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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/17/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Currently, claim 9 depends on a canceled claim 8. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5, 7, 9, 11, 18-19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 8,272,142 B2) in view of Leach (GB 576,823) and Dorber (CA 2,167,569).
With regard to claims 1, 21, Hall discloses an attachment ss for a handheld haircare appliance 12 comprising a handle unit 32 within which an airflow generator 18 is disposed (Figs. 1-8), the attachment 22 comprising: an air inlet (Fig. 7, at 16) for receiving an airflow from the handle unit 30; an air outlet 24 for emitting the airflow (Figs. 1-2); and a hair treatment chamber for receiving hair (Figs. 1-2, open space of formed by 22), the hair treatment chamber in fluid communication with the air outlet 24 (Figs. 1-2); wherein the hair treatment chamber comprises a wall (Figs. 1-2, at 22), an opening (not numbered, Figs. 1-2, opening of 22) through which hair is insertable into the hair treatment chamber (Figs. 1-2); wherein the air outlet 16 extends about at least a part of a periphery 17 of the hair treatment chamber 1 (Fig. 1). However, Hall does not disclose an aperture formed in the wall, the air outlet configured to direct airflow away from the opening and toward the aperture in use. Hall also does not disclose a width of the air outlet varies about the periphery of the hair treatment chamber. Leach discloses an attachment 1 comprising an aperture 19 formed in the wall 13, 14 (Fig. 1), the air outlet 16 configured to direct airflow away from the opening 17 and toward the aperture 19 in use (see air flow arrows in Fig. 1). Dorber teaches an attachment 27 for a hair dryer with a various width of the air outlet 43 (Figs. 5-6). 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 Hall to form an aperture formed in the wall and to configure the air outlet to direct airflow away from the opening and toward the aperture in use as taught by Leach in order to circulate air through hair from outlet to the aperture to improve hair treating efficiency and to further modify the attachment of Hall to vary the width of the air outlet as taught by Dorber in order to tailor airflow distribution and improve airflow efficiency..
Regarding claim 2, Leach discloses wherein the air outlet 16 is configured to direct airflow along a surface of the wall in use (see air flow arrows in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Hall discloses the wall comprises a porous material (Figs. 1-2, wall made by material with porous 24). Leach also discloses wherein the wall 13, 14 comprises a porous material (Fig. 1, wall 13, 14 made by material with porous 19).
Regarding claim 4, Hall discloses wherein the porous material defines the aperture 24 (Fig. 1). Leach discloses wherein the porous material defines the aperture 19 (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Leach discloses wherein the attachment 1 comprises a plurality of apertures 19 formed in the wall (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 7, Leach discloses wherein the air outlet 16 extends about the entire periphery 17 of the hair treatment chamber 1 (Fig. 1, page 3, lines 19-21).
Regarding claim 9, Leach discloses wherein the attachment comprises a conduit 5 located at a first side of the hair treatment chamber (Fig. 1), the conduit providing a flow path from the air inlet to the air outlet (Fig. 1), and the air outlet 16 has a maximal width at a second side of the hair treatment chamber opposite to the first side (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Leach discloses wherein a portion of the wall (Fig. 1, portion of wall 14 between 19) spaced from the air outlet 16 is shaped to direct airflow within the hair treatment chamber 1 toward the opening.
Regarding claim 18, Hall as modified by Leach discloses a haircare appliance comprising the attachment as claimed in claim 1 and Hall further discloses an airflow generator 16 for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet (Figs. 1-2).
Regarding claim 19, Hall discloses wherein the haircare appliance comprises a handle unit 30 within which the airflow generator 16 is disposed (Figs. 1-2), and the attachment 22 is removably attachable to the handle unit 30 (Figs. 1-2).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 8,272,142 B2) in view of Leach (GB 576,823) and Dorber (CA 2,167,569) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Lelieveld (EP 3598919 A1).
The attachment of Hall as modified by Leach and Dorber as above includes all that is recited in claim 10 except for wherein the attachment comprises a sensor configured to output a signal indicative of a property of hair within the hair treatment chamber in use. Lelieveld discloses a hair dryer attachment A comprising a sensor S configured to output a signal indicative of a property of hair within the hair treatment chamber when in use (Figs. 1-4, abstract). 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 Hall 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 Lelieveld in order to control the hair treatment based on the sensed hair property to obtain an optimum hair treatment result.
Claims 12-13, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hall (US 8,272,142 B2) in view of Leach (GB 576,823) and Dorber (CA 2,167,569) as applied to claim 1 as above, and further in view of Murphy (US 2,464,776).
The attachment of Hallas modified by Leach and Dorber as above includes all that is recited in claim 12 except for the attachment comprises a further air outlet configured to direct airflow in a different direction to airflow directed by the air outlet; wherein the further air outlet is configured to direct airflow in a direction orthogonal to, or opposite to, a direction in which airflow is directed by the air outlet. Murphy discloses an attachment 15 for haircare appliance 1 comprising an air outlet (Fig. III, at 19, formed between 17 and 40) and a further air outlet 21 configured to direct airflow in a different direction to airflow directed by the air outlet (Fig. III). Wherein the further air outlet 21 is configured to direct airflow in a direction orthogonal to, or opposite to, a direction in which airflow is directed by the air outlet (see air flow arrows in Fig. III). 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 Hall to include a further air outlet configured to direct airflow in a different direction to airflow directed by the air outlet; wherein the further air outlet is configured to direct airflow in a direction orthogonal to, or opposite to, a direction in which airflow is directed by the air outlet as taught by Murphy in order to improve the hair drying efficiency. Regarding claim 16, Murphy discloses a plurality of further air outlets 21 spaced about a periphery of the opening, each of the plurality of further air outlets 21 configured to direct airflow in a different direction to airflow directed by the air outlet (Fig. III).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-15, 17 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
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19, 21 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