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 § 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 1-22 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.
For claims 1 and 21, the indefinite claim language is “ wherein airflow through the air outlet is more restricted when the moveable member is in the retracted position than when the moveable member is in the extended position”. This limitation is unclear because this limitation merely states a function (airflow through the air outlet is more restricted) without providing any indication about how the function is performed. The recited function does not follow from the structure recited in the claim, i.e. moveable member, so it is unclear whether the function requires some other structure or is simply a result of operating the attachment in a certain manner.
Since claims 2-20, 22 depend upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-13, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhard (US 2019/0313761 A1) in view of Ehlhardt et al. (US 6,089,239) or Su (CN 2598409 Y).
With regard to claim 1, Gebhard discloses an attachment 120 for a haircare appliance 100 (Fig. 1), the attachment 120 comprising an air inlet (Fig. 1, not numbered, at right end of 120 that connected to the haircare appliance 100), a member 126 comprising an air outlet 124 for emitting an airflow (Fig. 3), and a hair treatment chamber (formed by concave surface 122, paragraph [0018]) for receiving hair, the hair treatment chamber comprising an opening through which hair is insertable into the hair treatment chamber (Figs. 1-4), the opening defined by a rim of the hair treatment chamber (Figs. 1-4).
With regard to claim 21, Gebhard discloses a haircare appliance 100 comprising: an air inlet 110 (Fig. 1, paragraph [0017] last two lines); a member 126 comprising an air outlet 124; an airflow generator for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet (paragraph [0016], fan); and a hair treatment chamber (formed by concave surface 122, paragraph [0018]) for receiving hair, the hair treatment chamber comprising an opening through which hair is insertable into the hair treatment chamber (Figs. 1-4), the opening defined by a rim of the hair treatment chamber(Figs. 1-4).
However, Gebhard does not disclose the member is movable between an extended position at which the moveable member extends from the rim by a first extent and a retracted position at which the moveable member extends from the rim by a second extent less than the first extent. Ehlhardt et al. discloses an attachment 8 for a haircare appliance 1 (Fig. 1), the attachment 8 comprising a moveable member 12 extends from the rim by a first extent and a retracted position at which the moveable member extends from the rim by a second extent less than the first extent (Fig. 10, spring 30 extends and retracts the member 12). Su discloses an attachment 1 for a haircare appliance 1 (Fig. 1), the attachment 1 comprising a moveable member 2 extends from the rim by a first extent and a retracted position at which the moveable member extends from the rim by a second extent less than the first extent (Figs. 1-6 and the description of Figs. 1-6 disclose when needing to extend the finger 2, clockwise rotating the upper cover 13 to make it rotate relative to the base 12, whereby the upper cover 13 side of the guide column 131 toggle bracket 3, the bracket 3 out of the protrusion on the edge 32 then slides in the base 12 of the inner annular wall 121 of the inclined chute 1211, the chute 1211 of the lower slide and bracket 3 through the guide hole 31 along the guide 131 the upper cover 13 direction so as to realize the finger 2 protrudes outwards. When needs to return the finger 2, it only needs to rotate cover 13 in the opposite direction to realize the finger 2 retracted in the main body 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the attachment of Gebhard to provide the member of Gebhard with a moveable mechanism as taught by Ehlhardt et al. or Su in order to enable a better adaptation to the shape of the scalp and therefore providing a better comfort on use of the attachment. The modified attachment of Gebhard would result in the airflow through the air outlet is more restricted when the moveable member is in the retracted position than when the moveable member is in the extended position because the airflow through the air outlet 124 of Gebhard is restricted by surface 122 when the member 126 retracts from the extended position.
With regard to claim 2, Ehlhardt et al. discloses wherein the movable member is biased into the retracted position (Fig. 10, by spring 30).
With regard to claim 4, Su discloses wherein the attachment comprises a switching arrangement 3, 12-14, configured to move the moveable member 2 between the extended position and the retracted position.
With regard to claim 5, Su discloses wherein the switching arrangement 3, 12-14 comprises a rotational mechanism 13 configured to move the moveable member 2 between the extended position and the retracted position.
With regard to claim 6, Su discloses wherein the switching arrangement 3, 12-14 comprises a first portion 3 and a second portion 121, 1211, one of the first portion and the second portion configured to slide along a surface of the other of the second portion and the first portion (Figs. 1-6), wherein the first portion 3 comprises the moveable member 2 and the moveable member 2 is configured to move between the retracted position and the extended position when the one of the first portion and second portion slides along the surface of the other of the second portion and the first portion (description of Figs. 1-6).
