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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “leading edge” and “trailing edge” in Claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “two adjacent arc-shaped plates” in Line 9. It shall be “the two adjacent arc-shaped plates”
Claim 2 recites “front end surface” in Ling 8 and “two adjacent arc-shaped plates” in Line 11. They shall be “the front end surface” and “the two adjacent arc-shaped plates”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: Claim 1 recites the splicing end surface that are horizontally adjacent and vertically misaligned”. Since the drier is not a fixed position apparatus, the horizontal and vertical direction of the dryer varies. The Office considers that the “horizontal” direction is parallel to the central axis of the nozzle body and the “vertical” direction is perpendicular to the central axis of the nozzle body. Claim 1 shall be amended to accurately recite the structure. The Office considers that the horizontal direction is the axial direction and the vertical direction is the radial direction.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to their virtual dependency to Claim 1.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2021/082806 to Zou.
In Reference to Claim 1
Zou discloses an air-suction nozzle for an electric hair drier, comprising a nozzle body Fig. 1, 100), wherein the nozzle body is a cylindrical structure provided with a ventilation cavity (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) one end of the nozzle body is provided with a closed end (Fig. 2, 22), and the other end thereof is provided with an air inlet (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) communicated with the ventilation cavity; the nozzle body is formed by splicing or integrally molding a plurality of arc-shaped plates (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) arranged around a central axis of the nozzle body, edges of two adjacent arc-shaped plates are spliced in a staggered manner (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) to form a splicing end surface, and the splicing end surface is divided into a superimposed surface (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) and a misaligned surface (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner); and at least one fluid outlet (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) is uniformly distributed (As showed in Fig. 2, air outlets are uniformly distributed along the length direction) on the misaligned surface, two adjacent arc-shaped plates form cambered surfaces at the splicing end surface that are horizontally adjacent and vertically misaligned, the vertically misaligned cambered surfaces (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) are not overlapped, and due to air flow, hair is automatically twined around the surface of the nozzle body (As showed in Fig. 2, air from the outlet will follow the curved surface).
PNG
media_image1.png
754
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou.
In Reference to Claims 6 and 7
Zou discloses the air nozzle.
Zou does not teach the ventilation cavity gradually shrinks and having an acute angle α is formed between each of the guide plates and an axis line of the ventilation cavity.
According to MPEP: the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine the size and shape of the nozzle in order to maximize the efficiency of the nozzle.
In Reference to Claim 8
Zou discloses the arc-shaped lates are staggered together.
Zou does not teach the method of staggering.
According to MPEP: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 PM.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 7/28/26
Prosecution Insights