DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: the airflow generator lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholson (GB 2548817 A).
Regarding claim 1, Nicholson discloses an attachment for a haircare appliance, the attachment comprising an air inlet (12), an air outlet (Fig. 6a: either the gap between the two inner side faces 34, 35, or outlets 94, 96), and a curved surface (Fig. 6a; 16, 18) adjacent to and downstream of the air outlet, except wherein a radius of curvature of the curved is at least 16mm.
However, Fig. 6 suggests a radius of curvature in the claimed range and it has been held that “[w]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See MPEP §2144.05(II)(A).
The attachment operates to smooth and straighten hair by blowing air along the length of the hair, while guiding the hair along the curved surface (pg. 6, lines 21-23; see also pg. 15, lines 5-10 and pg. 21, lines 18-19). The radius of curvature would have a direct impact on how well the attachment performs. A less curved surface, i.e., larger radius of curvature, is desirable for straightening hair whereas a smaller radius is better for curling hair. This is why hair straighteners tend to have flatter hair contact surfaces and curlers tend to have more curved surfaces.
Moreover, the air is guided over the surface due to the Coanda effect (see Fig. 6 showing where the laminar air stream hugs the surfaces 16, 18). If the radius is too large or too small, then that would disrupt the Coanda effect, causing air to detach from the surface and create frizz or tangles in the hair.
Regarding claim 2, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, except 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.
However, Fig. 6 suggests a ratio in the claimed range and similar to claim 1, the ratio affects the profile of the curved surface, which would have a direct effect on how well the attachment smooths/straightens the hair as explained in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, except wherein the arc length of the curved surface is at least 95 degrees from the air outlet.
However, Fig. 6a suggests the claimed angle. If a vertical line is drawn through the outlet (see Fig. 6a), then the inner side face (34) near the outlet 94 would be at least 95 degrees from the outlet. And similar to the argument made for the rejection of claim 1, the claimed angle would affect the profile of the curved surface, which would have a direct effect on how well the attachment smooths/straightens the hair.
Regarding claim 4, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim l except, wherein a ratio of the 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.
However, the claimed ratio is a matter of optimization. Both the radius of curvature and velocity of the airflow would affect the hair smoothing/straightening performance of the attachment. For example, if the airflow is too weak, then there would not be enough air blowing along each strand of hair to straighten the hair.
Regarding claim 5, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the haircare appliance is configured such that airflow at the air outlet comprises a velocity in the region of 30m/s to 45m/s (pg. 18, lines 3-4).
Regarding claim 6, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, except wherein the haircare appliance is configured such that a ratio of a velocity of airflow at the air outlet to a flow rate of airflow generated by the airflow generator (pg. 20, line 9) is in the region of 2.14 to 5.63.
However, the claimed ratio is a matter of optimization. The ratio determines the velocity of the airflow at the outlet, which would affect the hair smoothing/straightening performance of the attachment, as explained in the rejection of claim 4. The ratio also determines the motor speed. If the motor speed is too high then it would increase wear on the motor, and it would cause excess noise. If the motor speed is too low, then not enough airflow would be generated at the air outlet.
Regarding claim 7, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, except wherein the airflow generator is configured to generate airflow at a flow rate in the region of 8L/s to 14 L/s.
However, the claimed flow rate is a matter of optimization. The flow rate affects the hair smoothing/straightening performance of the attachment, as explained in the rejection of claim 4. The flow rate also determines the motor speed. If the motor speed is too high then it would increase wear on the motor, and it would cause excess noise. If the motor speed is too low, then not enough airflow would be generated at the air outlet.
Regarding claim 8, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, except wherein the air outlet comprises an open cross-sectional area in the region of 140mm2 to 450mm2.
However, the claimed open cross-sectional area is a matter of optimization because it partially determines the flow rate (flow rate Q = v*A, where v is velocity and A is open cross-sectional area). The flow rate directly affects the smoothing/straightening performance of the attachment. If the flow rate is too weak is too weak, then the hair strands would not straighten and smooth as much.
Regarding claim 9, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, except wherein the air outlet comprises a width in the region of 70mm to 90mm. However, the claimed width affects the size of the open cross-sectional area and the open cross-sectional area affects the flow rate. See the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 10, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, except wherein the air outlet comprises a height in the region of 2mm to 5mm. However, the claimed height affects the size of the open cross-sectional area and the open cross-sectional area affects the flow rate. See the rejection of claim 8.
Regarding claim 11, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, except wherein a ratio of flow rate of airflow generated by the airflow generator to an open cross-sectional area of the air outlet is in the region of 0.01 to 0.10. However, the claimed ratio is a measure of velocity at the outlet (v = Q/A). The velocity needs to be high enough to straighten and smooth the air, but not so high where it’s excessive.
Regarding claim 12, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the haircare appliance comprises a flat surface (Fig. 2, 22) adjacent to and extending rearwardly from the air outlet (it extends back towards the air inlet 12).
Regarding claim 13, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the haircare appliance comprises a pair of guide walls (Fig. 3; 78, 80) for (capable of) guiding airflow along the curved surface, the pair of guide walls upstanding from the curved surface.
Regarding claim 14, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the air outlet comprises a fixed air outlet (the cited air outlet is fixed to the haircare attachment).
Regarding claim 15, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the haircare appliance comprises a hollow body (Fig. 6 shows a hollow interior), the air outlet is defined in the hollow body, and the curved surface projects outwardly from the hollow body (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the haircare appliance comprises a single air outlet (Fig. 6a: gap between the two inner side faces 34, 35).
Regarding claim 17, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the air outlet comprises a first air outlet (Fig. 6a, 94) located on a first side of the haircare appliance, and a second air outlet (Fig. 6a, 96) located on a second side of the haircare appliance opposite to the first side of the haircare appliance, the curved surface (16, 18) is adjacent to and downstream of each of the first and second air outlets, and the flat surface comprises a first flat surface (Fig. 2: one-half of ledge 22) adjacent to and extending rearwardly from the first air outlet, and a second flat surface (Fig. 2: second half of ledge 22) adjacent to and extending rearwardly from the second air outlet.
Regarding claim 18, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 17, wherein the haircare appliance comprises a switching mechanism (58, 62, 76, and other parts of the pivoting mechanism) for switching the haircare appliance from a first configuration (Fig. 6a) in which airflow passes through the first air outlet and does not pass through the second air outlet, to a second configuration (Fig. 6c) in which airflow passes through the second air outlet and does not pass through the first air outlet.
Regarding claim 19, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 18, wherein the switching mechanism is actuable to move the haircare appliance between the first and second configurations under action of gravity (a weight can cause the switching mechanism to actuate).
Regarding claim 20, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the haircare appliance comprises an internal baffle (46, 52) for turning airflow from the airflow generator toward the air outlet.
Regarding claim 21, Nicholson discloses the haircare appliance as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the haircare appliance comprises a handle unit (Fig. 8, 106) within which the airflow generator is housed, and an attachment releasably attachable to the handle unit (pg. 20, lines 1-2), the attachment comprising the air outlet and the curved surface.
Regarding claim 22, Nicholson discloses a haircare appliance comprising an air inlet, an air outlet, an airflow generator (pg. 20, line 9) for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet, and a curved surface adjacent to and downstream of the air outlet, wherein a radius of curvature of the curved surface is at least 16mm (see rejection of claims 1 for citations unless otherwise noted).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON LAU whose telephone number is (571)270-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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.
/JASON LAU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights