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 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 1-20 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. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “maximizing” in claims 1-20 is used by the claim to mean “extending,” while the accepted meaning is “a maximal amount.” The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. Examiner notes that maximizing the remaining battery life would go beyond reducing the power a constant amount to the first and second infrared bulbs until the battery is depleted as battery life could be extended further by turning off the power to one infrared bulb and reducing power to the remaining bulb at a minimal power to be marginally effective. Instead, applicant discloses devices to extend the remaining battery life in preferred manners for optimal performance.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perez (US2002/0108264) in view of Yamazaki (US 2016/0302548).
Perez discloses a battery-operated hair dryer comprising: a wire positioned within an air flow channel (15, fig. 3, [0043]); and control circuitry coupled to the wire and powered by at least one battery [0042], the control circuit having an algorithm configured to determine a power mode setting to alter the power output of the nichrome wire to maximize the remaining battery life, the power mode setting selected from the group consisting of; reducing the power a constant amount to the nichrome wire until the battery is depleted; reducing the power at various times to the nichrome wire until the battery is depleted; and pulsing the power up and down at various time intervals nichrome wire until the battery is depleted [0002].
Perez discloses the claimed invention except for a nichrome wire. Yamazaki teaches a nichrome wire (15, fig. 3, [0043]) in order to provide a heating element that converts electrical energy into heat efficiently. Perez would benefit equally from providing a heating element that converts electrical energy into heat efficiently. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Perez with a nichrome wire as taught by Yamazaki in order to provide a heating element that converts electrical energy into heat efficiently.
As for claim 8, Perez is used to disclose pulsing, not reducing the power a constant amount such that the limitation of claim 8 applies further definition to the first option of claim 1 which Perez is not cited to disclose.
As for claim 9, Perez is used to disclose pulsing, not reducing the power at various times such that the limitation of claim 9 applies further definition to the second option of claim 1 which Perez is not cited to disclose.
As for claim 10, Perez discloses pulsing the power at various time intervals which entails reducing the power and increasing the power and repeating until the battery is depleted (fig. 5d, [0059]) but does not disclose the percent reduction. However, doing so is a result effective variable wherein the more the power is reduced the longer the battery life is extended. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the dryer as disclosed by Perez with pulsing the power up and down at various time intervals includes powering the wire at 100%, reducing the power to 70%, increasing the power to 100% because doing so is a well-known result effective variable.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) but would be allowable if the rejection is withdrawn.
Reasons for Allowance
Claims 1 and 11 include allowable subject matter because prior art could not be found to disclose a battery-operated hair dryer comprising: first and second infrared bulbs positioned within an air flow channel and control circuitry coupled to the first and second infrared bulbs and powered by at least one battery, the control circuit having an algorithm configured to determine a power mode setting to alter the power output of the first and second infrared bulbs to maximize the remaining battery life with all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11. The closest prior art includes Yamazaki (US 2016/0302548) which is a battery operated hair dryer that includes a nichrome wire and a ceramic infrared heater. However, claims 1 and 11 require two infrared bulbs which have a significantly higher thermal inertia than Yamazaki’s ceramic infrared heaters. As stated in applicant’s specification paragraph [0022] thermal inertia is a material element of applicant’s invention. Nobuhito (JP-2020137973-A) discloses a hair dryer using a nichrome wire and one infrared bulb, but does not employ a battery, such that adding power mode settings would not make sense. Sangwon (KR20200097842) discloses a battery, infrared bulbs and a nichrome wire but the infrared bulbs are not in the air flow path, which is an essential element of claims 1 and 11. Battery management is a well know art. Bittner (US 7,260,732) discloses the power mode setting selected from the group consisting of; reducing the power a constant amount to the load until the battery is depleted; reducing the power at various times to the load until the battery is depleted; and pulsing the power up and down at various time intervals to the load until the battery is depleted. Although Bittner is not in the same art as applicant’s invention, it does solve the same problem. However, combining Bittner with any combination of the above cited art requires hindsight reconstruction to achieve the limitations of applicant’s invention and not an obvious matter to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN PATRICK MCCORMACK whose telephone number is (571)270-7472. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 1:30 PST.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/JOHN P MCCORMACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
