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 8/3/2026 with respect to the amendment to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The amended specification is accepted and entered into record.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the objection of claims 25, 42 and 43 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 25, 42 and 43 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims 26 and 33-35 under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 26 and 33-35 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claim 42 under 35 USC 112(d) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 42 under 35 USC 112(d) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 has been withdrawn. Examiner notes that MPEP 2125.II allows the teaching of the specification to supplement the information provided by a drawing not specifying that features are to scale. In this case the specification of Maclaine teaches in paragraph [0098] that the air outlet configuration leads to benefits analogous with those found by applicant. However, the teaching relates to the angle of air discharge as opposed to teaching anything about the size of the opening. As such, examiner agrees that Maclaine fails to teach an air outlet comprises an open cross-sectional area in a region of 140mm sq to 450mm sq as required by claims 25 and 46. Examiner notes that the claimed size range of the air openings is not typical for hair care appliances which apertures are generally substantially smaller than 140mm sq to 450mm sq or substantially larger than 140mm sq to 450mm sq. As such, examiner agrees that the claims are patentably distinct from Maclaine and the prior art of record.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claim 25 not being unpatentable with respect to claim 2 of US Patent No 12,274,342 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that it is only necessary that the elements of the examined claim be found in the double patenting reference, without regard to whatever other features the double patenting reference may recite. Examiner further notes that all substantive issues have been resolved in this application other than the double patenting rejections.
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 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12/274,342. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations for claim 25 of the present application are recited in claim 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12/274,342.
As for claim 25, U.S. Patent No. 12/274,342 discloses a haircare appliance comprising an air inlet, an air outlet (claim 1, line 2), an air flow generator for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet (claim 1, line 6, generating an air flow force requires an air flow generator), and a curved surface adjacent to and downstream of the air outlet (claim 1, line 3), wherein the air outlet comprises an open cross- sectional area in the region of 140mm2 to 450 mm2 (claim 2).
Claim 25 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18273719 in view of Maclaine (US 2015/0265024).
As for claim 25, application No. 18273719 discloses a haircare appliance comprising an air inlet, an air outlet (claim 1, line 2), and a curved surface adjacent to and downstream of the air outlet (claim 1, lines 3-4), wherein the air outlet comprises an open cross- sectional area in the region of 140mm2 to 450 mm2 (claim 7). Copending application 18273719 discloses the claimed invention except for an air flow generator for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet. Maclaine teaches an air flow generator for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet (70) in order to provide a flow of air between the air inlet and outlet. Application 18273719 would benefit equally from providing a flow of air between the air inlet and outlet. 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 application 18273719 with an air flow generator for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet as taught by Maclaine in order to provide a flow of air between the air inlet and outlet. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 25 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18273736 in view of Maclaine (US 2015/0265024).
As for claim 25, application No. 18273736 discloses a haircare appliance comprising an air inlet, an air outlet (claim 1, line 2), and a curved surface adjacent to and downstream of the air outlet (claim 1, lines 3-4), wherein the air outlet comprises an open cross- sectional area in the region of 140mm2 to 450 mm2 (claim 7). Application 18273736 discloses the claimed invention except for an air flow generator for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet. Maclaine teaches an air flow generator for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet (70) in order to provide a flow of air between the air inlet and outlet. Application 18273736 would benefit equally from providing a flow of air between the air inlet and outlet. 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 application 18273736 with an air flow generator for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet as taught by Maclaine in order to provide a flow of air between the air inlet and outlet. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 25 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of copending Application No. 18273742 in view of Maclaine (US 2015/0265024).
As for claim 25, application No. 18273742 discloses a haircare appliance comprising an air inlet, an air outlet (claim 1, lines 1-2), and a curved surface adjacent to and downstream of the air outlet (claim 1, lines 2), wherein the air outlet comprises an open cross- sectional area in the region of 140mm2 to 450 mm2 (claim 8). Application 18273742 discloses the claimed invention except for an air flow generator for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet. Maclaine teaches an air flow generator for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet (70) in order to provide a flow of air between the air inlet and outlet. Application 18273742 would benefit equally from providing a flow of air between the air inlet and outlet. 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 application 18273742 with an air flow generator for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet as taught by Maclaine in order to provide a flow of air between the air inlet and outlet. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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, 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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights