DETAILED ACTION
Application Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This action is in response to Applicant’s submission dated 09/14/2026. Claim(s) 1–18 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1–14, in the reply filed on 09/14/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Groups share a common special technical feature not disclosed by the prior art. This is not found persuasive because the entirety of claim 1 (including a light emitting element) is anticipated by the prior art, as discussed in greater detail below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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: “an element for obtaining at least one sensor reading” in claim 9, which has been interpreted to mean “a light propagating element, a lens, a mirror, a hollow prismatic pipe, a light rod, a mirrored light pipe, an optical fiber, or an optical filter.
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 does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 10–11 are objected to because of the following informalities: it appears both claims 10 & 11 should depend from claim 9 as they both recite “the element for obtaining at least one sensor reading”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 9 is 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. The phrase "in particularly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claim(s) 1–2 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,026,821 to Last.
With regard to claim 1, Last discloses a haircare appliance (abstract), comprising a processing element (40) (Col. 5, lines 41–46), at least one light emitting element (12) emitting at least two wavelengths (abstract; Col. 2, lines 13–23; Col. 4, lines 26–37), and a sensor element (14) (Col. 5, lines 2–5), wherein the light emitting element (12) is adapted to irradiate hair to be treated (Col. 5, lines 22–26), wherein the sensor element (14) is adapted to receive a sensor reading from an acquisition region of the irradiated hair and generate a sensor signal dependent on the sensor reading (Col. 5, lines 1–8), wherein the sensor element (14) is a spectral sensor element (Col. 5, lines 1–8), and wherein the processing element (40) is adapted to determine a moisture content of at least a portion of the irradiated hair from the sensor (14) signal (Col. 5, lines 5–8, 12–21, 41–48).
With regard to claim 2, Last further discloses the haircare appliance comprises: a single sensor element (14) adapted to receive a plurality of spectral bands (Col. 5, lines 2–8, 29–49), the single sensor element (14) having at least two sensor sections (Col. 5, lines 2–8, 29–49), wherein the single sensor element (14) employing a plurality of filter elements or a dynamic filter element having a plurality of filter characteristics (Col. 5, lines 2–8, 29–49), to receive the different spectral bands (Col. 5, lines 2–8, 29–49).
With regard to claim 11, Last further discloses the element for obtaining at least one sensor reading is at least one element or arrangement out of the group consisting of an optical element for collecting, transporting/guiding and distributing light, a lens, a mirror, a hollow prismatic pipe, a light rod, a mirrored light pipe, an optical fibre and an optical filter (Col. 3, lines 15–20; Col. 5, lines 25–41).
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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Last in view of US 2017/0164887 to Chattopadhyay et al.
Last further discloses the sensor element (14) is a spectral sensor element (Col. 5, lines 2–8, 29–49).
Last fails to disclose the sensor element is operated in a time-division multiplexing (TDM) mode. Chattopadhyay teaches a sensor element is operated in a time-division multiplexing (TDM) mode (¶ 0105). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the haircare appliance of Last with the TDM because such a combination would have been one of a limited number of communication protocols the sensor could have used to transmit the information to the processor.
Claims 4–6 & 9–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Last in view of US 2022/0304444 to Wang et al.
With regard to claim 4, Last fails to disclose at least one of a time-of-flight sensor element, a proximity sensor element, a distance sensor element, a contact sensor element, a light intensity sensor element, a microwave sensor element, and a capacitive sensor element to determine a hair presence and/or a distance between the haircare appliance and the hair, and/or wherein the sensor element is adapted for a time-of-flight measurement to determine a hair presence and/or a distance between the haircare appliance and the hair. Wang teaches a time-of-flight (TOF) sensor and a proximity/distance sensor element to determine a hair presence and/or a distance between the haircare appliance and the hair (¶¶ 0097, 0099). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the haircare appliance of Last with the proximity sensor of Wang because such a combination would have had the added benefit of allowing the processor to determine the distance between the hair and the haircare appliance so the output temperature can be adjusted accordingly.
With regard to claim 5, Last fails to disclose at least one temperature sensor for measuring one or more of ambient temperature and/or hair temperature, wherein the at least one temperature sensor is arranged in the vicinity of the sensor element, and/or wherein the at least one temperature sensor is arranged in the vicinity of the acquisition region. Wang teaches at least one temperature sensor for measuring one or more of ambient temperature and/or hair temperature (¶¶ 0078, 0083, 0100), wherein the at least one temperature sensor is arranged in the vicinity of the sensor element (¶¶ 0078, 0083, 0100), and/or wherein the at least one temperature sensor is arranged in the vicinity of the acquisition region (¶¶ 0078, 0083, 0100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the haircare appliance of Last with the temperature sensor of Wang because such a combination would have had the added benefit of providing the temperature of the hair to the processing element so the heat output could be adjusted accordingly.
With regard to claim 6, Last fails to disclose at least one temperature sensor is acquiring a temperature value in the vicinity of the sensor element and/or in the vicinity of the acquisition region, and wherein the powering of the blower, the powering of a heater, and/or the powering of a cooling element for cooling the vicinity of the sensor element and/or the vicinity of the acquisition region is dependent on the acquired temperature value. Wang teaches at least one temperature sensor is acquiring a temperature value in the vicinity of the sensor element and/or in the vicinity of the acquisition region (¶¶ 0078, 0083, 0100), and wherein the powering of the blower, the powering of a heater, and/or the powering of a cooling element for cooling the vicinity of the sensor element and/or the vicinity of the acquisition region is dependent on the acquired temperature value (¶¶ 0078, 0083, 0100). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the haircare appliance of Last with the temperature sensor of Wang because such a combination would have had the added benefit of providing the temperature of the hair to the processing element so the heat output could be adjusted accordingly.
With regard to claim 9, Last further discloses the sensor element (14) is arranged spaced apart from the acquisition region (Col. 5, lines 1–8), wherein information related to the sensor reading is transmitted from the acquisition region to the sensor element by an element for obtaining at least one sensor reading (Col. 5, lines 1–8).
Last fails to disclose the information is transmitted wirelessly. Wang teaches the information is transmitted wirelessly (¶¶ 0096, 0108, 0168). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the haircare apparatus of Last with the wireless transmitter of Wang because such a combination would have had the added benefit of allowing the signal to be transmitted wirelessly, which eliminates the need for wires.
With regard to claim 10, Last as previously combined with Wang further discloses the element for obtaining at least one sensor reading is a light propagating element (Last: Col. 5, lines 1–8); and wherein the light propagating element is arranged for transmitting the information related to the sensor reading as electromagnetic radiation from the acquisition region to the sensor element (Wang: ¶¶ 0096, 0108, 0168).
Claims 7, 12, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Last in view of US 2021/0307472 to Conrad.
With regard to claim 7, Last fails to disclose a colour sensor element to determine a hair colour and/or a melanin content of the hair to be treated, and/or wherein the sensor element is further adapted for a hair colour measurement to determine a hair colour and/or a melanin content of the hair to be treated. Conrad teaches a colour sensor element to determine a hair colour and/or a melanin content of the hair to be treated (¶ 0765), and/or wherein the sensor element is further adapted for a hair colour measurement to determine a hair colour and/or a melanin content of the hair to be treated (¶ 0765). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the haircare apparatus of Last with the hair color sensor of Conrad because such a combination would have had the added benefit of knowing the hair color of the user so appropriate treatment conditions can be adjusted to that hair type.
With regard to claim 12, Last further discloses a main body (2) comprising a blower (18) for generating an airflow and the sensor element (14) (Fig. 2; Col. 4, line 59 – Col. 5, line 8), wherein radiation from the light emitting element (12) is transmitted to the acquisition region and the information related to the sensor (14) reading is transmitted from the acquisition region to the sensor element (14) by the element for obtaining at least one sensor reading (Col. 5, lines 1–8, 27–38).
Last fails to disclose the main body comprises an attachment region adapted for connecting an accessory, and an accessory wherein the accessory is attachable to and/or detachable from the main body at the attachment region, wherein the accessory, when attached to the main body, is adapted to receive the airflow from the blower, and wherein the accessory is adapted to discharge the received airflow towards the hair of a user. Conrad teaches the main body (12) comprises an attachment region adapted for connecting an accessory (104) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0476), and an accessory (104) (Fig. 1; ¶ 0476), wherein the accessory (104) is attachable to and/or detachable from the main body at the attachment region (Fig. 1; ¶¶ 0476, 0481), wherein the accessory (104), when attached to the main body (12), is adapted to receive the airflow from the blower (38) (¶¶ 0336, 0450), and wherein the accessory (104) is adapted to discharge the received airflow towards the hair of a user (¶¶ 0336, 0450, 0476). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the haircare apparatus of Last with the accessory of Conrad because such a combination would have had the added benefit of allowing a user to change attachments to achieve a desired hot air output pattern.
With regard to claim 14, Last as previously combined with Conrad further discloses the operation of the haircare appliance is adaptable dependent on the sensor reading and/or the determined moisture content (Last: Col. 5, lines 5–8, 12–21, 41–48), and further dependent on a type of accessory attached to the main body (Conrad: ¶ 0476).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Last.
Last fails to disclose the haircare appliance comprises a plurality of acquisition regions and/or a plurality of sensor elements, wherein the haircare appliance comprises a plurality of elements for obtaining at least one sensor reading and/or a plurality of further transmission elements, and wherein the plurality of elements for obtaining at least one sensor reading and/or the plurality of further transmission elements connect the plurality of acquisition regions and/or a plurality of sensor elements. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a plurality of acquisition regions and/or a plurality of sensor elements, wherein the haircare appliance comprises a plurality of elements for obtaining at least one sensor reading and/or a plurality of further transmission elements, and wherein the plurality of elements for obtaining at least one sensor reading and/or the plurality of further transmission elements connect the plurality of acquisition regions and/or a plurality of sensor elements., since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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: see attached PTO-892. Applicant is encouraged to review the cited references prior to submitting a response to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J LAUX whose telephone number is (571)270-7619. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5:30 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, 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.
/DAVID J LAUX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
September 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights