DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major (US 4,308,013) in view of Golosarsky (US 9,610,039).
Regarding claim 1, Major teaches a cosmetology instrument comprising: a first and second (10, 12) housing, the electronic component (70), and heat dissipation assembly (44, 50) are disposed in the first housing (see Fig. 2; 10), the semiconductor chilling and heating plate (22) is disposed in the second housing (Fig. 2; 12), the first and second housings are connected through the heat dissipation assembly (44 contacts both 10 and 12; see Fig. 2); a circumferential air opening (60) is formed by a gap (60 is formed in the space between 10 and 12) between the first and second housings (Fig. 2) and the first housing is provided with a second air opening (66); an air channel is formed between the electronic component and an inner wall of the housing (see flow lines, Fig. 2).
Major teaches that the airflow direction is reversed to that claimed.
Golosarsky teaches that it is old and well-known to direct airflow from the base to the head (443 to 442) in such devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to flow the air in either direction depending on the device which is most temperature sensitive at a given time.
Major further teaches that: the heat dissipation assembly comprises a heat dissipation fan (52) and member (44), one end of the heat dissipation member is connected with the semiconductor chilling and heating plate (via 46), the fan is disposed on one side away from the semiconductor (Fig. 2) and the fan is connected with the electronic component (Col. 3:21-22), per claim 2; the semiconductor is connected with the electronic component (Col. 3:21-22) via an electronic wire (Figs. 1-2) through a passage in the heat dissipation assembly, per claim 4; the heat dissipation assembly comprises a connecting member (external widened perimeter, see around 64) and a connecting bracket (14) is disposed at the end of the second housing closest to the first housing and is clamped and connected with the connecting bracket (Fig. 2), per claim 5; the electronic component comprises a batter (70) and a mounting frame (seen head on in Fig. 2, the width of the battery; seen side on in Fig. 1 forming the standoff between the battery and the housing 10 in Fig. 1) and the battery is fixed to the mounting frame (see Figs.), a first air channel is formed by a gap between the battery and the other side of the inner wall of the housing and a second channel is formed by a gap between the mounting frame and an adjacent inner wall of the housing (each of the air flow portions that connect with 66 meet both of these criteria), per claim 8; the heat dissipation assembly comprises a fan (52) with a supporting column (attached to the shaft; see Fig. 2) and fins (see Fig. 2) provided circumferentially about the column and the column (shaft) is opposite the battery (70) in a length direction of the housing (see Fig. 2), per claim 9.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major (US 4,308,013) in view of Golosarsky and Privas (US 3,971,229).
Regarding claim 3, Major does not teach that the heat dissipation member has cambered surfaces obliquely facing the circumferential air openings (60).
Privas teaches that it is old and well-known to form smooth cambered oblique surfaces (see smooth direction-changing surfaces of the heat sink that interact with airflow at 46c; Fig. 10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Major with the oblique surfaces taught by Privas to increase the efficiency of airflow.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Major in view of Golosarsky and Yeh (US 7,679,908).
Major, as modified, teaches the mounting opening (central opening of 14) but does not teach attaching a heat sink to a connecting member via clamping strip.
Yeh teaches that it is old and well-known to connect a heat sink and housing member via a clamping strip (327, 325), clamping hooks 134) for interacting with the clamping strip, per claim 6; and the clamping strip comprises positioning blocks (325) which correspond to positioning grooves (137), per claim 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the heat sink and mounting frame of Major with the mounting arrangements of Yeh in order to provide for secure connecting during attachment of the mounting frame to the first housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/4/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments do not correctly identify the first and second housing portions. The relevant element numbers in the primary reference are 10 and 12, which do not contact each other and between which openings 60 are formed.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Golosarsky do not address the combination in the theory of rejection but attack Golosarsky individually.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Devon Lane whose telephone number is (571)270-1858. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th, 9-4.
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, Jerry-Daryl Fletcher can be reached at 571.270.5054. 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.
/DEVON LANE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763