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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the § 112 rejection of claim 14, Applicant argues that “using the indefinite article ‘a’ to positively introduce the element ‘heater assembly’ in the haircare appliance of claim 14 is appropriate.” Examiner disagrees and submits that such recitation is not only improper based on antecedent basis but raises indefiniteness regarding whether not the duplicate citation is the same haircare appliance or a different haircare appliance. Whether or not the recitation occurs in the preamble is irrelevant as all claim limitations must be considered (see MPEP § 2143.03), the feature is still positively recited twice as “a haircare appliance.” Furthermore, MPEP § 608.01(i) clearly states that “[c]laims in dependent form shall be construed to include all the limitations of the claim incorporated by reference into the dependent claim” (emphasis added). In order to alleviate the current indefiniteness issue, Applicant should consider amending the claim into independent form.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant argues that Examiner’s reliance on the drawings’ scale is improper. However, given the immense bread and generic recitation of the claimed elements (which reads on any degree of further rib projections relative to the studs, Examiner maintains that the teachings of Atkinson teach the invention as currently claimed.
At the outset (and as indicated in the telephonic interview of 26 May 2026), claim 1 positively recites a thermal insulation member formed of an elastomeric material that comprises a sleeve, a plurality of ribs and studs that project outwardly from a surface of the sleeve, and the ribs project further than the studs. However, there is no structural cooperative language or configuration language between the ribs and studs, only that the ribs project further than the studs. Thus, while the sleeve surface of Atkinson is circumferential, the ribs extending in the horizontal direction shown in Figs. 8-10 are clearly and unambiguously extended outward in the horizontal direction of the figures further than at least two studs extending forward or backward on the circumferential surface, which do not extend further than the horizontal edge surface shown in the drawings.
PNG
media_image1.png
364
392
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Notwithstanding this, it is unclear how such minor difference in size/shape would impart patentability to the claims over Adkinson, and Applicant is wholly silent with regards to any patentability arguments clarifying how and why the current claims serve to patentably distinguish over the Atkinson. Thus, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Regarding the § 103 rejection of claims 14-19, Applicant relies on similar arguments regarding the ribs and studs of Atkinson. However, this is not persuasive because the thermal insulation member of Atkinson reads on the invention as currently claimed.
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 14-20 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 14 recites the limitation "[a] haircare appliance" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 already recites “a haircare appliance”, thus the second recitation of “haircare appliance” is indefinite because it is unclear if the same haircare appliance is being referenced or a second haircare appliance. Applicant should consider rewriting the claim in independent form in order to alleviate the indefiniteness.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "[a] haircare appliance" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7 and 9-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US2015/0020401 to Atkinson.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-7 and 9-13, Atkinson discloses a thermal insulation member (10,100) for a heater assembly of a haircare appliance, the thermal insulation member being formed of an elastomeric material (see ¶ [0078]) and comprising
a sleeve (see 12 in Figs. 7-11),
a plurality of ribs (134,140,150), and
a plurality of studs (32),
wherein the ribs and studs project outwardly from a surface of the sleeve, and the ribs project further than the studs (see, e.g., Figs. 8-10),
wherein the ribs comprise circumferential ribs that extend about the sleeve in a circumferential direction, and longitudinal ribs that extend along the sleeve in a longitudinal direction (see ribs 134 in Figs 7-8 showing such configuration),
wherein the studs are located between the ribs (see Figs. 7-8),
wherein the studs are dome-shaped (see generally domed shape in Figs. 7-8),
wherein two of the ribs define a channel therebetween for receiving an electrical cable of the haircare appliance (see Figs. 7-10 showing a channel between the ribs fully capable of the intended use of receiving an electrical cable),
wherein two of the ribs define a further channel therebetween for receiving a further electrical cable of the haircare appliance (see above, further note additional ribs capable of the intended use of receiving another electrical cable; there are three circumferential cables in Figs. 7-8 with two separate possible pathways for electrical cables),
wherein the sleeve comprises a circumferential strip devoid of ribs and studs, and the strip is delimited on each side by ribs that extend about the sleeve in a circumferential direction (see Figs. 1-2),
wherein the thermal insulation member comprises one or more annular lip seals located at an end of the sleeve see Figs. 9-10 at top or bottom of sleeve),
wherein the thermal insulation member comprises one or more locating projections that project inwardly from a surface of the sleeve, the locating projections configured to mate with corresponding recesses in the heater assembly (see inner surface of Figs. 9-11 showing inner projections fully capable of receiving a heater assembly),
wherein the thermal insulation member comprises one or more recesses or through-holes in the sleeve for receiving projections of a further assembly of the haircare appliance to secure the thermal insulation member to the further assembly (note outer recesses in Fig. 11; note also the recessed space between the circumferential ribs also read on such recesses),
wherein the sleeve is devoid of ribs and studs along at least one of the top and bottom of the sleeve (see top of sleeve in Fig. 11 devoid of ribs and studs).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson.
