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 “base” as claimed in claims 7 and 11 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the “base” as described in the filed specification on p. 15, and is described as being in fig. 17, but no base 16 is designated in figure 17. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
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 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.
Claim 1- 23 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.
Claims 1,2,4,5,6,9,10, and 13 recite the limitation “the elements”. There is insufficient base for these limitations in the claims. For purposes of examination, these are all understood to mean --the plurality of elements--.
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, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Cho (U.S. Patent Application 2015/ 0144610).
Regarding claim 1, Cho discloses a hair styling appliance (Cho, 100, figs. 1-3) comprising:
a plurality of elements (pair of bodies110, upper body 111 and lower body 112) moveable relative to each other (Cho, ¶0046, bodies 111 and 112 are hinged) , the plurality of elements comprising a first arm (111) and a second arm (112) coupled together for reciprocal movement towards and away from each other, the first and second arms being arranged to receive hair within a region between each other (Cho, ¶0004, hair is placed between the tongs, ¶0047, “During such a contact operation, a section of hair is first placed between the upper body 111 and the lower body 112 and then the upper body 111 and the lower body 112 are moved towards each other so as to be closed. The upper and lower bodies 111 and 112 are pulled while pressing the hair.”) ; and
a sensor arrangement (130, ¶0052) comprising at least a first sensor (132/133) component mounted to at least one of the elements (arms 111, 112);
wherein the sensor arrangement is configured to:
sense, using the first sensor component, a change in relative position of at least two of the elements (Cho, ¶0054, elements “coming into contact” is change in relative position) ; and output a first signal indicative of the change in relative position (Cho, ¶¶0054, 0056 “optical signal” when in contact which is a change from no signal when not in contact, in this way, a “contact operation signal” is input into the control unit, properly 140).
PNG
media_image1.png
399
508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein sensing a change in relative position of at least two of the elements comprises sensing a change in: an angle between at least two of the elements; and/or a distance between at least two of the elements (Cho, Figs. 1-3, distance between at least two elements of 130, 132 to 133).
Regarding claim 3, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the sensor arrangement comprises a second sensor component for interacting with the first sensor component, wherein the first sensor component is configured to sense the change in relative position based on the interaction with the second component (Cho, The interaction of 130, elements 132 with 133, figs. 1A, 1B).
Regarding claim 4, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 3 and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the first sensor component is disposed on one of the elements, and the second sensor component is disposed on another of the elements (Cho, figs. 1A, 1B, sensing elements 132 and 133 are disposed on opposite arms, or fig 2B, where 135 the first sensor component and 136, the second sensing component, are disposed one on each of the arms, see fig. immediately below).
PNG
media_image2.png
312
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 4 and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the first sensor component is disposed on the first arm, and the second sensor component is disposed on one of the elements other than the first arm (Cho, figs. 1A. 1B, sensing element 132 is on arm 111 and sensing element 133 is on the second arm 112, respectively or fig. 2B, second sensor is disposed on other than first arm).
Regarding claim 6, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the second sensor component is disposed on one of the elements other than the second arm (Cho, disposed on the base, see 2B immediately below, where element 136 is the second sensor element and IS disposed on the base, on an element other than the second arm that moves relative to the second arm and the base, and 135, the first sensor element, is disposed on the first arm, in accordance with claim 5 above).
PNG
media_image3.png
285
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 6 and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the second sensor component is disposed on a base component, relative to which the first and/or second arms are movable (Cho, see fig. 2B, immediately above, where second sensor is disposed on a base component, and moves relative to the first arm, per the claim).
Regarding claim 8, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the second sensor component is disposed on the second arm (Cho, figs. 1A. 1B, sensing elements 132 is on 111 and 133, the second sensor component is on arm 112).
Regarding claim 9, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 4 and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the second sensor component is disposed on the first arm, and the first sensor component is disposed on one of the elements other than the first arm (Cho, figs. 1A. 1B, sensing elements 132 and 133 are disposed on opposite arms, it is only their designation that makes one the “first sensor component” or the “second sensor component”, so they may be designated oppositely than above, to have 132, designated the second sensor component on 111, and 133 designated the first sensor component on 112).
Regarding claim 10, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 9 and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the first sensor component (136) is disposed on one of the elements other than the second arm (Cho, disposed on the base, see 2B immediately below, where element 135 is the second sensor element and IS disposed on the first arm that moves relative to the second arm and the base).
PNG
media_image3.png
285
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 10 and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the first sensor component is disposed on a base component, relative to which the first and/or second arms are movable (Cho, disposed on the base, see 2B below, where element 135 is the second sensor element and IS disposed on the first arm that moves relative to the second arm and the base)..
Regarding claim 13, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 3 and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the first sensor component and the second sensor component are disposed on one of the elements other than the first arm or the second arm (Fig. 2B, immediately below, the sensors may be 135 and 136, in which case, they are both within the designated “base”).
PNG
media_image4.png
284
489
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the first sensor component comprises a switch (Cho, figs. 2A, 2B and 3, ¶0042, “The detection unit 130 includes tact switches 135 and 136 to detect the contact of the upper and lower bodies 111 and 112).
Regarding claim 15, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 14 and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the second component comprises a switch-interacting component that actuates the switch when brought into contact therewith (Cho, can be seen in figs. 2A, 2B and 3, ¶0042, “The detection unit 130 includes tact switches 135 and 136 to detect the contact of the upper and lower bodies 111 and 112).
Regarding claim 16, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the first sensor (133) component comprises a receiver, and the second sensor component comprises a transmitter (132) that transmits a signal receivable by the receiver (¶0054; since this claim depends on claim 1, here element 133 may be designated as the “first sensor” and 132 may be designated as the second sensor. ).
Regarding claim 17, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 16, and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the receiver comprises an optical (133), magnetic, electromagnetic, or sonic receiver, and the second sensor component comprises a corresponding optical signal generator (132), a magnetic field generator, an electromagnetic signal generator, or a sonic signal generator (Cho, ¶0054, “an optical signal of the emitting element 132 is input into the receiving element 133”).
Regarding claim 19, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses a hair styling appliance wherein the sensor arrangement is configured such that the value of the first signal changes based on at least a first threshold angle between the first arm and the second arm (Cho, figs. 2A, 2B, ¶¶0054-55, signal is emitted when in contact which is related to the angle between the arms, whether they are closed or not).
Regarding claim 22, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses a hair styling appliance configured, responsive to the first signal, to modify: a power that is output by a heater within the hair styling appliance (Cho, ¶0044, “The hair iron includes electric heating plates 120 which are attached to the inner surfaces of bodies 110 and generate heat using supplied power. A detection unit 130 detects the operation of the bodies 110. A touch sensor 134 is provided on an outer surface of each of the bodies 110 to detect the contact of a user's hand. A control unit 140 controls driving power according to the detected operation of the detection unit 130, thus driving a preset operation mode of the hair iron 100.”); and/or an airflow rate of air output by an impeller within the hair styling appliance.
Regarding claim 23, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a hair styling appliance comprising a hair straightener (Cho, ¶¶0004, 0005, background, this is generally “a hair iron applying heat energy to the hair to straighten the hair, etc.”).
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.
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 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (U.S. Patent Application 2015/ 0144610) in view of deGrood (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0164708).
Regarding claim 18, Cho discloses all the limitations of claim 17 but does not further disclose a hair styling appliance wherein the first sensor component comprises a hall-effect sensor, and the second sensor component comprises a magnet. However, deGrood, in his hair styling appliance teaches wherein the first sensor component comprises a hall-effect sensor, and the second sensor component comprises a magnet (¶0025, “ the monitoring device 504 in accordance with one embodiment may comprise a) a Hall effect sensor (not shown) in one arm (e.g., the upper arm 102) and b) a corresponding magnet (not shown) disposed in the other arm (e.g., the lower arm 104)”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Cho in view of deGrood, to substitute the Hall – effect sensor and the magnet taught in deGrood for the sensors of the Cho, because the substitution of one known sensor for another (deGrood, ¶0025, “The monitoring device 504 may be any electro-mechanical device capable of monitoring whether the straightener 100 is in the closed position or in the open position… “In other embodiments, a momentary push button type switch may be used to monitor the opened and closed position of the arms 102, 104. It is understood that other suitable monitoring devices may be used to monitor the opened and closed position of the arms 102, 104 without departing from the scope of this invention.”), for another would have yielded predictable results of monitoring and detecting the closing of the arms, and the art itself teaches that these different sensors may be substituted for each other, and that they all work to provide the expected result.
Claims 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho (U.S. Patent Application 2015/ 0144610) in view of Seb SA (European Patent Publication EP2449911A1; in applicant’s IDS, English specification attached) and deGrood (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0164708)
Regarding claim 20, Cho teaches all the limitations of claim 19 but does not further teach a hair styling appliance wherein the sensor arrangement is configured such that the value of the first signal changes based on at least a second threshold angle between the first arm and the second arm, the second threshold angle being different to the first threshold angle. However, Seb SA, in his hair styling appliance, uses a Hall sensor to be able to, based on the sensing, be able to control a further parameter, the steam, at a certain angle, and that would be able to provide control at more angles than just the open and closed state, as in switch sensors, for instance (Seb SA ¶0037, “Alternatively to a magnetic switch, a Hall effect sensor could be chosen to control the steam according to the angle of closure, and no longer according to only two states (closure and opening)”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to apply the teachings of Seb SA to the invention of Cho, to use the Hall sensor in order to be able to detect further positions of the angle between the arms, and when those thresholds are reached, which is other than the threshold when the device is closed, to provide further processing with the device, for instance to effect a further process, such as releasing steam to be further able to better style hair. It is further noted in deGrood that such sensors may be substituted for each other to affect the same purpose of indicating how the device is closed, and the substitution of known sensor would yield predictable results (deGrood, ¶0025, “The monitoring device 504 may be any electro-mechanical device capable of monitoring whether the straightener 100 is in the closed position or in the open position. For example, the monitoring device 504 in accordance with one embodiment may comprise a) a Hall effect sensor (not shown) in one arm (e.g., the upper arm 102) and b) a corresponding magnet (not shown) disposed in the other arm (e.g., the lower arm 104)” “In other embodiments, a momentary push button type switch may be used to monitor the opened and closed position of the arms 102, 104. It is understood that other suitable monitoring devices may be used to monitor the opened and closed position of the arms 102, 104 without departing from the scope of this invention.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12 and 21 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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. Please see attached form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM 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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights