DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 3/13/26 was/were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 2/12/26. These drawings are objected to.
New Figure 8 is/are not accepted. The new figure is/are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) for introducing new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
The entire figure is new matter; applicant has no support in the original drawings for the entirely new cross-sectional figure presented as New Figure 8. No previous cross-section was presented showing the motor or any of the interior components now illustrated. Entirely new drawings are not permitted to be added into the disclosure mid-prosecution if such drawings were not previously presented. This is new matter; the entirety of Figure 8 is new matter.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
The replacement drawings are objected to because replacement Figures 1-7 is/are titled improperly because the view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters (see 37 CFR 1.84(u)).
Replacement sheets 1-8 of the figures are objected to because the drawing sheets are numbered improperly. See 37 C.F.R. 1.84(t), which requires the drawing sheet numbering must be clear and larger than the numbers used as reference characters to avoid confusion. In the instant case, two sets of sheet numbers are presented (one at the top of each page and one at the bottom), both sets of numbers are smaller than the reference characters, and the numbers at the botto-m of the page lack the oblique line required. Only one set of sheet numbering should be presented.
The drawings remain objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “shell and the handle arranged eccentrically, a central axis of the shell is offset toward a side where the hair clipping opening is located and the thermal conductive cylinder is located at the central axis of the shell” of claims 9-11 (note that Figure 2 presented by applicant clearly illustrates the thermal conductive cylinder (2) not located at the central axis (B) of the shell and it is unclear how this arrangement would be possible in combination with the other figures presented), “motor with an internal gear sleeved on the motor” of claim 11 (the language “internal gear sleeved on the motor” is the issue, applicant can claim a motor with gears without drawing support, but “sleeving a gear on a motor” is not a known thing so this must be illustrated to understand what it is supposed to mean or reworded to overcome the objection); “the coverage areas” of claim 16; “a limited step” of claim 18; “a height of an inlet surface facing the hair rotating entry is greater than a height of a back surface away from the hair rotating entry” of claim 19 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The description of New Figure 8 should be removed with the cancellation of Figure 8 as new matter, as there is no support for this figure and it is entirely new, which is improper.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 13, 15 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 13: recites “the hair entry groove is in a shape of a straight line and extends radially along the thermal conductive cylinder”; however, this directly conflicts with applicant’s figures and disclosure, which illustrate the “hair entry groove 21” to be curved and not “a straight line”. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 15: this claim recites “in an initial state, the hair entry groove, hair rotating entry, and hair clipping opening are arranged opposite to each other”; however, there is not support for this in the disclosure. Instead, applicant explicitly claims these openings are aligned (see claim 1) so this claim is not supported by the disclosure. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 19: this claim recites “a top surface of the hair rotating rack is an inclined plane”; however, there is no written description support for this language in the disclosure. No “inclined plane” is illustrated in applicant’s figures or described in applicant’s disclosure. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 20: recites “the hair rotating rack is an integrally molded structure”; however, the disclosure does not indicate that anything in the device is “molded”. The word “mold” does not appear anywhere in applicant’s originally filed disclosure. This is a new matter rejection.