Regarding claim 3 Atkinson, supra, discloses the claimed invention including circumferential ribs extending about the sleeve in a circumferential direction and subtending a central angle to some degree. While Atkinson discloses angled ribs Atkinson does not expressly disclose the ribs subtending a central angle of between 15-45 degrees as claimed. Absent evidence of unexpected or unpredictable results, the position is taken that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to angle the ribs as desired, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in form or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(B) regarding Obviousness and Changes in Shape.
Regarding claim 8 Atkinson, supra, discloses the claimed invention including configurations of a channel and a further channel. Atkinson does not expressly disclose their comparative widths. However, any change in the location of the ribs would necessarily result in such configuration. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the rib distances as desired to achieve such configuration and providing the same and predictable results, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Claim(s) 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson in view of JPH 8-191711 to Hirata et al. (“Hirata”).
Atkinson, supra, discloses the claimed invention including use within a haircare appliance (450) having an outer body and a heater assembly. Atkinson does not expressly disclose wherein the thermal insulation member surrounds the heater assembly, the outer body surrounds the thermal insulation member, the ribs contact the outer body, and the sleeve and studs are spaced from the outer body. Hirata discloses an art-related haircare appliance having thermal insulation around a heater (see ¶ [0128]). Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to surround the heater of Atkinson with the rubber insulation member for purposes of insulation.
Regarding claim 15, Atkinson discloses projections and recesses as well as the insulation member being secured within a haircare appliance, and the position is taken that it would have been prima facie obvious to provide conventional securing means such as these to secure the member within the haircare appliance as desired.
Regarding claims 16-17, Atkinson discloses a heater and electrical cables as well as ribs and a channel in the insulation member. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to rearrange the electrical wires as desired, including within the space between ribs, in order to provide the same and predictable results of forming a haircare appliance with a heater and insulating member, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.04(VI)(C) regarding Obviousness and Rearrangement of Parts.
Regarding claim 18, use of recesses and projections for fastening is standard and conventional, and such rearrangement is considered well within the general knowledge and skill of one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, the haircare appliance of Atkinson is sealed and the rubber insulation member is deemed to provide an airtight seal as designed.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atkinson in view of US 2017/0112255 to Saunders et al. (“Saunders”).
Atkinson, supra, discloses the claimed invention including use within a haircare appliance (450) having an outer body and a heater assembly. Atkinson does not expressly disclose wherein two of the ribs define a channel therebetween, and wherein the electrical cable is received within the channel such that the electrical cable is located between the thermal insulation member and the outer body. Saunders discloses an art-related haircare appliance and teaches that it is known to provide an inner channel for wiring to reduce the amount of space required to accommodate the wires (see ¶ [0064]). Therefore, the position is taken that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the sleeve of Atkinson with ribs forming a wiring channel, as taught in Saunders, to yield the same and predictable results of providing a wiring channel while reducing the amount of space required to accommodate the wires.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2017/0112255 to Blanc et al. (previously cited), which expressly teaches an elastomeric sleeve having ribs (144) projecting further than studs (132), as clearly shown and described in Fig. 6 which shows the ribs contacting the haircare appliance housing (150) whereas the shorter studs (132) do not contact the housing:
PNG
media_image2.png
434
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOSEPH L PERRIN whose telephone number is (571)272-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00.
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 E. Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Joseph L. Perrin, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Joseph L. Perrin/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711
Prosecution Insights