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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 17-32 in the reply filed on 1/2/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions of groups I and II are directed to a single inventive concept and can be examined together without imposing distinct search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the shared technical feature common to both inventions does not make a contribution over the prior art (US 20190313759 and EP 2959793A1), as explained in the restriction requirement mailed on 11/4/2025. The cited prior art provides a device having a steam outlet, steam supply system, contact proximity sensor, etc. A search burden exists as method claims require teachings of the particular steps/manipulations which is not always explained in publications that focus on the structural elements of a device. These steps/manipulations require different search queries, searching various NPL resources, etc. The claims of the different groups may require use of different art or different combinations of art.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 33-36 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claim limitation “means for heating” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “means” coupled with functional language “for heating” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 19 and 28 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: one or more heating resistors or any other heating means.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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 19, 20, 23, 24, 26 and 31 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 19 recites the limitation "the plurality of teeth" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites “the predetermined threshold value characterizes one of” the contact between the hair treatment device and the hair, or the proximity of the hair treatment device to the hair. This language is indefinite as it is unclear how a threshold value is defined by contact between two items or proximity of one item to another.
Claim 23 recites “a feeler” where it is unclear what is intended by this term. The term is not conventional in the art and the dictionary defines it as a an animal organ such as antenna or palp that is used for testing things by touch or for searching for food, where this definition is not applicable to a hair treatment device. Additionally, claim 23 appears to be incomplete as the claim ends with “and”.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the stress sensor" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the treatment surface" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the at least one tooth" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the plurality of teeth" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the feeler" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the feeler" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 depends from claim 30 which provides three alternative clauses. Since all of the alternatives do not recite a predetermined time period, claim 31 is indefinite and must be amended to require the clause reciting the time period (i.e. “wherein the steam control unit is configured to prevent the supply of steam by the steam supply system when the at least one predetermined contact….over a predetermined time period”) so as to establish the requirement of a predetermined time period.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 17, 20-22, 26, 27, 30 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ngo et al. (EP2959793A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ngo et al. disclose a hair treatment device (Refer to Figures 1-5 and Abstract), comprising: at least one steam outlet (16) configured to emit steam onto the hair,- a steam supply system (19,6,7,15,16,8,23) configured to supply steam to the at least one steam outlet (16), at least one contact or proximity detector (14,18 or 14,18,20) configured to detect contact between the hair treatment device and the hair or proximity of the hair treatment device to the hair, a steam control unit (13) configured to authorize the supply of steam, and/or to automatically supply steam to the at least one steam outlet by the steam supply system when at least one predetermined contact or proximity condition is met, wherein the at least one predetermined contact or proximity condition is met when contact between the hair treatment device and the hair or proximity of the hair treatment device to the hair is verified from information generated by the contact or proximity detector (Refer to paragraphs 0030 and 0041, where the closed position is defined as the position where the surfaces 4,5 grip or pinch the hair meaning contact with the hair occurs and the detector(s) detect the closed position).
Regarding claim 20, Ngo et al. discloses the predetermined contact or proximity condition is met when information on positive detection of hair contact or hair proximity is generated by a positive or negative detector, or when a value measured by the contact or proximity detector matches a predetermined threshold value, wherein the contact or proximity detector is configured to detect contact between the hair treatment device and the hair and to detect proximity of the hair treatment device to the hair, and the predetermined threshold value characterizes one of: the contact between the hair treatment device and the hair, or the proximity of the hair treatment device to the hair (Refer to paragraphs 0030 and 0041).
Regarding claim 21, Ngo et al. disclose the at least one contact or proximity detector comprises one or more sensors chosen from a mechanical sensor, an optical sensor, a resistive sensor, a capacitive sensor, a thermal sensor, a motion sensor, a magnetic sensor, and a sound sensor (Refer to paragraph 0030 which discloses mechanical, electrical and magnetic contact detectors).
Regarding claim 22, Ngo et al. disclose the detector comprises at least one sensor detecting a mechanical interaction between the hair and the treatment device (Refer to paragraphs 0030 and 0041, where the detector detects a mechanical interaction between the hair and treatment device as the closed position is defined as the position where the treatment surfaces contact (grip/pinch) the hair).
Regarding claim 26, Ngo et a. disclose the at least one contact or proximity detector (14,18,20) comprises an elastic return member (hinge 20) configured to cause the feeler (surfaces of 4 and 5 contacting hair) to return to a rest position (open position) when an external force applied to the elastic return member is released (Refer to Figures 1-3).
Regarding claim 27, Ngo et al. disclose the at least one contact or proximity detector comprises a proximity sensor (Refer to paragraph 0041, the magnetic detector is a proximity detector).
Regarding claim 30, Ngo et al. discloses the steam control unit is further configured to prevent the supply of steam by the steam supply system when the hair treatment device is switched off (when the device is off (unplugged or device in off setting) the steam supply system does not function), or before the at least one predetermined contact or proximity condition is met after switching on the device (steam is not delivered in the open configuration), or when the at least one predetermined contact or proximity condition is no longer met over a predetermined time period (when the device occupies an open configuration after being in the closed position, the detector senses this change and stops the supply of steam). (Refer to paragraphs 0030, 0041 and 0049)
Regarding claim 32, Ngo et al. disclose the steam control unit is configured to supply steam to the at least one steam outlet by the steam supply system when a predetermined temperature condition is met, wherein the predetermined temperature condition is met when the temperature in the vaporization chamber is greater than or equal to a predetermined vaporization temperature (Refer to paragraphs 0026 and 0043-0048).
Claims 17-21 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan (TW 201703678 A).
Regarding claim 17, Duan disclose a hair treatment device (Refer to Figures 1-24 and Abstract), comprising: at least one steam outlet (116) configured to emit steam onto the hair, a steam supply system (115) configured to supply steam to the at least one steam outlet (116), at least one contact or proximity detector (1551, 1111) configured to detect contact between the hair treatment device and the hair or proximity of the hair treatment device to the hair, a steam control unit (155, IC circuit) configured to authorize the supply of steam, and/or to automatically supply steam to the at least one steam outlet by the steam supply system when at least one predetermined contact or proximity condition is met, wherein the at least one predetermined contact or proximity condition is met when contact between the hair treatment device and the hair or proximity of the hair treatment device to the hair is verified from information generated by the contact or proximity detector (In the translation provided, refer to last paragraph on page 3, first paragraph on page 4, second paragraph on page 5, second to last paragraph on page 10 and first paragraph on page 12, where the closed position is defined as the position where the surfaces grip or clamp the hair meaning contact with the hair occurs and the detector(s) detect the closed position).
Regarding claim 18, Duan discloses the hair treatment device is a brush comprising a plurality of teeth (1122,1522,114, Refer to Figures 1-24).
Regarding claim 19, Duan discloses means for heating at least one tooth of a plurality of teeth (Refer to sixth paragraph on page 2).
Regarding claim 20, Duan discloses the predetermined contact or proximity condition is met when information on positive detection of hair contact or hair proximity is generated by a positive or negative detector, or when a value measured by the contact or proximity detector matches a predetermined threshold value, wherein the contact or proximity detector is configured to detect contact between the hair treatment device and the hair and to detect proximity of the hair treatment device to the hair, and the predetermined threshold value characterizes one of: the contact between the hair treatment device and the hair, or the proximity of the hair treatment device to the hair (Refer to last paragraph on page 3, first paragraph on page 4, second paragraph on page 5, second to last paragraph on page 10 and first paragraph on page 12).
Regarding claim 21, Duan disclose the at least one contact or proximity detector comprises a magnetic sensor (Hall switch 1551, magnet 1111).
Regarding claim 27, Duan disclose the at least one contact or proximity detector comprises a proximity sensor (the Hall switch and magnetic constitute a proximity detector).
Regarding claim 30, Duan discloses the steam control unit is further configured to prevent the supply of steam by the steam supply system when the hair treatment device is switched off (when the device is off (unplugged or device in off setting) the steam supply system does not function), or before the at least one predetermined contact or proximity condition is met after switching on the device (steam is not delivered in the open configuration), or when the at least one predetermined contact or proximity condition is no longer met over a predetermined time period (when the device occupies an open configuration after being in the closed position, the detector senses this change and stops the supply of steam).
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.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al. and Kelley (US 20180255897).
