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
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE3805345 to Arslan (The art rejection is made based on the respective English translation by PE2E).
In Reference to Claim 1
Arslan discloses an attachment (Fig. 1, 1) for a haircare appliance, the attachment comprising an air inlet (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner), an air outlet (Fig. 4, 6), a curved surface (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) adjacent to and downstream of the air outlet, and a rib (Fig. 2, 16) positioned such that the rib interacts with airflow exiting the air outlet to align the airflow exiting the air outlet and direct the airflow exiting the air outlet across the curved surface. (As showed in Fig. 2, the air discharged from the outlet 6 would be guided by the rig 16 following the curved surface)
In Reference to Claim 3
Arslan discloses the rib is movable relative to the air outlet. (Fig. 2, 16, the rib is rotatable with respect to the air outlet)
In Reference to Claim 4
Arslan discloses the rib (Fig. 2, 16) is positioned to bisect airflow exiting the air outlet to align airflow. (Since the rib 16 is positioned in the middle position with respect to the curved surface, therefore, the rib bisect the airflow).
In Reference to Claim 5
Arslan discloses connecting members (Fig. 2, 10) for holding the rib in position in airflow exiting the air outlet.
In Reference to Claim 6
Arslan discloses the connecting members (Fig. 2, 10) are rigidly connected to the rib.
In Reference to Claim 7
Arslan discloses the connecting members (Fig. 2, 10) are equally spaced (As showed in Fig. 1, the connecting member 10 is positioned at the both ends of the rib) along a length of the rib.
PNG
media_image1.png
532
645
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2015/0265022 to Maclaine in view of Arslan.
In Reference to Claims 18 and 19
Maclaine discloses a haircare appliance comprising an air inlet (Fig. 1b, 40), an air outlet (Fig, Fig. 1a, 100), an airflow generator (Fig. 1b, 70).
a handle unit (Fig. 1b, 20) within which the airflow generator (Fig. 1b, 70) is housed, and an attachment (Fig. 1b, 30) releasably attachable to the handle unit, the attachment comprising the air outlet
Maclaine does not teach a curved surface.
Arslan teaches an attachment comprising an air outlet (Fig. 4, 6), an airflow generator for generating an airflow from the air inlet to the air outlet, a curved surface (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) adjacent to and downstream of the air outlet, and a rib (Fig. 2, 16) positioned such that the rib interacts with airflow exiting the air outlet to align the airflow exiting the air outlet and direct the airflow exiting the air outlet across the curved surface. (As showed in Fig. 2, the air discharged from the outlet 6 would be guided by the rig 16 following the curved surface)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Arslan into the design of Maclaine. Doing so, would result in the design of Arslan being used as the attachment of Maclaine. Both inventions of Maclaine and Arslan are in the same field of endeavor, Arslan teaches a design with excellent hairdressing result with a predictable result of success.
In Reference to Claim 20
Maclaine discloses an attachment (Fig. 1a, 30) for a haircare appliance, the attachment comprising a main body comprising an air inlet (Fig. 1a, the connection portion between attachment 30 and the main body 20) and air outlet (Fig. 1a, 100).
Maclaine does not teach the guide rotatable guide the airflow.
Arslan teaches a guide (Fig. 2, 16) rotatable with respect to the main body between first and second positions, a curved surface (Fig. 2, annotated by the examiner) adjacent to and downstream of the air outlet (Fig. 4, 6), wherein the guide comprises a rib (Fig. 2, 16) positioned such that the rib interacts with airflow exiting the air outlet to align the airflow exiting the air outlet when in the first position, and wherein the rib is movable relative to the air outlet. (As showed in Fig. 2, the air discharged from the outlet 6 would be guided by the rig 16 following the curved surface)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Arslan into the design of Maclaine. Doing so, would result in the design of Arslan being used as the attachment of Maclaine. Both inventions of Maclaine and Arslan are in the same field of endeavor, Arslan teaches a design with excellent hairdressing result with a predictable result of success.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4-14 and 17 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 8/5/26
Prosecution Insights