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 § 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 1-7, 11, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Leach (GB 576,823).
With regard to claim 1, Leach discloses an attachment 1 for a haircare appliance 3, the attachment 1 comprising: an air inlet (Figs. 1-2, at 4) for receiving an airflow; an air outlet 16 for emitting the airflow (Fig. 1); and a hair treatment chamber 1 for receiving hair (Fig. 1), the hair treatment chamber 1 in fluid communication with the air outlet 16 (Fig. 1); wherein the hair treatment chamber 1 comprises a wall 13, 14, an opening 17 through which hair is insertable into the hair treatment chamber 1 (Fig. 1), and 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).
With regard to 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).
With regard to claim 3, Leach wherein the wall 13, 14 comprises a porous material (Fig. 1, wall 13, 14 made by material with porous 19).
With regard to claim 4, Leach discloses wherein the porous material defines the aperture 19 (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 5, Leach discloses wherein the attachment 1 comprises a plurality of apertures 19 formed in the wall (Fig. 1).
With regard to claim 6, Leach discloses wherein the air outlet 16 extends about at least a part of a periphery 17 of the hair treatment chamber 1 (Fig. 1).
With regard to 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).
With regard to 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.
With regard to claim 18, Leach discloses a haircare appliance comprising: the attachment as claimed claim 1; and an airflow generator (page 2, lines 98-99, a motor driven fan or blower) for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet.
With regard to claim 19, Leach discloses wherein the haircare appliance comprises a handle unit 3 within which the airflow generator is disposed (Fig. 1, page 2, lines 97-101), and the attachment 1 is removably attachable to the handle unit 3 (Fig. 1, page 2, lines 109-113, by bayonet joint 20).
With regard to claim 20, Leach discloses a haircare appliance comprising: an air inlet 6; an air outlet 16; an airflow generator (page 2, lines 98-99, a motor driven fan or blower) for generating an airflow from the air inlet 6 to the air outlet 16; and a hair treatment chamber 1 for receiving hair, the hair treatment chamber 1 in fluid communication with the air outlet 16 (Fig. 1); wherein the hair treatment chamber 1 comprises a wall 13, 14, an opening (Fig. 1, formed by 17) through which hair is insertable into the hair treatment chamber 1, and an aperture 19 formed in the wall (Fig. 1), the air outlet 16 configured to direct airflow away from the opening and toward the aperture 19 in use (Fig. 1, see airflow arrows).
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leach (GB 576,823) in view of Lelieveld (EP 3598919 A1).
The attachment of Leach 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
modify the attachment of Leach 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 Leach (GB 576,823) in view of Murphy (US 2,464,776).
The attachment of Leach 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 Leach 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. With regard to 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 8-9, 14-15 and 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the primary reason for allowance of claims 8-9, 14-15, 17 is the inclusion of the limitations “a width of the air outlet varies about the periphery of the hair treatment chamber” in claim 8; “the further air outlet is located on the rim such that airflow is directed away from the periphery of the opening and away from the hair treatment chamber” in claim 14; “the attachment comprises a projection extending in a direction away from the opening, and the further air outlet is located on the projection” in claim 15; and “the attachment comprises a first configuration in which airflow through the air outlet is unrestricted and airflow through the further air outlet is restricted and a second configuration in which airflow through the air outlet is restricted and airflow through the further air outlet is unrestricted” in claim 17 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