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 8, 13 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the first configuration and the second configuration" in last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 4-7, 13, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krups (DE 9214397).
With regard to claim 1, Krups discloses an attachment 14, 52 (Figs. 1, 12-13) for a haircare appliance 10, 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 airflow into the hair treatment chamber (Figs. 1, 12-13); 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 2, Krups discloses wherein the hair treatment chamber comprises a wall 33, an opening (see reproduced Fig. 1 below) through which hair is insertable into the hair treatment chamber, and an aperture (see reproduced Fig. 1 below) formed in the wall 33.
With regard to 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)).
With regard to claim 5, Krups discloses wherein the porous material 33 defines the aperture (Figs. 1, 12-13).
With regard to claim 6, Krups discloses wherein the attachment comprises a plurality of apertures formed in the wall 33 (Figs. 1, 12-13).
With regard to 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).
With regard to claim 13, Krups discloses wherein the attachment 14, 52 comprises a conduit 51, 56, the conduit providing a flow path from the air inlet to the air outlet (Figs. 1, 12-13), wherein the conduit comprises a first part 56 in fluid communication with the air outlet 22 and fixed relative to the air outlet 22 and a second part 51 in fluid communication with the air inlet 50 and fixed relative to the air inlet 50, the second part 51 moveable relative to the first part 56 between the first configuration (Fig. 12) and the second configuration (Fig. 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 (paragraphs [00009], [0050], motor, impeller) for generating an airflow from the air inlet 13 to the air outlet 22, the airflow generator disposed in a housing 11, 12 (paragraph [0009]); and a hair treatment chamber (see reproduced Fig. 1 below) for receiving hair, the air outlet 22 configured to direct airflow into the hair treatment chamber; wherein the hair treatment chamber is movable from a first orientation relative (Fig. 12) to the housing 11, 12 to a second orientation (Fig. 13) relative to the housing 11, 12, the second orientation different to the first orientation (Figs. 12-13).
PNG
media_image1.png
613
499
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 1, 2, 4-5, 7-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taylor (US 2017/0231359 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Taylor discloses an attachment 1 for a haircare appliance 8, the attachment 1 comprising an air inlet (Fig. 1, at 9), an air outlet 13 for emitting an airflow (Fig. 2), and a hair treatment chamber (Figs. 1-2, formed by hood 3) for receiving hair, the air outlet 13 configured to direct airflow into the hair treatment chamber; wherein the hair treatment chamber is movable from a first orientation relative to the air inlet to a second orientation relative to the air inlet, the second orientation different to the first orientation (Fig. 1, flexible hose 5 allows any orientation of the hood, i.e. hair treatment chamber).
With regard to claim 2, Taylor discloses wherein the hair treatment chamber 3 comprises a wall 4, an opening (not numbered, Figs. 1-2) through which hair is insertable into the hair treatment chamber 3, and an aperture formed in the wall (Figs. 1-2, aperture formed at connection point of 3 and 5).
With regard to claim 4, Taylor discloses wherein the wall 4 comprises a porous 13 material.
With regard to claim 5, Taylor discloses wherein the porous material 4 defines the aperture 13 (Figs. 1-2).
With regard to claim 7, Taylor discloses wherein the air outlet 13 is configured to direct airflow into the hair treatment chamber 3 when the hair treatment chamber is in the first orientation and the second orientation.
With regard to claim 8, Taylor discloses wherein in the first orientation a central axis of the housing is parallel to a central axis of the opening and in the second orientation the central axis of the housing is perpendicular to the central axis of the opening (Fig. 1, flexible hose 5 allows any orientation of the hood 3).
With regard to claim 9, Taylor discloses wherein the attachment 1 comprises a conduit 5, the conduit 5 providing a flow path between the air inlet and the air outlet (Fig. 1), wherein the conduit is deformable between a first position when the attachment is in the first orientation and a second position when the attachment is in the second orientation (Fig. 1, paragraph [0043], flexile hose).
With regard to claim 10, Taylor discloses wherein the conduit 5 comprises a tube 5 which is configured to concertina (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 11, Taylor discloses wherein the conduit 5 is deformable from the first position to the second position in response to a force applied to the conduit (Fig. 1, paragraph [0043]).
With regard to claim 13, Taylor discloses wherein the attachment 1 comprises a conduit 5, the conduit 5 providing a flow path from the air inlet to the air outlet, wherein the conduit 5 comprises a first part (Fig. 1, part connected to hood 3) in fluid communication with the air outlet 13 and fixed relative to the air outlet and a second part (Fig. 1, part near 9) in fluid communication with the air inlet and fixed relative to the air inlet, the second part moveable relative to the first part between the first configuration and the second configuration (Fig. 1).
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 12-14, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Churas (US 4,021,930).
