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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-22 in the reply filed on 5/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 23-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/12/2026.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Floessholzer (US 2016/0242524 A1).
Floessholzer discloses a method comprising: generating a pressure signal (by pressure sensor 712) indicative of air pressure with an airflow path of a hair care appliance 700 upstream of an airflow generator 720 (Fig. 7A); estimating, based at least partly on the pressure signal, a blockage factor corresponding to an amount by which the airflow path is blocked (paragraphs [0018], [0042], [0043], [0052], increased pressure from P1 to P2 indicates the blocks of airflow path). With regard to the limitations “when the estimated blockage factor exceeds a blockage warning threshold, outputting a warning indicative of a partial blockage; and when the estimated blockage factor exceeds a critical threshold, the critical threshold being higher than the blockage warning threshold, turning off or reducing a power output of at least one component of the haircare appliance”, the steps of outputting and turning off or reducing are contingent on the estimated blockage factor exceeds a blockage warning threshold and the estimated blockage factor exceeds a critical threshold, the critical threshold being higher than the blockage warning threshold respectively and are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (MPEP 2111.04).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Floessholzer (US 2016/0242524 A1) in view of Kamata et al. (JP 2021019828 A)
The method of Floessholzer as above includes all that is recited in claims 18 and 21 except for the haircare appliance includes a removable accessory and using a sensor to identify the airflow accessory that is attached. Kamata et al. discloses a haircare appliance includes a removable accessory 12 and a control part 51 that determines presence and absence of accessory 12 to the dryer body from the measurement distance of the distance sensor 26 (Figs. 1-2, abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Floessholzer to provide the haircare appliance of Floessholzer with a removable accessory and using a sensor to identify the airflow accessory that is attached as taught by Kamata et al. in order to control the airflow. As for the method stop of estimating the blockage factor at least partly taking into account an impact of the change in airflow characteristic caused when the airflow accessory is attached in claim 18, the step of estimating is contingent on airflow accessory is attached and is not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (MPEP 2111.04).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
Claims 13-17, 19-20 and 22 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The primary reason for allowance of claims 1-11 is the inclusion of the limitations “when the estimated blockage factor exceeds a blockage warning threshold, output a warning indicative of a partial blockage; and when the estimated blockage factor exceeds a critical threshold, the critical threshold being higher than the blockage warning threshold, turn off or reduce a power output of at least one component of the haircare appliance” in claim 1 in combination with the remaining claimed elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wakizaka et al. (US 2014/0366397 A1) discloses it is known to use a differential pressure sensor to detect a pressure difference upstream and downstream from a heat exchanger and it is determined that filter clogging is generated when the pressure difference is a predetermined level or less according to reduction in flow rate of the passing air (paragraph [0005]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA J YUEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4878. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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 G 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.
/Jessica Yuen/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3762
JY
Prosecution Insights