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 § 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, 5, 8-10, 14, 15 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US Patent 4,471,791 to DeRoche.
In Reference to Claim 1
DeRoche discloses an attachment for a haircare appliance, the attachment comprising an air inlet (Fig. 10, 30), and an air outlet (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) for emitting airflow, wherein the air outlet is at least partially defined by a movable member (Fig. 4, 5), movement of the movable member varies a cross-sectional area of the air outlet, and the movable member is movable in a radial direction relative to a central axis of the attachment (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner), wherein the attachment comprises a fixed member (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) that at least partially defines the air outlet, and the movable member is movable relative to the fixed member to vary the cross-sectional area (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) of the air outlet.
In Reference to Claim 2
DeRoche discloses the movable member (Fig. 4, 5) is configured to move in response to engagement of hair with the movable member in use.
In Reference to Claim 4
DeRoche discloses the movable member (Fig. 4, 5) is movable in a circumferential direction relative to the central axis (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner).
In Reference to Claim 5
DeRoche discloses the movable member (Fig. 4, 5) is biased into a rest configuration in which the air outlet comprises a first cross-sectional area (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner), and the movable member is movable in response to engagement of the movable member within hair to increase the cross-sectional area of the air outlet to a second cross-sectional area (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) greater than the first cross-sectional area.
In Reference to Claim 8
DeRoche discloses wherein the movable member (Fig. 4, 5) is located intermediate two adjacent fixed members (As showed in Fig. 4, the Office considers that the fixed member of DeRoche is formed by two portions, a first portion and a second portion), the air outlet comprises first and second apertures (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner), the first fixed member and the movable member define the first aperture, the second fixed member and the movable member define the second aperture, and movement of the movable member varies cross-sectional areas of the first and second apertures. (As showed in Fig. 4)
In Reference to Claim 9
DeRoche discloses engagement of hair with the movable member (Fig. 4, 5) to apply a force to the movable member in a first direction increases a cross-sectional area of the first aperture (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) and decreases a cross-sectional area of the second aperture (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner), and engagement of hair with the movable member to apply a force to the movable member in a second direction (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) opposite to the first direction (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) increases a cross-sectional area of the second aperture and decreases a cross-sectional area of the first aperture.
In Reference to Claim 10
DeRoche discloses the movable member (Fig. 4, 5) is pivotable (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) such that engagement of hair with the movable member to apply the force to the movable member in the first direction causes a first end of the movable member to increase the cross-sectional area of the first aperture and causes a second end of the movable member opposite the first end of the movable member to decrease the cross-sectional area of the second aperture, and engagement of hair with the movable member to apply the force to the movable member in the second direction causes the first end of the movable member to decrease the cross-sectional area of the first aperture and causes the second end of the movable member to increase the cross- sectional area of the second aperture. (As showed in Fig. 4, the rotation of the rotational member 4 changes the cross sectional area on the first and the second aperture)
In Reference to Claim 14
DeRoche discloses movement of the movable member (Fig. 4, 5) in a first direction (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) increases the cross-sectional area of each of the first and second apertures, and movement of the movable member in a second direction opposite (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) to the first direction decreases the cross-sectional area of each of the first and second apertures.
In Reference to Claim 15
DeRoche discloses movement of the movable member (Fig. 4, 5) is constrained such that the first and second apertures comprise maximal and minimal cross-sectional areas at boundaries of motion of the movable member. (As showed in Fig. 4, the movable member moves to one end will has a minimal cross section and the other end will have a maximal opening)
In Reference to Claim 17
DeRoche discloses the movable member (Fig. 4, 5) is movable to vary the cross-sectional area of the first and second apertures (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) against the force of a biasing member.
In Reference to Claim 22
DeRoche discloses an attachment for a haircare appliance, the attachment comprising an air inlet (Fig. 10, 30), and an air outlet (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) for emitting airflow, wherein the air outlet is at least partially defined by a movable member (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner), movement of the movable member varies a cross- sectional area (As showed Fig. 4) of the air outlet, and the movable member is movable in a radial direction relative to a central axis (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) of the attachment, wherein the movable member is located intermediate two adjacent fixed members (Fig. 4, the Office considers that the fixed member is formed by two portions as annotated in Fig. 4), the air outlet comprises first and second apertures (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner), the first fixed member and the movable member define the first aperture (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner), the second fixed member (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) and the movable member define the second aperture, and movement of the movable member varies cross-sectional areas of the first and second apertures, and wherein movement of the movable member in a first direction increases the cross-sectional area of each of the first and second apertures, and movement of the movable member in a second direction opposite to the first direction decreases the cross- sectional area of each of the first and second apertures (As showed in Fig. 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
610
587
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
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.
Claim 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2013/0052115 to Leung in view of DeRoche.
In Reference to Claims 20 and 21
Leung discloses a haircare appliance comprising a handle (Fig. 2, 100) within which an airflow generator (Fig. 2, 107) is disposed, and an attachment (Fig. 2, 300) removably attachable to the handle unit.
Leung does not teach the attachment as recited by the Applicant.
DeRoche discloses a haircare appliance comprising an air inlet (Fig. 1, the air inlet at item 20), an air outlet (Fig. 4, 90), and an airflow generator (Fig. 1, 20) for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet, wherein the air outlet is at least partially defined by a movable member (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner), movement of the movable member varies a cross-sectional area (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) of the air outlet, and the movable member is movable in a radial direction relative to a central axis of the haircare appliance, wherein the attachment comprises a fixed member (Fig. 4, annotated by the examiner) that at least partially defines the air outlet, and the movable member is movable relative to the fixed member to vary (As showed in Fig. 4, the rotation of the movable member would change the cross-sectional area) the cross-sectional area of the air outlet.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from DeRoche into the design of Leung. Doing so, would result in the hair attachment of DeRoche being used as the attachment of Leung. Both inventions of DeRoche and Leung are in the same field of endeavor, DeRoche teaches a method of shaping human hair to provide a variety of styling effects with a predictable result of success (Col. 1 Line 5-10)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 11-13, 16, 18 and 19 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.
Response to Arguments
The Drawing filed on 4/28/26 has been accepted. The Objection of Drawing has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 4/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The argument file on 4/28/26 is based on the amendment claims. The argument is moot in terms of the new ground of rejection.
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 DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 PM.
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 Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 6/11/26
Prosecution Insights