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 § 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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Andrew et al. (US 6,922,909). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Andrew as teaching:
an attachment for an air-moving appliance (see title and abstract) comprising:
a first end 23 configured to removably connect to the air-moving appliance, the first end including an attachment inlet for receiving airflow from an outlet of the air-moving appliance (figure 5, column 5 lines 14-25);
a second end 20, 21 spaced from the first end, the second end including an attachment outlet (figure 10);
a body 22 defining a passage for airflow between the first end and the second end (figure 1); and
a connector 23, 24, 25 configured to extend into a central passage of the air-moving appliance, wherein the connector includes a wall extending along an axis and forming a cylinder, wherein the attachment inlet of the first end is annular and extends around the connector (figures 1, 5, 10). Andrew also discloses the claim 3 feature wherein the attachment inlet of the first end is circumferentially disposed about the axis and the wall of the connector and is defined radially between the wall of the connector and the body of the attachment (column 4 lines 40-45), the claim 4 feature wherein the attachment outlet of the second end includes at least one elongate slot (column 4 lines 46-54).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 11,844,408). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Kim as teaching:
an air-moving appliance (see title and abstract) comprising:
a body 210 including an inner wall and an outer wall, the outer wall and the inner wall defining a cavity therebetween, the inner wall defining a central passage of the body (figures 5, 6);
an inlet 212, 224 for airflow to enter the cavity (figures 5, 6);
an outlet 300 for the airflow to exit the cavity; and
an attachment 200 comprising:
a wall 211, 217 configured to extend into the central passage of the body, wherein the wall defines an inner space that is closed off from the central passage; and
an attachment inlet 240, 260 in flow communication with the outlet, wherein the attachment inlet is annular and extends around the wall of the attachment (figures 6, 7). Kim also discloses the claim 10 feature wherein the attachment includes a connector including the wall, and wherein the central passage of the body is configured to receive the connector therein, the connector having a shape that corresponds to the shape of the central passage of the body (figures 5, 7), the claim 11 feature of a handle configured to be held by a user during operation of the air-moving appliance (figures 6, 7).
Claims 16-17 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Prehodka. (US 2011/0277335). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Prehodka as teaching:
an attachment for an air-moving appliance (see title and abstract), the attachment comprising:
a first end 230 configured to removably connect to a body of the air-moving appliance, the first end including an inlet for receiving airflow from an outlet of the air-moving appliance (figure 1);
a second end 220 spaced from the first end, the second end including an attachment outlet (figure 3);
prongs 340, 540, 640 extending from the second end and configured to engage hair; a body defining a passage for airflow between the first end and the second end (figures 6, 12, 15); and
a connector 330, 430 configured to extend into a central passage of the air-moving appliance, wherein the connector includes a wall extending along an axis, the wall defining an inner space that is closed off from the central passage (figures 6, 7, 8). Prehodka also discloses the claim 17 feature of a collar that extends about the wall, the collar and the wall defining the inlet; and braces extending between the wall and the collar (figures 6, 7, 8), the claim 20 feature wherein the attachment outlet includes at least one elongate slot (figures 10, 12, 15), the claim 21 feature wherein the wall of the connector extends along an axis and forms a cylinder, and wherein the inlet is annular and is circumferentially disposed about the axis and the wall (figures 6, 7, 8).
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 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Andrew in view of Predhodka. Andrew discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the recited prongs. Predhodka, another air moving appliance, discloses that features, as discussed in the third anticipatory rejection above. Furthermore, Andrew discloses the claimed invention, except for the recited grip feature and elastic extension. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite those features since the teachings of Andrew would perform the invention as claimed, regardless of those features and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim. Prehodka discloses the claimed invention, except for the recited elastic member or air shaped passage. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite those features since the teachings of Prehodka would perform the invention as claimed, regardless of those features and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
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 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,156,578. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because that patent anticipates the claimed invention except the patent claimed sidewall. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite the current claimed invention without the patent feature since the patent would perform the invention as claimed, regardless of those features and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,330,884. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because that patent anticipates the claimed invention except the current application claimed wall. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite the current claimed invention with the patent feature since the patent would perform the invention as claimed, regardless of those features and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
Claim 16 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,156,578. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because that patent anticipates the claimed invention except the current application claimed prongs. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to recite the current claimed invention without the patent feature since the patent would perform the invention as claimed, regardless of those features and applicants have not claimed or specified the criticality of those features as being necessary for patentability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references 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. References A, B, C, N, cited with this application, at patent publications from the same inventive entity. References B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, O, P, teach hair attachments.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 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.
Thursday, June 4, 2026
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights