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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/3/2026 has been entered.
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, 4-8, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krups (DE 9214397) in view of Wada et al. (US 3,846,047).
With regard to claim 1, Krups discloses an attachment 14, 52 (Figs. 1, 12-13) for a haircare appliance 10 (translation, paragraph [0009], line 2), the attachment comprising an air inlet (at 50, Figs. 1, 12-13), an air outlet 22 for emitting an airflow, and a hair treatment chamber (Fig. 1, formed by the curved surface 33 of the upper part 21 of the diffuser 14) for receiving hair, the air outlet 22 configured to direct the airflow into the hair treatment chamber (Fig. 1), wherein the attachment 14, 52 comprises a conduit 30, 41, the conduit 30, 41 providing a flow path from the air inlet to air outlet, wherein the conduit 30, 41 comprises a first part 30 in flid communication with the air outlet 22 and fixed relative to the air outlet 22 (Fig. 1) and a second part 41 in fluid communication with the air inlet 50 and fixed relative to the air inlet (Fig. 1), the second part 41 moveable relative to the first part 30 (Figs. 2, 3), wherein the hair treatment chamber is movable from a first orientation relative to the air inlet (Fig. 12) to a second orientation relative to the air inlet (Fig. 13), the second orientation different to the first orientation (Figs. 12-13).
With regard to claim 17, Krups discloses a haircare appliance 10 comprising: an air inlet 13, 50; an air outlet 22; an airflow generator for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet, the airflow generator disposed in a housing (translation, paragraphs [00009], [0050], motor, impeller); and a hair treatment chamber for receiving hair, the air outlet 22 configured to direct airflow into the hair treatment chamber; wherein the haircare appliance 10 comprises a conduit 30, 41, the conduit 30, 41 providing a flow path from the air inlet to air outlet, wherein the conduit 30, 41 comprises a first part 30 in flid communication with the air outlet 22 and fixed relative to the air outlet 22 (Fig. 1) and a second part 41 in fluid communication with the air inlet 50 and fixed relative to the air inlet (Fig. 1), the second part 41 moveable relative to the first part 30 (Figs. 2, 3).
However, Krups does not disclose wherein one of the first part and the second part comprises a channel and the other of the first part and the second part is slidable in the channel, wherein the one of the first part and the second part slidable in the channel is slidable through 90 degrees relative to the housing between a first orientation and a second orientation. Wada et al. discloses a haircare appliance (Figs. 2-3) comprises a conduit 2, 14, the conduit 2, 14 providing a flow path from the air inlet 17 to air outlet 3, wherein the conduit 2, 14 comprises a first part 2 in flid communication with the air outlet 3 and fixed relative to the air outlet 3 (Figs. 2-3) and a second part 14 in fluid communication with the air inlet 17 and fixed relative to the air inlet 17 (Figs. 4B, 4D), the second part 14 moveable relative to the first part 2 (Figs. 2, 3), wherein the second part 14 moveable relative to the first part 2, wherein one of the first part 2 and the second part 14 comprises a channel (Figs. 2-3, channel within first part 1) and the other of the first part and the second part is slidable in the channel (Figs. 2-3), wherein the one of the first part and the second part slidable in the channel is slidable through 90 degrees relative to the housing between a first orientation and a second orientation (Figs. 2-3). 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 hair treatment chamber of the attachment/haircare appliance of Krups to substitute the slidable relative movement structural between first part and second part of the conduit of Wada et al. for the relative movement structural between first part and second part of the conduit of Krups in order to fully fold the first part and second part of the conduit to save space for storage.
Regarding claim 2, Krups discloses wherein the hair treatment chamber comprises a wall 33, an opening (Fig. 1, formed by the 21) through which hair is insertable into the hair treatment chamber, and an aperture (another one of element 22) formed in the wall 33.
Regarding claim 4, Krups discloses wherein the wall 33 comprises a porous material (Figs. 1, 12-13, wall 33 is made by material with porous, see 22 and open bottom of 23 in Figs. 1, 12-13)).
Regarding claim 5, Krups discloses wherein the porous material 33 defines the aperture (Figs. 1, 12-13).
Regarding claim 6, Krups discloses wherein the attachment comprises a plurality of apertures formed in the wall 33 (Figs. 1, 12-13).
Regarding claim 7, Krups discloses wherein the air outlet 22 is configured to direct airflow into the hair treatment chamber when the hair treatment chamber is in the first orientation and the second orientation (Figs. 1, 12-13).
Regarding claim 8, Wada et al. discloses wherein in the first orientation a central axis of the housing of the haircare appliance is parallel to a central axis of the opening (Fig. 3) and in the second orientation the central axis of the housing is perpendicular to the central axis of the opening (Fig.2).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krups (DE 9214397) in view of Wada et al. (US 3,846,047) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Bastien (US 5,235,760).
The attachment of Krups as modified by Wada et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 16 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 Krups to include a sensor configured to output a signal indicative of a property of hair within the hair treatment chamber in use as taught of Bastien in order to control he treatment of the hair.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krups (DE 9214397) in view of Wada et al. (US 3,846,047) as applied to claim 17 as above, and further in view of Stephens et al.(US 2017/0150796 A1).
With regard to claim 18, Krups further discloses wherein the haircare appliance 10 comprises a handle unit 16 and an attachment 14 comprising the air inlet (Fig. 1, at 50), the air outlet 22 and the hair treatment chamber, the attachment 14 removably attachable to the handle unit 16. However, Krups does not disclose the airflow generator is disposed within the handle unit. Stephens et al. discloses a haircare appliance 10 comprising a handle unit 20 within which an airflow generator 70 is disposed (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 modify the haircare appliance of Krups to dispose the airflow generator within the handle unit as taught by Stephens in order to prevent the hair from being pulled into the airflow generator and therefore improve the safety.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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