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 .
Response to Amendment
The proposed amendments filed 08/17/2026 have been entered. Claims 1-22 are currently pending. Claims 1-16 are under examination while claims 17-22 are withdrawn from consideration. Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the 112(b) and double patenting rejections previously set forth.
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 1-16 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 1 recites “wherein the air outlet extends traverse to the axis of the hollow body” where the term “the axis” lacks proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, the term “the axis” will be treated as “[[the]] an axis”.
Claims 2-16 are rejected for being dependent from an unclear and indefinite 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 1-6, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0265024 (MacLaine hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, MacLaine teaches a haircare appliance (Figures 1a-1b) that discloses an attachment (Figures 6a, 6b, 10a-13b) having an air inlet (Inlet at 328 for letting air into 318 in Figures 11a-11c), an air outlet (Air outlet 342 in Figures 12a-13b), a hollow body defining a flow path between the air inlet and air outlet (Hollow body 310 forming 318), and a curved surface adjacent to and downstream of the air outlet, the curved surface extending outwardly from the hollow body (Curved surface of body 330) wherein the air outlet extends traverse to the axis of the hollow body (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the Applicant has not defined which axis of the hollow body is used and therefore the air outlet at 342 is traverse to at least one of the axes of the hollow body 310; however in Figures 12a-13b the outlet at 342 appears to be traverse to a central axis of the hollow body 310).
Regarding claim 2, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where MacLaine further discloses a central axis of curvature of the curved surface is displaced from a central axis of the hollow body (Evident of 330 in Figures 10a and 12a-13b).
Regarding claim 3, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where MacLaine further discloses that the curved surface has a first end attached to the hollow body (First end of 330 being internal to 310 as seen in Figures 12a-13b), and a second free end opposite the first end (Second end of 330 being external to 310 and having surfaces 338).
Regarding claim 4, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where MacLaine further discloses that the curved surface is substantially smooth and uninterrupted in form (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation the curved surfaces of 330 are substantially smooth).
Regarding claim 5, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where MacLaine further discloses that the attachment comprises a pair of guide walls located at edges of the curved surface (Guide walls formed by 316 and 328).
Regarding claim 6, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where MacLaine further discloses that the attachment is configured such that airflow exiting the air outlet generates a first force to attract hair towards the curved surface (¶ 117), and a second force to push hair away from the curved surface (¶117).
Regarding claim 11, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where MacLaine further discloses that the curved surface comprises an arc angle of at least 95 degrees from the air outlet (Angle between the body 330 and the outlet 342 to direct airflow).
Regarding claim 14, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where MacLaine further discloses that the haircare appliance comprises a flat surface adjacent to and extending rearwardly from the air outlet (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the immediate surface of 330 at the air outlet 342 is seen as flat).
Regarding claim 15, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where MacLaine further discloses that the air outlet comprises a fixed air outlet (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the outlet 342 is a fixed opening for body 330 to be inserted).
Regarding claim 16, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where MacLaine further discloses that the haircare appliance comprises a single air outlet (Air outlet 342).
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.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0265024 (MacLaine) in view of US 2019/0098979 (Atkinson hereinafter).
Regarding claim 7, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the air outlet comprises an open cross-sectional area in the region of 140mm2 to 450mm2.
However, Atkinson teaches a haircare device that discloses an air outlet comprises an open cross-sectional area in the region of 140mm2 to 450mm2 (¶ 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the size of the air outlet of MacLaine with the sizing of Atkinson to obtain the desired airflow volume.
Regarding claim 8, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the air outlet comprises a width in the region of 70mm to 90 mm.
However, Atkinson teaches a haircare device that discloses an air outlet comprises a width in the region of 70mm to 90 mm (¶ 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the size of the air outlet of MacLaine with the sizing of Atkinson to obtain the desired airflow volume.
Regarding claim 9, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the air outlet comprises a height in the region of 2 mm to 5 mm.
However, Atkinson teaches a haircare device that discloses an air outlet comprises a height in the region of 2 mm to 5 mm (¶ 34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the size of the air outlet of MacLaine with the sizing of Atkinson to obtain the desired airflow volume.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0265024 (MacLaine).
Regarding claim 10, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the curved surface comprises a radius of curvature in the region of 16 mm to 60 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to size a radius of curvature in the region of 16 mm to 60 mm, since it has been held that discovering the optimum range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 105 USPQ 233. Applicant has not disclosed any critically with respect to this specific range in the submitted specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 13 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.
Claim 12 recites “wherein a ratio of a radius of curvature of the curved surface to a velocity of airflow at the air outlet is in the region of 0.33 to 2.00” and Claim 13 recites “wherein a ratio of a radius of curvature of the curved surface to an arc length of the curved surface is in the region of 0.04 to 0.63”. Applicant has provided ample criticality in the submitted specification to prevent the Examiner from disclosing that the found ranges are result effective variables and one of ordinary skill in the art would discover them. The amount of trial and error required to discover these specific ranges with respect to attracting hair to the curved surface would be too much to view as obvious and therefore claims 12 and 13 are objected to as allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the newly added claim language of “wherein the air outlet extends traverse to the axis of the hollow body” to claim 1 has been review however the argument is not found to be persuasive. In the rejection above, the MacLaine in Figures 12a-13b shows the outlet 342 extending in a direction that is traverse to at least one of the axes of the hollow body 310. Applicant is advised to further clarify the structure of the outlet and extending surface to overcome the current 102(a)(1) rejection currently set forth. Applicant is welcomed to hold an interview if they would deem it fruitful to advance prosecution of the application. However, at this time, the proposed amendments and argument are not found to be persuasive.
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 CONNOR J. TREMARCHE whose telephone number is (571)272-2175. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0700-1700 Eastern.
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 (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.
/CONNOR J TREMARCHE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights