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 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 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 1 is construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the positive electrodes” (plural structure) and “the negative electrodes” (plural structure) lack an antecedent basis. Since claims 2-20 depend upon an indefinite claim, either directly or indirectly, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency. Claim 4 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the adjacent tine” and “the one tine” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claims 6-7 are further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the first face” and “the second face” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim 8 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the vapor sensor” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claim 10 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “the scalp” and “the respective tines” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claim 11 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the hair” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 1-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2021/0315354) . The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Kim as teaching: an airless hairdryer comprising: a plurality of tines 310, 312 protruding from a body, each tine of the plurality of tines (figure 9) comprising: a positive electrode, and a negative electrode, wherein the positive electrodes and the negative electrodes of the plurality of tines are arranged in an alternating pattern; and a current source configured to generate alternating electric fields between each tine in the plurality of tines, wherein each alternating electric field is between one positive electrode of one tine and one negative electrode of an adjacent tine (paragraphs [0177]-[0178] and figures 8, 9) . Kim also discloses the claim 2 feature wherein the plurality of tines is disposed in a line (figures 3, 5), the claim 3 feature wherein the plurality of tines is disposed in an array (figures 8, 9), the claim 4 feature wherein the adjacent tine is one or more tines directly next to the one tine (figures 2, 3), the claim 5 feature wherein the body comprises: a first face; a second face; and a clamp mechanism configured to bring the first face and the second face towards each other (figures 3, 5), the claim 6 feature wherein the plurality of tines is located on a front side of the first face, a front side of the second face, or both the front side of the first face and the front side of the second face (figures 1, 5), the claim 7 feature wherein the plurality of tines is located on a first side of the first face, a second side of the first face, a first side of the second face, a second side of the second face, or a combination thereof (figures 2, 5), the claim 8 feature of a temperature sensor configured to sense a temperature of a scalp, wherein when the temperature detected by the vapor sensor meets or exceeds a temperature threshold, the alternating electric fields are disabled (paragraph [0028], the claim 12 feature method of drying hair with the airless hairdryer of Claim 1, the method comprising: moving the plurality of tines through hair; generating alternating electric fields between each tine in the plurality of tines, wherein each alternating electric field is between one positive electrode of one tine and one negative electrode of an adjacent tine; and drying the hair (paragraph [0069]) the claim 13 feature wherein the airless hairdryer further comprises a first face, a second face, and a clamp mechanism, wherein the method further comprises: clamping the first face and the second face towards each other as the plurality of tines is moved through the hair (figures 8, 9), the claim 14 feature wherein the airless hairdryer further comprises a temperature sensor, and wherein the method further comprises: detecting a temperature of a scalp; and when the temperature meets or exceeds a temperature threshold, disabling the alternating electrical fields (paragraph [0028]), and the claim 15 feature wherein the temperature sensor is one temperature sensor of a plurality of temperature sensors, wherein each tine of the plurality of tines comprises a temperature sensor, and wherein the method further includes: disabling an alternating electrical field of respective tines of the plurality of tines when a respective temperature sensor detects a temperature of the scalp meeting or exceeding the temperature threshold (also paragraph [0028]) . 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. 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 . Claims 9-11 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Zimmerman (US 2009/0165811) . Kim discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the recited vapor sensor with dryness detection. Zimmerman, another hairdryer, discloses that feature in paragraph [0038]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the teachings of Kim with the teachings of Zimmerman for the purpose of drying hair at a safe threshold preventing injury and optimizing hair beauty and illustriousness. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 8 of copending Application No. 12,290,157 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because copending claims 1, 7, 8, anticipate current application claim 1 except for the patent claim dispenser. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to exclude the patent claim dispenser because the current application claim 1 is substantially the same as the patent claims 1, 7, 8 and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of that feature as being necessary for patentability Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other patent publications cited with this application, may teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting such that a rejection would be proper and reasonable under current Office procedure and practice. References A, B, C, D, N, O, cited with this action, are patent publications from the same inventive entity. References E, F, G, H, I, J, K, P, Q, R, cited with this action teach hairdryers and methods thereof. . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4875 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 ( mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Craig Schneider can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571 272 3607 . 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. Monday, March 16, 2026 /STEPHEN M GRAVINI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753