DETAILED ACTION
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 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) 1,3-5,7,9-10,12 and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu.
In reference to independent claim 1, Hu discloses:
A haircare appliance (electric hair dryer shown in Fig. 1) comprising:
an outer body (see Fig. 1);
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;
a heater assembly (1, 9) disposed within the outer body (see Fig. 1) 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); and
a resiliently deformable mounting member (“a damping spring” 11) located at at least one of the plurality of discrete mounting points (see Fig. 1).
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).
In reference to dependent claim 3, Hu further discloses: a discrete mounting member attached to the heater housing (1) (see Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claims 4-5, Hu is silent regarding the materials of the discrete 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 7, Hu further discloses: a fixed mounting member (attached to housing 1) that defines at least one of the plurality of discrete mounting points (see Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claim 9, Hu further discloses: the heater housing comprises first and second portions attached to one another (see Fig. 1 annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
740
754
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is a product-by-process claim and, as such, it is not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, but only by the structure that is implied by the steps. The courts have held that “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Hu discloses all the structural elements of the haircare appliance formed by the claimed process in claim 10, i.e. the first and second portions are welded to one another. Thus, HU anticipates the invention as claimed in claim 10.
In reference to dependent claim 12, Hu further discloses: the heater and the heater housing are curved in form (i.e. cylindrical, see Fig. 1).
In reference to dependent claim 14, Hu further discloses: the heater comprises a ceramic material (ceramic film pipes 11 and 14).
In reference to dependent claim 15, Hu further discloses: the heater housing comprises a first open end in fluid communication with the air inlet, and a second open end in fluid communication with the air outlet, and the haircare appliance comprises a flow guide (3) for guiding airflow exiting the second open end.
PNG
media_image2.png
740
754
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In reference to dependent claim 16, Hu further discloses: the flow guide (3) is shaped to direct airflow exiting a central region of the second open end in a direction away from the central region (as air is expelled from the hairdryer and thus away from the second open end, see Fig. 1, it would necessarily be guided away from the central region).
PNG
media_image3.png
740
756
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In reference to dependent claim 17, Hu further discloses: the flow guide is shaped to inhibit airflow exiting a peripheral region of the second open end (see Fig. 1 as annotated below; air exiting through the peripheral region of the second open end would be blocked by the baffle 3).
PNG
media_image4.png
740
754
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 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.
Claims 8 and 18-20 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
In reference to independent claim 8, the claim now incorporates the previously indicated allowable subject matter of claim 7 and intervening claims 1 and 2 (see Non-Final Rejection mailed March 19, 2026).
In reference to dependent claims 11 and 13, Mulvaney’s hairdryer’s first and second portions overlap but the dryer of Mulvaney does not have a resiliently deformable mounting member located at at least one of the plurality of discrete mounting points. Regarding claim 11, Hu does not disclose first and second portions overlapping one another. Regarding claim 13, Hu does not disclose a plurality of fins extending outwardly from the main body, the main body being mounted at the plurality of discrete mounting points.
In reference to independent claim 18, the prior art of record, Non-Final Rejection mailed March 19, 2026, discloses a heater assembly for heating airflow through a haircare appliance, such as a hairdryer, having a heater mounted at a plurality of discrete mounting points in a heater housing with a resiliently deformable mounting member at each discrete mounting points. However, the prior art does not disclose or teach the resiliently deformable mounting member adapted to inhibit motion of the heater relative to the heater housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant argued (on page 7 of the Remarks filed June 18, 2026) that Hu does not disclose the features recited in previously recited claim 6 (now canceled). While the Non-Final Rejection mailed March 19, 2026 acknowledged that Hu does not disclose “wherein the resiliently deformable mounting member is integrally formed with the heater housing”, Applicant failed to address the remainder of the rejection of previously recited claim 6, i.e. making the resiliently deformable mounting members integral with the heater housing would have been obvious. It has been held that the use of a one-piece construction instead of separate pieces is merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. See MPE 2144.01(V)(B). Thus, independent claim 1, including the previously recited subject matters of claim 6, remains rejected.
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 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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
Prosecution Insights