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. Claims 1, 7, 15, 16 are construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the vane” does not make clear whether that recitation refers to the earlier recited first van or second vane. Since claims 2-20 are dependent upon an indefinite claim, those claims are construed to be indefinite by dependency. Claim 7 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the leading and trailing edges” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claim 8 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the curvature” lack a positive antecedent basis. Claims 10-11 are further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the leading edges” (plural form) lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claim 14 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitations “said first vanes” and “said second vanes” lacks a positive antecedent basis. Claim 19 is further construed to be indefinite because the recitation “the cross-sectional area” lacks a positive antecedent basis.
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 1-6, 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bagnuolo (US 5,671,321). The claims are reasonably and broadly construed in light of the accompanying specification, to be disclosed by Bagnuolo, as teaching:
an attachment (24) for mounting to a hair care appliance (see col. 2, I. 40-51) configured to supply a heated airflow, the attachment comprising:
an airflow passage extending from an upstream airflow inlet (32,37) for receiving an airflow from the appliance to a downstream airflow outlet (36) for discharging the airflow onto a user's hair; and
a first vane (see the first and second upper vanes (38,82) in fig. 2 and 8) arranged in the airflow passage to deflect a portion of the airflow in a first direction, and a second vane (see the first and second lower vanes (38,82) in fig. 2 and 8) arranged in the airflow passage to deflect another portion of the airflow in a second direction that is different to the first direction, each vane comprising opposing surfaces extending between an upstream leading edge and a downstream trailing edge of the vane. Bagnuolo also discloses the claims 2-6, 9, 18, 19 features, see fig. 2 and 8. 1.3.
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 7-8, 10-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagnuolo in view of Law et al. (US 2018/020661). Bagnuolo discloses the claimed invention, as rejected above, except for the claim 7 curve feature, claim 8 convex feature, claim 10 shared axis, claim 11 end to end feature, claim 12 central axis feature, claim 13 opposing sides, claim 14 alternating pattern feature, claim 15 inward taper feature, claim 16 vane taper feature, claim 17 rounded feature, and claim 20 teeth row feature. Law discloses those features in figures 1, 2 and paragraphs [0010], [0011]. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the teachings of Bagnuolo with the teachings of Law for the purpose of providing an optimal shape for airflow.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 of copending Application No. 19/156,515 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because current application claim 1 is anticipated by copending claim 1, except for the copending claimed plates. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the current application with the copending plate feature for the purpose of optimizing airflow in hair care appliance. Current claim 2 is anticipated by copending claim 3. Current claim 3 is anticipated by copending claim 4. Current claim 4 is anticipated by copending claim 2. Current claim 5 is anticipated by copending claim 8. Current claim 6 is anticipated by copending claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Other prior art references cited with this application, may teach one or more claim features, but do not rise to a level of anticipation, obviousness, and/or double patenting such that a rejection would be proper or reasonable under current Office practice and procedure. References A, B, C, N, O, P, cited with this application, are patent publications from the same inventive entity. References D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, cited with this application teach hair devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN MICHAEL GRAVINI whose telephone number is (571)272-4875. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:30 am to 5:00 (mid day flex) first F 6:00 am t0 11:00 am.
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, Craig Schneider can be reached at 571 272 3607. 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.
Monday, August 17, 2026
/STEPHEN M GRAVINI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
Prosecution Insights