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 Objections
Claims 2 and 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 4-5 recite the limitation “Device” in line 1. Please amend to --- The device ---.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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:
The limitation “first control element” in claim 1 which has been interpreted to mean or include a magnet. (Page 3, lines 3-6 of the Specification)
The limitation “second control element” in claim 1 which has been interpreted to mean or include a magnetometer sensor. (Page 3, lines 3-6 of the Specification)
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.
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 1-2 and 4-5 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 1 recites the limitation "the automatic control" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the removable engagement" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the flow" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the air" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandel et al. (US 2004/0040948, hereinafter Mandel) in view of Altunay et al. (DE202009009713 U1, hereinafter Altunay).
PNG
media_image1.png
344
452
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
278
390
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
398
448
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
578
464
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
650
578
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
780
522
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 1 & 5, Mandel discloses device (102, figs. 1, 2) for the automatic control of a hair dryer (100, figs. 1, 2), said device (102, figs. 1, 2) comprises a wearable element (wearable piece of clothing, [0033]) provided with a support (110, fig. 2) for the removable engagement with the hair dryer (100, figs. 1, 2),
a first control element (116, fig. 2) which can be coupled with said wearable element (wearable piece of clothing, [0033]), and a second control element (108, fig. 2) which can be coupled with said hair dryer (100, figs. 1, 2),
said second control element (108, fig. 2) being designed to switch said hair dryer (100, figs. 1, 2) off when arranged in proximity of said first control element (116, fig. 2) ([0033], [0035]), and to switch said hair dryer (100, figs. 1, 2) on when arranged away from said first control element (116, fig. 2) ([0035]); (Application claim 1) and
wherein said first control element (116, fig. 2) is a magnet (magnetic, [0034]) and said second control element (108, fig. 2) is a magnetometer sensor (magnetoresistive sensor or the like, [0030]; in other words, the like can be a magnetometer sensor). (Application claim 5)
Mandel does not disclose said wearable element comprising a belt provided with an adjustment buckle and said support comprising a waist bag carried by said belt. (Application claim 1)
Altunay teaches said wearable element (Altunay, ANNOTATED fig. 1) comprising a belt (Altunay, ANNOTATED fig. 1) provided with an adjustment buckle (Altunay, ANNOTATED fig. 1) and said support (Altunay, 2, 3, fig. 2) comprising a waist bag (Altunay, 3, fig. 2) carried by said belt (Altunay, belt, ANNOTATED fig. 1). (Application claim 1)
It is noted that there are a limited number of choices available to a person of ordinary skill in the art for providing a wearable element type. In this regard, it is noted that Altunay teaches that said wearable element comprising a belt provided with an adjustment buckle and said support comprising a waist bag carried by said belt.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to try the wearable element of Altunay to the device of Mandel, since this is simply another wearable element type for supporting or holding the hair dryer.
“When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show it was obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007). Therefore, it would have been obvious to try the wearable element of Altunay to the device of Mandel, since this is simply another wearable element type for supporting or holding the hair dryer.
Furthermore, Mandel does not disclose said first control element is a magnetometer sensor and said second control element is a magnet. (Application claim 5)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the device for the automatic control of the hair dryer of Mandel with said first control element is a magnetometer sensor and said second control element is a magnet (Application claim 5), since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Shifting the locations of the magnetometer sensor and the magnet does not modify the operation of the device for the automatic control of the hair dryer because the device for the automatic control of the hair dryer would still automatically control the hair dryer. Please note, Specification of the instant application does not disclose any criticality of the claim invention.
Regarding claim 2, Mandel as modified discloses wherein said first control element (116, fig. 2) is a magnet (magnetic, [0034]) and said second control element (108, fig. 2) is a magnetometer sensor (magnetoresistive sensor or the like, [0030]; in other words, the like can be a magnetometer sensor).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandel and Altunay as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takizawa et al. (US 6,792,692, hereinafter Takizawa).
PNG
media_image7.png
846
534
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
698
464
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Mandel as modified discloses wherein said hair dryer (100, figs. 1, 2) comprises button (106, figs. 1, 2) and a CPU (202, fig. 5; microcontroller or the like, [0035]; “the like” can be a CPU; furthermore, it is well-known in the art that the microcontroller includes a CPU as evidenced by Yong et al. (US 2018/0332945), more specifically see claim 6) designed to store the set drying program (fig. 6) and to maintain such program each time the hair dryer (100, figs. 1, 2) is switched off and on.
Mandel does not disclose said hair dryer comprises a pair of buttons for setting a hair drying program by adjusting respectively the flow and temperature of the air dispensed by the hair dryer.
Takizawa teaches said hair dryer (Takizawa, 10, fig. 1) comprises a pair of buttons (Takizawa, 22, 23, fig. 1) for setting a hair drying program (Takizawa, fig. 3) by adjusting respectively the flow and temperature of the air dispensed by the hair dryer (Takizawa, 10, fig. 1) (col. 1, line 63 through col. 3, line 21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to further modify the device for the automatic control of the hair dryer of Mandel with said hair dryer comprises a pair of buttons for setting a hair drying program by adjusting respectively the flow and temperature of the air dispensed by the hair dryer, as taught by Takizawa, for providing a greater flexibility of drying different hair types and/or styles at different desired temperatures and/or airflows which would result in effectively drying a user’s hair without damage or burn and thus the use’s satisfaction is promoted. Thus, the hair dryer is more user-friendly and thus benefits the consumer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAO D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5141. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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 5712726460. 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.
/BAO D NGUYEN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762 /MICHAEL G HOANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3762
Prosecution Insights