Regarding claim 19, Ngo et al. disclose the hair treatment device of claim 17 above; however, Ngo et al. do not disclose a plurality of teeth and means for heating at least one tooth of the plurality of teeth. It is well known and conventional in the art for hair treatment devices such as those disclosed by Ngo et al. to include a plurality of heated teeth as demonstrated by Kelley (Refer to Figures 1- and paragraph 0055). The hair treatment device of Kelly has a similar configuration to that of Ngo et al. where hair is gripped or pinched between the treatment surfaces and Kelly explains it is beneficial to provide a plurality of heated teeth (teeth of 32) to allow for additional heated combing/treatment of the hair while also subjecting the hair to heat via the treatment surfaces (Refer to Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair treatment device of Ngo et al. to include a plurality of teeth and a means for heating the teeth as taught by Kelley so as to include an additional heat treatment which further assists in styling the hair.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. Kosecoff (FR 3119084A1).
Regarding claim 24, Ngo et al. disclose the hair treatment device of claim 17 above; however, Ngo et al. do not disclose the detector is a stress sensor in the form of a piezoelectric sensor configured to detect and/or measure a compressive or shear stress applied by the hair to a treatment surface, to at least one tooth of a plurality of teeth, and/or to a feeler. Ngo et al. teach the detector can be a mechanical, electrical or magnetic detector (Refer to paragraph 0030) but does not specifically mention a piezoelectric sensor as claimed. It is well-known and conventional in the art to use piezoelectric sensors to detect contact and thereby provide information for control feedback as demonstrated by Kosecoff (Refer to second to last paragraph on page 11 of the translation). The hair treatment device of Kosecoff includes contact sensors such as dielectric contact sensors or piezoelectric contact sensors and based on the signal provided by these sensors the device determines whether or not there is hair contact. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ngo et al. such that the detector be a stress sensor in the form of a piezoelectric sensor, as Ngo et al. permit use of various different sensors and Kosecoff demonstrates piezoelectric sensors are well-known and conventionally used to determine contact.
Claims 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al. and Tan (CN 105877097A).
Regarding claim 27, Ngo et al. disclose the hair treatment device of claim 17 above where Ngo et al. disclose the detector can be a mechanical, electrical or magnetic detector (Refer to paragraph 0030). As explained in the 35 USC 102 rejection above the magnetic detector is considered to be a proximity detector; however, if Applicant intended for the proximity detector to constitute another type of detector different from a magnetic detector, it is well-known and conventional in the art to use proximity sensors to detect proximity/contact and thereby provide information for control feedback as demonstrated by Tan (Refer to the first paragraph on page 10 of the translation). The hair treatment device of Tan includes sensors controlling steam actuator may be a contact sensor, thermal sensor, proximity sensor, etc. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Ngo et al. such that the detector be proximity sensor, as Ngo et al. permit use of various different sensors and Tan demonstrates proximity sensors are well-known and conventionally used to control generation/actuation of steam.
Regarding claim 29, Ngo et al. disclose the hair treatment device of claim 17 above; however, Ngo et al. do not disclose the at least one contact or proximity detector further comprises a gripping detector configured to detect gripping by a user of the hair treatment device, wherein the steam control unit is configured to authorize the supply of steam, and/or to automatically supply steam to the at least one steam outlet by the steam supply system when a predetermined gripping condition is met, wherein the predetermined gripping condition is met when a gripping condition is verified from information generated by the gripping detector. Tan discloses a similar hair treatment device which generates and delivers steam, where the device includes a control device 500 which responds to a sensing switch which senses when the device is held by the user, such that the pump motor automatically starts to begin steam generation (Refer to first paragraph on page 10 of translation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair treatment device of Ngo et al. such that the detector include a gripping detector configured to detect gripping by a user of the hair treatment device, wherein the steam control unit is configured to authorize the supply of steam, and/or to automatically supply steam to the at least one steam outlet by the steam supply system when the gripping detector senses a gripping condition as taught by Tan in order to avoid delay in treating the hair with steam.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al.
Regarding claim 31, Ngo et al. disclose the hair treatment device of claim 30 above where the steam control unit is configured to prevent the supply of steam when the at least one predetermined contact or proximity condition is no longer met over a predetermined time period. Ngo et al. explain that the detector senses the open and closed positions where the closed position is defined as the position where the surfaces pinch or grip the user’s hair, therefore establishing contact. The control unit does not dispense steam in the open position. Although Ngo et al. does not explicitly state the predetermined time period is less than or equal to 2 seconds, one of ordinary skill in the art understands based on the disclosure that detection is constantly occurring and starting and stopping the supply off steam is essentially instantaneous. Morgandi et al. discloses a similar hair treatment device where the regulators are used to control heating elements based on a detected open or closed state, where regulation occurs within a predetermined time period, e.g. 0.1 to 1 second, upon detection (Refer to paragraph 0057). Thus, Morgandi et al. demonstrate it is conventional for such predetermined time periods to be less than 2 seconds. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair treatment device of Ngo et al. such that the time period be less than or equal to 2 seconds as Morgandi et al. demonstrates the claimed time period is conventional to provide immediate or near immediate control based on sensed conditions.
