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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A drive unit in claim 1 wherein drive is a functional language with the unit being a generic placeholder.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A drive unit is interpreted that applies an alternative voltage which comprises a switch with a DC/DC converter, and a DC/AC inverter as disclosed in the specification (page 8, lines 26-29), or its equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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(s) 1-4, 6, 9, 12 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moore et al (US 2017/0360174).
Moore discloses the hair styling appliance as claimed including a first electrode (25a) and a second electrode (25b), a drive unit (see Figure 6) for applying alternating voltages to the electrodes to heat dielectrically hair between the electrodes wherein the drive unit applies a first alternating voltage (e.g., a positive voltage) to the first electrode and a second alternative voltage (e.g., a negative voltage) to the second electrode (also, see Figure 3 wherein the electrodes having an opposite voltage polarity that has a phase angle of 180 degree (ash shown from the positive to negative polarity) to each other.
With respect to claim 2, Moore discloses the alternating voltages being switched at a frequency of at least 10 MHz (see para 0020 and 0094).
With respect to claim 3, Moore discloses a pair of first electrodes and as a second pair of electrodes (also, see Figure 3) wherein the drive unit applies the first alternating voltage (e.g., positive voltage) across the pair of electrodes and the second alternating voltage (e.g., negative voltage) across the pair of second electrodes.
With respect to claims 4 and 6, Moore discloses the drive unit having a first inverter comprising a single pair of switches (shown by element 34) for generating the first alternating voltage and a second inverter (shown by a single pair of switches as shown by element 35) for generating a second alternative voltage. Also, see Figure 6 and para 0094.
With respect to claim 9, Moore discloses the hair appliance comprising a pair of arms (4a, 4b) that is configured to have an open position and a closed position wherein the arms can grip the hair in the closed position.
With respect to claim 12, Moore discloses at least one of the arm is moveable relative to the electrodes as the arms can be in a closed and an open position.
With respect to claim 14, Moore disclose the electrodes that are housed with a thermally insulating material (para 0064) such as a non-conductive plastic material (para 0065).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al (US 2017/0360174) in view of Casper (US 2012/0111850).
Moore discloses the hair styling appliance claimed including the inverters (34, 35) but does not show each of the inverters having one or more resonant networks.
Casper discloses it is known to provide an inverter (205) with one or more resonant networks (e.g., capacitor) that is known to create a resonant circuit wherein resonance at a predetermined switching frequency, a maximum transfer of power can be had. Also, see para 0028-0024; and Figures 2 and 9.
In view of Casper, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Moore with each of the inverters having one or more resonant networks (e.g., capacitor) so that an efficient transfer of power can be made through the inverter at the desired switching frequency to effectively apply the respective first and second alternating voltages from the respective first and second inverters of Moore.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al (US 2017/0360174).
Moore discloses the hair styling appliance claimed including the electrodes in the closed position having a spacing for heating hair therebetween but Moore does not explicitly disclose for the spacing to be no greater than 10 mm.
Moore however discloses for the electrodes, provided with a heating plate, to be in the closed position to provide a contact surface with hair therebetween (para 0006 and 0026), and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt for the spacing between the electrodes to be no greater than 10 mm, as a matter of routine operation and optimization to provide a close contact of the heating plate with hair as the hair is dielectrically heated via the electrodes.
With respect to claim 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Moore with the spacing between the electrodes to be no less than 1 mm, as a matter of routine operation and optimization, to allow hair or a bundle of hair to be sufficiently and adequately positioned between the electrodes.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moore et al (US 2017/0360174) in view of Choi (US 2010/0101599).
Moore discloses the hair styling appliance claimed including the arms but does not show a gripping portion formed of a resiliently deformable material.
Choi shows it is known to provide a hair appliance a pair of arms (1, 2) for gripping the hair in a closed position wherein Choi further shows a gripping portion (40, 40’) formed of a resilient deformable material such as silicone for which allows for hair to be effectively pressed down (para 0030).
In view of Choi, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Moore with one of the arms provided with a gripping portion formed of a resiliently deformable material to predictably allow hair to be effectively pressed down as desired.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Piel et al (US 2020/0085084) discloses for an dielectric heating device with an resonant circuit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG Y PAIK whose telephone number is (571)272-4783. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00-5:30; M-F.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/SANG Y PAIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights