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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/10/2026 with respect to double patenting no longer being applicable in light of amended claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to amended claims being novel over the prior art of record have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous rejection has been withdrawn. However a new rejection is issued in light of Fedorov.
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 25, 26, 28-31, 34, 35, 46 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fedorov (US 2024/0374010).
As for claim 25, Fedorov shows a haircare appliance comprising; a hollow body (100, 112, fig. 4) comprising an air inlet (118, fig. 4) and an air outlet (122, fig. 4), an airflow generator for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet (200, fig. 6), a convex curved surface adjacent to and downstream of the air outlet (108, fig. 5), and a pair of guide walls for guiding the airflow along the convex curved surface, the pair of guide walls extending outwardly from the convex curved surface (see sketch below), wherein a first edge of the convex curved surface is attached to the hollow body adjacent to the air outlet, and wherein a second edge of the convex curved surface is a free edge such that the convex curved surface is cantilevered relative to the hollow body (108, fig. 5, illustrates cantilevered terminus of 108 with the side opposite is attached to the hollow body).
PNG
media_image1.png
252
550
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As for claim 26, Fedorov shows the pair of guide walls extend along substantially an entire length of the convex curved surface (see sketch above).
As for claim 28, Fedorov shows the pair of guide walls comprise a height substantially equal to a height of the air outlet in a region adjacent to the air outlet (see sketch above).
As for claim 29, Fedorov shows the pair of guide walls comprise a radius of curvature greater than a radius of curvature of the convex curved surface (see sketch above).
As for claim 30, Fedorov shows the pair of guide walls comprise a radius of curvature greater than a radius of curvature of the convex curved surface in a region adjacent to the air outlet (see sketch above).
As for claim 31, Fedorov shows the pair of guide walls comprise a height that varies along a length of the pair of guide walls (see sketch above).
As for claim 34, Fedorov shows the haircare appliance is configured such that the airflow exiting the air outlet generates a first force to attract hair toward the convex curved surface (abstract, Coanda effect), and a second force to push hair away from the convex curved surface (force of air in straight line through air outlet away from the convex curved surface).
As for claim 35, Fedorov shows the haircare appliance comprises a handle unit within which the airflow generator is housed, and an attachment releasably attachable to the handle unit, the attachment comprising the air outlet, the convex curved surface and the guide walls (claim 1, fig. 6, a hair dryer with a blower).
As for claim 46, Fedorov discloses an end wall arranged at an end of the convex curved surface remote from the air outlet (see above sketch).
As for claim 47, Fedorov discloses the end wall extends between the pair of guide walls (see above sketch).
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.
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 36-42 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fedorov in view of MacPherson (US 2019/0357654).
As for claim 36 Fedorov discloses an attachment for a haircare appliance comprising an air inlet, an air outlet for emitting airflow, a convex curved surface adjacent to and downstream of the air outlet, and a pair of guide walls for guiding the airflow along the convex curved surface, the pair of guide walls extending outwardly from the convex curved surface (see sketch above). Fedorov discloses the claimed invention except for the pair of guide walls and the convex curved surface are integrally formed as a single component. MacPherson teaches the pair of guide walls and the convex curved surface are integrally formed as a single component ([0023], 3D printing) in order to save manufacturing cost. Fedorov would benefit equally from saving manufacturing costs. 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 Fedorov with the pair of guide walls and the convex curved surface are integrally formed as a single component as taught by MacPherson in order to save manufacturing cost.
As for claim 37, Fedorov discloses the pair of guide walls extend along substantially an entire length of the convex curved surface (see sketch above).
As for claim 38, Fedorov discloses the pair of guide walls comprise a height substantially equal to a height of the air outlet (see sketch above).
As for claim 39, Fedorov discloses the pair of guide walls comprise a height substantially equal to a height of the air outlet in a region adjacent to the air outlet (see sketch above).
As for claim 40, Fedorov discloses the pair of guide walls comprise a radius of curvature greater than a radius of curvature of the convex curved surface (see sketch above).
As for claim 41, Fedorov discloses the pair of guide walls comprise a radius of curvature greater than a radius of curvature of the convex curved surface in a region adjacent to the air outlet (see sketch above).
As for claim 42, Fedorov discloses the pair of guide walls comprise a height that varies along a length of the pair of guide walls (see sketch above).
As for claim 45, Fedorov discloses the haircare appliance is configured such that the airflow exiting the air outlet generates a first force to attract hair toward the convex curved surface (abstract, Coanda effect), and a second force to push hair away from the convex curved surface (force of air in straight line through air outlet away from the convex curved surface).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 48 is allowed.
Claims 33 and 44 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 of Condition for Allowance
Claims 33, 44 and 48 include allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose the pair of guide walls comprise a constant height with all of the limitations of independent claims 25, 45 and 48. Modifying Fedorov such that the pair of guide walls comprise a constant height would destroy the Fedorov reference by changing the pressure and velocity of air exiting the haircare appliance.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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