Claims 23, 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan and Durrant et al. (GB 2608363A).
Regarding claims 23, 25 and 26, Duan discloses the hair treatment device of claims 17 and 18 above; however, Duan does not disclose the detector comprises a stress sensor configured to detect a compressive or shear stress applied to a treatment surface and/or at least one tooth of the plurality of teeth and/or a feeler associated with the stress sensor present on or in the vicinity of the treatment surface, where the feeler is pivotable from a rest position about a rotation axis, with an apparatus configured to detect and/or measure a movement of the feeler and the detector comprising an elastic return member configured to cause the feeler to return to a rest position when an external force applied to the elastic return member is released. Duan discloses the detector may be a Hall switch and magnet, or the Hall switch can be any sensor and the magnet can be any trigger, meaning any type of detector can be used. Durrant et al. discloses a hair treatment device which provides a detector for controlling operation of the device, where the detector may be a mechanical, electromechanical, capacitive, indictive, magnetic, etc. sensor (Refer to page 15 lines 8-10). In one embodiment, Durrant et al. provides a Hall-effect sensor and a magnet, similar to Duan (Refer to page 28 lines 1-6). In another embodiment, Durrant et al. provide a mechanical detector, where links 88, 90, 92 are connected at a junction such that when force is applied to the arms so as to close the arms, links 88 and 90 come closer together and link 92 slides in a constrained manner within a slot, resulting in mechanical amplification of the movement between the surfaces/arms and more sensitive and reliable detection (Refer to Figure 23 and page 32). This configuration thereby provides a pivotable feeler associated with a stress sensor present in the vicinity of the treatment surface, where an apparatus detects and/or measures movement of the feeler and the pivotable connections between the links and the arms establishes an elastic return member, where the elastic return member is configured to cause the feeler to return to a rest position when an external force applied thereto is released. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Duan such that the detector include a stress sensor configured to detect a compressive or shear stress applied to a pivotable feeler associated with the stress sensor that is present in the vicinity of the treatment surface, where an apparatus is configured to detect/measure movement of the feeler and an elastic return member is configured to cause the feeler to return to a rest position when external force is removed as Duan permits other detector configurations and Durrant et al. demonstrate the claimed detector configuration is an art-recognized functionally equivalent, obvious variant which can be substituted/interchanged with the configuration provided by Duan.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duan and Pang (US 20200352302).
Regarding claim 28, Duan discloses the hair treatment device of claim 18 above, Duan further discloses a means for heating a treatment surface and/or at least one tooth of the plurality of teeth (Refer to sixth paragraph on page 2 and claims 5 and 6). however, Duan does not disclose the detector comprises a temperature sensor, wherein the steam control unit is configured to authorize the supply of steam and/or automatically supply steam to the at least one steam outlet when at least a decrease in temperature below a setpoint temperature characteristic of contact or proximity with the hair is detected by the temperature sensor. Duan discloses the detector may be a Hall switch and magnet, or the Hall switch can be any sensor and the magnet can be any trigger, meaning any type of detector can be used. Pang discloses a similar hair treatment device (Refer to Figures 1-2) where a control unit receives information from a detector and uses this information to change operating parameters (Refer to Abstract). Pang explains that the detector is a temperature sensor, where when the detected temperature is above a threshold, the control unit responds by reducing contact pressure with the hair and when the temperature is below a threshold, the control unit responds by increasing contact pressure (Refer to paragraphs 0012-0013, 0016). Thus, Pang demonstrates it is well-known and conventional in the to use temperature sensors to provide control feedback to operational units of hair treatment devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair treatment device of Duan such that the detector comprise a temperature sensor, where detection of a decrease in temperature below a setpoint by the temperature sensor is provided to the control unit for authorizing/ automating actuation (i.e. supply of steam) as Duan permits other detector configurations and Pang demonstrates it is well-known and conventional to use temperature sensors to provide such feedback to control units.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799