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 .
Examiners Comment
This Office action is a second non-final action to correct the discrepancy between the initial non-final rejection and the initial 326 form.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 contains the trademark/trade names Wi-Fi. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe wireless communication and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Examiner notes that claim 20 is further indefinite because it is not clear whether all of the limitations of the claim are required or any one of the limitations. Examiner suggests adding the words “and” or “or” to clearly define the scope of the claim.
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.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yahnker (US 2011/0209721).
As for claim 15, Yahnker shows a hair separator configured to unbundle wet hair (62, fig. 1); and a drying component comprising a vent (32, fig. 1, [0032]) and a row of vibrating bristles moving at a frequency between 5 Hz and 5 MHz [0045].
As for claim 16, Yahnker shows the hair separator is reversibly coupled to the drying component (fig. 2, [0017]).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahnker as applied to claim 15 above and further in view of the user of Yahnker.
Yahnker discloses the claimed invention except for a counter plate configured to ensure the wet hair is placed under tension during drying. Examiner notes that the human hand can be and has been used in hair styling to place hair under tension while brushing or combing. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Yahnker with a counter plate configured to ensure the wet hair is placed under tension during drying because the practice is well known and requires only use of the free hand of the person styling hair.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yahnker as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Calvo (US 10,271,627).
Yahnker discloses the claimed invention except for a battery, a fuel cell, an electrochemical energy source, a renewable energy source, a rechargeable energy source, a wireless charging pad, a temperature sensor to measure temperature, a humidity sensor to measure humidity, a timing device that can track time, a communication component, including WiFi, Bluetooth, Near Field Communication for connecting with an external computing device, a network or a notification system. Calvo teaches a battery, a fuel cell, an electrochemical energy source, a renewable energy source, a rechargeable energy source, a wireless charging pad, a temperature sensor to measure temperature, a humidity sensor to measure humidity, a timing device that can track time, a communication component, including WiFi, Bluetooth, Near Field Communication for connecting with an external computing device, a network or a notification system (5:38) in order to increase portable use of the hair dryer. Yahnker would benefit equally from . It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by with as taught by in order to increasing portable use of the hair dryer. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Yahnker with a battery, a fuel cell, an electrochemical energy source, a renewable energy source, a rechargeable energy source, a wireless charging pad, a temperature sensor to measure temperature, a humidity sensor to measure humidity, a timing device that can track time, a communication component, including WiFi, Bluetooth, Near Field Communication for connecting with an external computing device, a network or a notification system as taught by Calvo in order to increase portable use of the hair dryer.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-14 are allowed.
Claims 18 and 19 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.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1, 8 and 18 include allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose a first spacing between adjacent bristles in the first row of stationary bristles is smaller than a second spacing between adjacent bristles in the second row of stationary bristles including a row of vibrating bristles with all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 8 and 15. The closest prior art disclosing disparate bristle row distance is found in L’oreal (DE202014001947) and JPH0713229U which disclose a first spacing between adjacent bristles in the first row of stationary bristles is smaller than a second spacing between adjacent bristles in the second row of stationary bristles. However, there is no motivation provided to combine the Yahnker reference with L’oreal or JPH0713229U without using impermissible hindsight construction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762