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 .
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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
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
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants’ response fails to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art.
Andrew anticipation
Applicants’ response fails to distinguish the claimed invention over the prior art Applicants claim 2 recites claim matter that is expressly disclosed in prior art reference Andrew, as rejected above. Andrew figures 1, 2, 5 show inlet portal 23 meets the claimed attachment inlet because both show attachment and both are an inlet and that reference figures and disclosure shows attachment. Andrew figures 3, 4 show a circular teaching such that the claimed annular connection around the claimed connector. Andrew figures 1, 5, 10, hair dryer attachment around a first end connector as claimed.
Applicants argue that the claimed “airflow from an outlet of the air-moving appliance” is not anticipated by Andrew, however figure 5 and column 5 lines 26-63 expressly shows and discloses this feature.
The Andrew anticipation rejection of claims 2-4 is maintained.
Kim anticipation
Applicants claim a “body” which is expressly shown as a diffuser case 210 at column 8 line 18 and shown in figure 6 which also shows an inner wall and an outer wall defining a cavity therebetween and a central passage, as claimed. Applicants also claim an “attachment” which is expressly shown a diffuser 200 at column 8 line 10 and shown in figures 5, 6. Applicants argue inner and outer walls that are clearly shown and disclosed as rejected above. Since the scope and breadth of the claimed walls do not define the claimed invention over the prior art teachings of Kim, those claim terms are reasonably and broadly construed, in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Kim.
Applicants argue the claimed “wall” configuration distinguishes the claimed invention over the prior art, however Kim front side or rim 211 in figure 5 and circumferential portion 217 in figure 6 expressly show and disclose the claimed wall configuration because both extend into a central passage of the body wherein the all defines an inner space that is closed off from the central passage. Both the claim feature and teaching of Kim are the same and applicants have not distinguished those claim features over the prior art.
Applicants arguments fail to realize the Office action distinguishes the separately claimed “body” and “attachment” are disclosed in Kim as separate elements, as rejected above. Since “inner” and “outer” are given no special meaning or define those wall descriptors over the prior art, a plain meaning is given such that Kim teachings meet those claim elements. In fact, the drawings submitted by applicant in the original application and recent response to the earlier Office action are patentably the same.
The Kim anticipation rejection of claims 9-11 are maintained.
Prehodka anticipation
The claimed “connector” configuration fails to distinguish that feature over the prior art reference Prehoka, as rejected. Beginning in paragraph [0045] of Prehoka, attachment 300 teaches connectors 330, 430 (disclosed as apertures, but structurally and function as the claimed connectors). As shown in figures 6, 7, 8, the connection feature is shown at reference characters 310, 410 power connection and 120 power connection also. In other words disclosed inlet apertures structurally and functionally meet the claimed connector because both prior art Prehoka teaching and the claimed connector are both configured to extend int a central passage of an air moving appliance wherein the connector includes a wall extending along an axis such that wall defining an inner space is closed off from the central passage. Prior reference Prehoka shows these features 6, 7, 8, as rejected above. Applicants argue “closed off” defines the claimed invention over the prior art, but as rejected, that argument is given a plane meaning such that the structure and function of Predhoka meets that claim limitation.
The Prehodka anticipation rejection of claims 16-17 and 20-21 are maintained.
Dependent claims
Claims 12-15 should have been rejected under the same design choice rejections as claims 5-8 and 18-19, but in order to expedite prosecution, those claims will be treated upon either filing a request for continuing examination or appeal.
Applicants argue that the design choice rejection should be withdrawn, however nothing in the response overcomes the rejection such that the rejection should be withdrawn. Specifically the argued grip feature merely recites interference fit and resists movement with are aesthetic features that all grips feature in the prior art of record and in general.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Double patenting rejection
Applicants’ arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicants’ arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The double patenting rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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 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.
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights