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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “airflow generator” in claim 1 and “mounting member” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 of the claim recites “ resiliently deformable member” which should be revised to recite “ resiliently deformable member”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 11-13, 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20100064542 A1 to Mulvaney et al. (Mulvaney).
In reference to independent claims 1 and 18, Mulvaney discloses:
A haircare appliance (10) comprising an air inlet (12a), an air outlet (12b), an airflow generator (20) for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet, and a heater assembly for heating the airflow, the heater assembly (17, 30, 40) comprising a heater (17, 40) and a heater housing (30), wherein the heater (17, 40) is mounted to the heater housing (30) at a plurality of discrete mounting points (see Fig. 4A).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
866
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In reference to dependent claim 9, Mulvaney further discloses: the heater housing comprises first and second portions (30a, 30b) attached to one another (see Fig. 3).
In reference to dependent claim 11, Mulvaney further discloses: the first and second portions (30a, 30b) are attached to one another such that the first and second portions overlap (not shown, but this would be implicit for the two halves to overlap in order to form an attachment to one another).
In reference to dependent claim 12, Mulvaney further discloses: the heater (17, 40) and the heater housing (30) are curved in form (see Fig. 3, which shows the heater and heater housing being frustoconical and thus curved/rounded in form).
In reference to dependent claim 13, Mulvaney further discloses: the heater (17, 40) comprises a main body (17, see Fig. 4A), and a plurality of fins extending outwardly from the main body (see Fig. 3), and the main body is mounted to the heater housing at the plurality of discrete mounting points (see Fig. 4A).
PNG
media_image2.png
598
1100
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
504
866
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to dependent claim 15, Mulvaney further discloses: the heater housing (30) comprises a first open end (30c) in fluid communication with the air inlet (12a), and a second open end (30d) in fluid communication with the air outlet (12b), and the haircare appliance comprises a flow guide (end of mica-board structure 17 proximate 30d) for guiding airflow exiting the second open end (see Figs. 2 and 3).
In reference to dependent claim 16, Mulvaney further discloses: the flow guide (see Figs. 2 and 3) is shaped to direct airflow exiting a central region (along centerline 11) of the second open end (30d) in a direction away from the central region (implicit as air is blown out of the hair drying apparatus 10, airflow exiting through the second open end 30d would necessarily be directed away from the central region of the second open end).
In reference to dependent claim 17, Mulvaney further discloses: the flow guide (see Figs. 2 and 3) is shaped to inhibit airflow exiting a peripheral region of the second open end (the mica-board structure 17 is encased by the body 12 of the hair drying apparatus 10 prevents airflow from exiting the periphery of the outlet).
Claim(s) 1-3, 7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 207884908 U to Hu.
In reference to independent claims 1 and 18, Hu discloses:
A haircare appliance (electric hair dryer shown in Fig. 1) comprising an air inlet (near fan 15), an air outlet (near baffle 3), an airflow generator (15) for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet, and a heater assembly for heating the airflow, the heater assembly (1, 9) comprising a heater (9) and a heater housing (1), wherein the heater (9) is mounted to the heater housing (1) at a plurality of discrete mounting points (see Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claim 2, Hu further discloses: a mounting member (11) located at at least one of the plurality of discrete mounting points (see Fig. 1), and the mounting member is resiliently deformable (“a damping spring”).
In reference to dependent claim 3, Hu further discloses: the mounting member (11) comprises a discrete mounting member attached to the heater housing (1) (see Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claim 7, Hu further discloses: the mounting member (11) comprises a fixed mounting member (attached to housing 1) that defines at least one of the plurality of discrete mounting points (see Fig. 1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulvaney.
In reference to dependent claim 10, Mulvaney teaches that the heater housing (30) could alternatively be formed from a unitary piece (i.e. the two halves 30a and 30b being made integral) (see [0037]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heater housing to be welded together as Mulvaney already teaches that one design option would be to make the heater housing as a unitary piece. Moreover, the use of a one piece construction in place of separate pieces would merely be a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mulvaney in view of US 3,667,370 to Pattison.
In reference to dependent claim 14, Mulvaney discloses that the heater (17, 40) comprises mica (“mica-board structure 17”) and not ceramic.
Pattison teaches a similar air heater including heater (17) that is comprised of a resistance heating wire (44) wrapped around a stiff, flat card (45) that is preferably mica or ceramic (see col. 2 at lines 42-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the mica board of Mulvany for a ceramic board as they are known equivalents as evidenced by Pattison.
Claim(s) 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu.
In reference to dependent claims 4-5, Hu is silent regarding the materials of the mounting member and the heater housing. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the materials as a matter of design choice based on their suitability for the electric hairdryer.
In reference to dependent claim 6, Hu is silent regarding the mounting member is integrally formed with the heater housing. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the prior art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified hairdryer of Hu to make the mounting members 11 integral with the heater housing 1 as the use of a one piece construction in place of separate pieces would merely be a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ngoc T Nguyen whose telephone number is (571)272-7176. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Steve McAllister can be reached at (571) 272-6785. 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.
/NGOC T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799