central portion of the grille; wherein the air outlets of the intermediary projections are arranged to emit air radially towards the central portion of the grille; wherein the intermediary projections are angularly offset relative to both the inner projections and the outer projections; wherein the intermediary projections are arranged in an annular array. Sakamoto teaches a set of intermediary projections located between the inner projections and the outer projections (fig. 3a, 3 concentric rings illustrated); wherein each of the intermediary projections comprises a single air outlet arranged to emit air towards the central portion of the grille (6a, fig. 3a); wherein the air outlets of the intermediary projections are arranged to emit air radially towards the central portion of the grille (6c, fig. 3a); wherein the intermediary projections are angularly offset relative to both the inner projections and the outer projections (fig. 3a, illustrates three annular rigs offset); wherein the intermediary projections are arranged in an annular array (6a, fig. 3a, intermediary ring) in order to provide a more uniform distribution of air. Stephens would benefit equally from providing a more uniform distribution of air. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Stephens with a set of intermediary projections located between the inner projections and the outer projections; wherein each of the intermediary projections comprises a single air outlet arranged to emit air towards the central portion of the grille; wherein the air outlets of the intermediary projections are arranged to emit air radially towards the central portion of the grille; wherein the intermediary projections are angularly offset relative to both the inner projections and the outer projections; wherein the intermediary projections are arranged in an annular array as taught by Sakamoto in order to provide a more uniform distribution of air.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stephens in view of Liu as applied to claim 1 and further in view of Leventhal (US 2005/0108889).
Stephenson discloses the claimed invention except for the central portion of the grille comprises a circular unperforated grille area. Leventhal teaches the central portion of the grille comprises a circular unperforated grille area (fig. 4) in order to concentrate the flow of air for quicker drying. Stephenson would benefit equally from concentrating the flow of air for quicker drying. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Stephenson with the central portion of the grille comprises a circular unperforated grille area as taught by Leventhal in order to concentrate the flow of air for quicker drying.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 18 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Claim 6 include allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the first subset of inner projections and the second subset of inner projections are alternately arranged about the central portion of the grille with all of the limitations of independent claim 1. No prior art could be found to teach this feature.
Claim 18 include allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the number of intermediary projections is equal to the number of outer projections with all of the limitations of independent claim 1 and claim 13. The closest prior art is found in Sakamoto, which teaches intermediary projections but fewer intermediary projections than the number of outer projections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at 571-272-6785. 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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762