With regard to claim 7, Ehlhardt et al. discloses wherein the moveable member 12 is configured to move between the extended position and the retracted position in response to a force applied by a user to the moveable member 12 (Fig. 10).
With regard to claim 8, both Ehlhardt et al. and Su disclose wherein airflow through the air outlet is unrestricted when the moveable member is in the extended position.
With regard to claim 9, Su discloses wherein airflow through the air outlet is restricted when the moveable member is in the retracted position (Su discloses the finger 2 retracted in the main body 1 for storing).
With regard to claim 10, Gebhard discloses wherein the air outlet 124 is configured to direct airflow toward the opening in the extended position (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 11, Gebhard as modified by Ehlhardt et al. or Su shows wherein the air outlet is configured to direct airflow away from the opening in the extended position.
With regard to claim 12, Gebhard discloses wherein the attachment comprises a plurality of members 126. Ehlhardt et al. discloses a plurality of movable member 12 and Su discloses a plurality of movable members 2.
With regard to claim 13, Ehlhardt et al. and Su disclose wherein the plurality of moveable members 12, 2 each comprise a respective air outlet 13, 21 respectively.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhard (US 2019/0313761 A1) in view of Ehlhardt et al. (US 6,089,239) or Su (CN 2598409 Y) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Bastien (US 5,235,760).
An attachment of Gebhard as modified by Ehlhardt et al. or Su as above includes all that is recited in claim 20 except for the attachment comprises a sensor configured to output a signal indicative of a property of hair within the hair treatment chamber in use. Bastien discloses an attachment 12 comprises a sensor 36 configured to output a signal indicative of a property of hair within the hair treatment chamber in use (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the attachment of Gebhard to include a sensor configured to output a signal indicative of a property of hair within the hair treatment chamber in use as taught by Bastien in order to control the treatment of the hair.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gebhard (US 2019/0313761 A1) in view of Ehlhardt et al. (US 6,089,239) or Su (CN 2598409 Y) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Stephens et al. (US 2017/0150796 A1).
With regard to claim 22, Gebhard further discloses wherein the haircare appliance 100 comprises a handle unit (not numbered, Fig. 1), and an attachment 120 comprising the air inlet, the member 126 comprising the air outlet 124, and the hair treatment chamber, that attachment removably attachable to the handle unit (paragraph [0016], last line). Ehlhardt et al. and Su disclose a movable member. The haircare appliance of Ehlhardt et al. as modified by Ehlhardt et al. or Su as above includes all that is recited in claim 22 except for the airflow generator is disposed in the handle unit. Stephens et al. discloses a haircare appliance 10 comprising an airflow generator 70 disposed in the handle unit 2 (Fig. 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to further modify the haircare appliance of Gebhard to dispose the airflow generator in the handle unit as taught by Stephens et al. in order to prevent the hair from being pulled into the airflow generator and therefore improve the safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 14-19 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. On pate 7 of remarks, the applicant argued that none of the cited references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest the limitation “wherein airflow through the air outlet is more restricted when the moveable member is in the retracted position than when the moveable member is in the extended position”. The examiner disagreed. The modified attachment of Gebhard would result in the airflow through the air outlet is more restricted when the moveable member is in the retracted position than when the moveable member is in the extended position because the airflow through the air outlet 124 of Gebhard is restricted by surface 122 when the member 126 retracts from the extended position. In response to applicant’s argument on pages 8-9 of remarks that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references and a modification would render Gebhard unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Gebhard discloses an attachment 120 for a haircare appliance comprising a member 126 with an air outlet 124 for emitting an airflow, to modify the attachment 120 of Gebhard to provide the member 126 of Gebhard with a moveable mechanism and make the member moveable as taught by Ehlhardt et al. or Su would be obvious to one skill in the art in order to enable a better adaptation to the shape of the scalp of different user and therefore providing a better comfort on use of the attachment for the user. The modification would not render Gebhard unsatisfactory or inoperable for its intended purpose of drying hair because when the member 126 of modified attachment of Gebhard is in extended position, the attachment of Gebhard would function as usual. In response to applicant’s argument on pages 9-10 of remarks that Su’s structural incompatibility with the claimed rim relationship, Su is used for the teaching of a moveable mechanism 2. To provide the member 126 of Gebhard with moveable mechanism 2 of Su would not render Gebhard unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of delivering airflow to hair within the treatment chamber of Gebhard. With regard to claim 2, spring 30 of Ehlhardt would biases the finger 12 into the retracted position while applying force on the finger 12.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, MICHAEL G HOANG can be reached at (571) 272-6460. 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY
Prosecution Insights