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 1-3, 8, 10-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Legrain et al. (FR 2707851 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Legrain et al. discloses a hair styling appliance (Fig. 1) comprising: an airflow unit 4, 5 for generating an airflow; a heating unit 3 for heating the airflow; and a control unit 10 for controlling the airflow unit 4, 5 and the heating unit 3, wherein: the control unit 10 controls the airflow unit 4, 5 and the heating unit 3 in a predefined sequence of modes comprising a first mode (Figs. 3-6, PHASE 1), a second mode (Figs. 3-6, PHASE 2) and a third mode (Figs. 3-6, PHASE 3), the airflow unit 4, 5 having a different flow rate and/or the heating unit having a different heat setting in each of the modes (Figs. 4-6), and the control unit 10 determines when to transition between modes of the predefined sequence (Figs. 1-6, translation, page 4, 3rd paragraph to page 5, line 8).
With regard to claim 2, Legrain et al. discloses wherein the control unit 10 determines when to transition based on at least one of a time spent in a mode, a presence of hair, and a characteristic of hair (Figs. 3-6).
With regard to claim 3, Legrain et al. discloses wherein the control unit 10 determines when to transition in the event that the time spent in a mode and/or a value relating to the characteristic of hair reaches a threshold (Fig. 3).
With regard to claim 8, Legrain et al. discloses wherein the control unit 10 automatically transitions between modes in response to determining when to transition (Figs. 3-6, translation, page 4, 3rd paragraph to page 5, line 8).
With regard to claim 10, Legrain et al. discloses wherein the heat setting in the third mode is lower than the heat settings in the first and second modes (see temperature settings in Figs. 4-6).
With regard to claim 11, Legrain et al. discloses wherein the flow rate in the third mode is lower than the flow rates in the first and second modes (see flow rate settings in Figs. 4-6).
With regard to claim 12, Legrain et al. discloses wherein the flow rate and/or the heat setting in the second mode is lower than that in the first mode (Figs. 4-5).
With regard to claim 13, Legrain et al. discloses wherein the sequence of modes comprises a fourth mode, and the heat setting in the fourth mode is lower than that in the third mode (translation, page 5, lines 6-8 disclose a button 8 for switching on and off the hair dryer, the switch off state of the appliance is considered a fourth mode).
With regard to claim 14, Legrain et al. discloses wherein the sequence of modes comprises a mode in which the airflow unit and/or the heating unit are powered off (translation, page 5, lines 6-8 disclose a button 8 for switching on and off the hair dryer, the switch off state of the appliance is considered a mode in which the airflow unit and the heating unit are powered off).
With regard to claim 15, Legrain et al. discloses wherein the control unit 10 receives user data, and the control unit uses the user data to determine when to transition (Figs. 3-6, translation, page 5, lines 24-29, claims 5-6).
With regard to claim 16, Legrain et al. discloses wherein the user data comprises any of: hair thickness, hair length, natural hair style, hair condition, presence of hair product, and presence of hair dye (Fig. 3, claim 5).
With regard to claim 18, Legrain et al. discloses wherein the control unit 10 initiates the sequence of modes in response to a user input (Fig. 2, translation, page 4, lines 3-28).
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 4-5, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legrain et al. (FR 2707851 A1) in view of Zhu (CN 108433318 A).
The hair styling appliance of Legrain et al. as above includes all that is recited in claims 4-5 except for wherein the control unit determines when to transition in response to a change in the presence of hair; wherein the characteristic comprises a temperature and/or a moisture content of the hair, and the appliance comprises one or more sensors for sensing the characteristic of the hair. Zhu discloses a hair styling appliance comprising a control unit 2, wherein the control unit 2 determines when to transition in response to a change in the presence of hair (Zhu, translation, page 6, paragraphs 3-8); wherein the characteristic comprises a temperature and/or a moisture content of the hair, and the appliance comprises one or more sensors for sensing the characteristic of the hair (Zhu, translation, page 7, 2nd paragraph from bottom). 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 styling appliance of Legrain et al. to include one or more sensors for sensing the characteristic of the hair, wherein the characteristic comprises a temperature and/or a moisture content of the hair and further modify the control unit of the hair styling appliance of Legrain et al. to include a function of determining when to transition in response to a change in the presence of hair or the characteristic of hair as taught by Zhu in order to automatically select and adjust air blowing mode according to the condition of the hair without requiring the user to a prior knowledge of blowing so as to greatly improve the user experience (Zhu, translation, page 2, lines 10-13).
With regard to claim 7, Zhu discloses the controller 2 can decrease or increase speed to adjust the blowing mode previously selected or determined when detecting the electrical blowing hair being close to or being away from the hair under the condition. If detecting the distance from the electric hair dryer to hair is greater than a predetermined threshold (e.g.,50 cm), it indicates blowing mechanism 3 stops blowing (translation, page 7, lines 10-14). Based on above disclosure, Zhu discloses the hair appliance determining a presence of hair based on changes in the airflow or changes in the speed of the air flow unit. 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 styling appliance of Legrain et al. to include determining a presence of hair based on changes in the airflow or changes in the speed of the air flow unit as taught Zhu in order to automatically select and adjust air blowing mode according to the condition of the hair without requiring the user to a prior knowledge of blowing so as to greatly improve the user experience (Zhu, translation, page 2, lines 10-13).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legrain et al. (FR 2707851 A1) in view of Alfredo et al. (GB 2517321 A).
The hair styling appliance of Legrain et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 6 except for wherein the appliance comprises a capacitive sensor for sensing the presence of hair. Alfredo et al. discloses a hair styling appliance 10 comprising a capacitive sensor 564 for sensing the presence of hair (page 31, lines 18-19). 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 styling appliance of Legrain et al. to include a capacitive sensor for sensing the presence of hair as taught by Alfredo et al. in order to detect the presence of hair without direct contact and provide reliable and efficient measurement solution.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legrain et al. (FR 2707851 A1) in view of Matsuo et al. (CN 107949293 A).
The hair styling appliance of Legrain et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 9 except for wherein the control unit generates a user alert in response to determining when to transition, and the control unit transitions between modes in response to a user input. Matsuo et al. discloses a hair styling appliance 1 comprising a control unit 12 generates a user alert (Figs. 2, 7, by LEDS 31-35) by in response to determining when to transition (paragraphs [0100]-[0102] and corresponding translation), and the control unit 12 transitions between modes in response to a user input (Fig. 2, user input via mode switch 9). 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 control unit of the hair styling appliance of Legrain et al. to include functions of generating a user alert in response to determining when to transition, and the control unit transitions between modes in response to a user input as taught by Matsuo et al. in order to optimize the operation of hair styling appliance.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Legrain et al. (FR 2707851 A1) in view of Goldman et al. (US 2018/0027940 A1)
The hair styling appliance of Legrain et al. as above includes all that is recited in claim 17 except for wherein the appliance comprises a wireless interface for receiving the user data wirelessly from a remote device. Goldman et al. discloses a hair styling appliance 100 comprising a wireless interface 406 for receiving the user data wirelessly from a remote device 214 (Figs. 2, 4, paragraphs [0074], [0076]). 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 styling appliance of Legrain et al. to include a wireless interface for receiving the user data wirelessly from a remote device as taught by Goldman et al. in order to enable any number of hair professionals and/or end consumers to improve styling and dry time and to reduce energy usage to enable a more efficient design (Goldman et al., abstract).
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