With regard to claim 1, Churas discloses an attachment 14 for a haircare appliance 13, the attachment 14 comprising an air inlet (Fig. 1, at 28), an air outlet 59 for emitting an airflow (Fig. 1), and a hair treatment chamber (Figs. 1-2, formed by hood 14) for receiving hair, the air outlet 59 configured to direct airflow into the hair treatment chamber 14; wherein the hair treatment chamber 14 is movable from a first orientation relative to the air inlet to a second orientation relative to the air inlet (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 49-51), the second orientation different to the first orientation (Fig. 1, col. 5,lines 49-54).
With regard to claim 2, Churas discloses wherein the hair treatment chamber 14 comprises a wall 51, an opening (not numbered, Fig. 1) through which hair is insertable into the hair treatment chamber 14, and an aperture 107 formed in the wall (Figs. 1, 6).
With regard to claim 4, Churas discloses wherein the wall 51 comprises a porous 59 material.
With regard to claim 5, Churas discloses wherein the porous material 51 defines the aperture 59 (Figs. 1, 3).
With regard to claim 6, Churas discloses wherein the attachment 14 comprises a plurality of apertures 107 formed in the wall 51 ( Fig. 6).
With regard to claim 7, Churas discloses wherein the air outlet 59 is configured to direct airflow into the hair treatment chamber 14 when the hair treatment chamber is in the first orientation and the second orientation.
With regard to claim 12, Churas et al. discloses a conduit 15 comprises a retaining pin 117 engageable with a part of the hair treatment chamber 14 to restrict movement of the conduit 15 away from the hair treatment chamber 14 (Figs. 1, 6, col. 6, lines 18-26).
With regard to claim 13, Churas discloses wherein the attachment 14 comprises a conduit 15, the conduit 15 providing a flow path from the air inlet to the air outlet, wherein the conduit 15 comprises a first part 97 in fluid communication with the air outlet 59 and fixed relative to the air outlet and a second part 99 in fluid communication with the air inlet and fixed relative to the air inlet (Fig. 1), the second part moveable relative to the first part between the first configuration and the second configuration (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 47-54).
With regard to claim 14, Churas discloses wherein one of the first part 97 and the second part 99 comprises a channel and the other of the second part and the first part is slidable in the channel (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 47-54).
With regard to claim 17, Churas discloses a haircare appliance 12 comprising: an air inlet 26; an air outlet 49; an airflow generator 20, 24 for generating an airflow from the air inlet 26 to the air outlet 59, the airflow generator disposed in a housing 19 (Figs. 1-2); and a hair treatment chamber 14 for receiving hair, the air outlet 59 configured to direct airflow into the hair treatment chamber; wherein the hair treatment chamber is movable from a first orientation relative to the housing 19 to a second orientation relative to the housing 19 (Fig. 1), the second orientation different to the first orientation (Fig. 1, col. 5, lines 47-54).
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.
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 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Churas (US 4,021,930) in view of Suter (US 1,775,704).
The attachment of Churas as above includes all that is recited in claims 2-3 except for an aperture formed in the wall and the air outlet is configured to direct airflow away from the opening and towards the aperture in use. Suter discloses an attachment 1 for a haircare appliance comprising an air inlet 14, an air outlet 4 for emitting an airflow and a hair treatment chamber 2 for receiving hair, the hair treatment chamber comprises a wall 2, an opening (Fig. 1, at 9) through which hair is insertable into the hair treatment chamber, an aperture (Fig. 1, top end of 19) formed in the wall 2, the air outlet 4 is configured to direct airflow away from the opening and towards the aperture 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 modify the attachment of Churas to form an aperture in the wall and to configure the air outlet to direct airflow away from the opening and towards the aperture in use as taught by Suter in order to withdrawn the moisture-laden air from the hair treatment chamber.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 2017/0231359 A1) in view of Churas et al. (US 4,021,930).
The attachment of Taylor as above includes all that is recited in claim 12 except for the conduit comprises a retaining pin engageable with a part of the hair treatment chamber to restrict movement of the conduit away from the hair treatment chamber. Churas et al. discloses a conduit 15 comprises a retaining pin 117 engageable with a part of the hair treatment chamber 14 to restrict movement of the conduit 15 away from the hair treatment chamber 14 (Figs. 1, 6, col. 6, lines 18-26). 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 Taylor to provide the conduit with a retaining pin engageable with a part of the hair treatment chamber to restrict movement of the conduit away from the hair treatment chamber as taught by Churas et al. in order to securely attach the conduit to the hair treatment chamber.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krups (DE 9214397) or Taylor (US 2017/0231359 A1) or Churas (US 4,021,930) in view of Bastien (US 5,235,760).
The attachment of Krups or Taylor or Churas 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 modify the attachment of Krups or Taylor or Churas 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 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 15 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.
The primary reason for allowance of claim 15 is the inclusion of the limitation “the one of the first part and the second part slidable in the channel is slidable through 90 degrees relative to the housing between the first orientation and the second orientation” in claim 15 in combination with the remaining claimed elements.
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