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 reply filed on 08/14/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-25 are currently pending. Claims 1-18 are under examination and claims 19-25 are withdrawn from consideration. Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the previous double patenting of record.
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, 6, 12-16, and 18 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) comprising an air inlet (Inlet at 328 for letting air into 318 in Figures 11a-11c), an air outlet for emitting the airflow (Air outlet 342 in Figures 12a-13b), a curved surface adjacent to and downstream of the air outlet (Curved surface of body 330), and an external 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 that is external to the outlet 342).
Regarding claim 2, 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 toward the curved surface (¶ 117), and a second force to push hair away from the curved surface (¶ 117).
Regarding claim 4, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where MacLaine further discloses that the flat surface is obliquely angled relative to a plane of the air outlet (Per Figures 12a-13b and the interpretation of the flat surface from claim 1, the flat surface of MacLaine is angled obliquely away from the outlet 342).
Regarding claim 6, 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 12, 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 13, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where MacLaine further discloses a hollow body (Hollow body 310 forming 318), the air outlet defined in the hollow body (Outlet 342 as seen in Figures 12a-13b), and the curved surface projects outwardly from the hollow body (Figures 12a-13b).
Regarding claim 14, 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).
Regarding claim 15, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where MacLaine further discloses that the air outlet comprises a first air outlet located on a first side of the attachment (Figure 12a positioning with the outlet 342), and a second air outlet located on a second side of the attachment opposite to the first side of the attachment (Figure 13a positioning with the outlet 342), the curved surface is adjacent to and downstream of each of the first and second air outlets (Evident from Figures 12a-13b), and the attachment comprises a first flat surface adjacent to and extending rearwardly from the first air outlet (Per the interpretation of the flat surface of 330 immediately following 342 in claim 1 above and shown in Figure 12a), and a second flat surface adjacent to and extending rearwardly from the second air outlet (Per the interpretation of the flat surface of 330 immediately following 342 in claim 1 above and shown in Figure 13a).
Regarding claim 16, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 15 where MacLaine further discloses that the attachment comprises a switching mechanism for switching the attachment from a first configuration in which airflow passes through the first air outlet and does not pass through the second air outlet, to a second configuration in which airflow passes through the second air outlet and does not pass through the first air outlet (Evident of switching between states shown in Figures 12a-13a and described in ¶ 111-114).
Regarding claim 18, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where MacLaine further discloses that the attachment comprises an internal baffle for turning airflow from the airflow generator toward the air outlet (Internal structure shown in Figures 10b, 11a, and 11c of MacLaine).
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 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0265024 (MacLaine).
Regarding claim 3, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 but are silent with respect that the flat surface comprises a height in the region of 2 mm to 5 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 the flat surface in the region of 2 mm to 5 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
Regarding claim 5, 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.
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 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0265024 (MacLaine) in view of US 2017/0273429 (Nicolson hereinafter).
Regarding claim 11, MacLaine’s teachings are described above in claim 1 where MacLaine is silent with respect that the attachment comprises a pair of guide walls for guiding airflow along the curved surface, the pair of guide walls upstanding from the curved surface.
However, Nicolson teaches a haircare attachment that discloses a pair of guide walls for guiding airflow along a curved surface (Figure 3, guide walls 78 and 80), the pair of guide walls upstanding from the curved surface (Evident of their design and ¶ 67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the surface of 330 in MacLaine with the perimeter guide walls to assist in guiding hair.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 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.
Claim 10 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 claim 10 is objected to for being allowable.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the switching mechanism is actuable to move the attachment between the first and second configurations under action of gravity.” MacLaine in ¶ 111-114 specifically teaches the use of a spring system to control the position of body 330 and changing this design for a gravity based design would teach away from MacLaine. Therefore, any further modification would not be proper and claim 17, with the necessitate dependent claim language from claims 15 and 16, is objected to as allowable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding the external flat surface has been reviewed but it is not found to be persuasive. The relied upon MacLaine reference does show a minor portion of the body 330 at the outlet 342 that is external is still flat. The Applicant appears to be trying to claim the structure of 112 in the instant application’s Figure 3. The instant application’s Figure 3 is drastically different than that of the Figures 12a-13b of Maclaine and there appears to be room to claim a clarified structure relative to the MacLaine reference. However, at this time, Applicant’s proposed amendments are not found to be sufficient to overcome the current art of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 1951269 (Boeckx) shows an external flat surface of a hair dryer in Figures 1-6. US 4827105 (Brown), US 4629863 (Giordano), and US 5553632 (Burkhardt) all disclose attachments for a hair dryer.
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