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(s) 1-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1: recites “the hair rotating rack is an annular structure with an opening…a single hair rotating entry is provided on a side wall of the hair rotating rack”; however, based on a review of applicant’s disclosure this “opening” is the “hair entry” and they are not separate/different things as applicant appears to be claiming. Applicant is respectfully reminded that one term must be used consistently throughout the claims to refer to a single feature. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “the opening forms a single hair rotating entry that is provided on a side wall of the hair rotating rack”. It is also noted, that if applicant continues to claim these as two openings, rather than adopt the office’s interpretation above, this will result in a new matter rejection. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 6: recites “wherein a transparent area is formed by hollowing out the side wall of the hair rotating rack and covering a hollowed-out area with a transparent material”; however, applicant appears to be claiming a series of method steps rather than structure. The claims are all drawn to a device and not a method of manufacturing a device, so the language “formed by hollowing out…and covering” is unclear because it is unclear if applicant is attempting to claim method steps, which is improper. Applicant can claim a transparent material and an opening, but the language “formed by…and covering” are improper and indefinite. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 9: this claim requires “the thermal conductive cylinder and the handle are arranged eccentrically, and a central axis of the thermal conductive cylinder is offset relative to a central axis of the handle”; however, this appears to directly conflict with applicant’s own figures and disclosure which is confusing and make the metes and bounds the claim unclear. While applicant has support for the shell to be eccentrically arranged on the handle, it does not provide support for the conductive cylinder located at the central axis of the handle and it is unclear how this arrangement would work. The conductive cylinder and rotating rack are centered together on a same longitudinal axis (see Fig 3) and these are not illustrated to be centered on the central axis of the handle. It is unclear what exactly applicant is attempting to claim with this language. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 11: recites “an internal gear, sleeved on the motor to rotate with the motor”; however, this language is confusing. Is applicant attempting to claim that the motor itself rotates and not a drive shaft extending from the motor as is known in the art? This language is confusing and unclear because as far as the office is aware, a motor has a driveshaft that extends therefrom and rotates and elements can be sleeved on a motor’s driveshaft, not on the motor itself for rotation. The claim language is confusing and unclear and there are no figures to clarify this nor any language in the disclosure. It is unclear what exactly applicant is attempting to claim. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “an internal gear connected to the motor to rotate”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 12: recites “the hair rotating rack…is in clearance fit with the thermal conductive cylinder”; however what does this mean? What is “a clearance fit”? The metes and bounds of the claims are impossible to determine. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 15: this claim recites “in an initial state, the hair entry groove, hair rotating entry, and hair clipping opening are arranged opposite to each other”; however, it is unclear how three things can be opposite? Furthermore, this appears to directly conflict with claim 1, which requires these openings are aligned. This makes the metes and bounds of the claims unclear and confusing because they are directly conflicting with each other. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “in an initial state, the hair entry groove, hair rotating entry, and hair clipping opening are aligned”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 16: recites “a coverage area”; however, it is unclear what this language is supposed to mean. Is applicant attempting to claim that one opening is wider than the other, taller than the other, none of the above, both of above? The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. For examination purposes, the claim cannot be treated as reciting “wherein the avoidance opening is larger than the hair clipping opening” because this would result in new matter issues, so the office will treat the claim as reciting “wherein the avoidance opening is a different size than the hair clipping opening”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 17: recites “the handle and the shell are of an integrated structure”; however, this language is confusing. The term integral or integrated, means “essential to completion”; and all the parts are “essential to completion”, so it is unclear what structural limitation this language is trying to place on the claim. Is applicant trying to claim that the handle and shell are formed in one piece? The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 18: recites “wherein a limited step is provided at a boundary between the handle and the shell”; however, the term “limited step” is unclear. What is this supposed to mean? This feature is not illustrated in the figures nor described in the disclosure to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to understand what this is supposed to mean. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 19: recites “wherein a top surface of the hair rotating rack is an inclined plane, and a height of an inlet surface facing the hair rotating entry is greater than a height of a back surface away from the hair rotating entry”; however, the language is confusing because what is this “inlet surface”? It is unclear what applicant is trying to claim making the metes and bounds of the claim unclear. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7-8, and 12-20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lin (US 20240292935).
Claim 1: Lin discloses a hair curler (see Fig 1) comprising: a handle (40); a hair curling component comprising a thermally conductive cylinder (20) since all materials have a thermal conductivity and since the cylinder is heated, at least partially, by 100oC airflow [0048] caused by the heater (50). The thermal conductive cylinder (20) protrudes from, and is connected to, a top of the handle (40), a hair entry groove (21) is formed on a top of the cylinder (see Figs 1-7). The curling component also includes an annular rotating rack (30) rotatably provided on a peripheral side of the cylinder (see Figs 1-2). At least one single hair rotating entry (spaces between 31, Fig 7) is provided on a side wall of the hair rotating rack and is configured to extend along a height direction of the hair rotating rack (see Fig 7). The hair rotating entry(entries) is/are aligned with the hair entry groove for use (see Figs 1-7).
Claim 2: Lin discloses the hair rotating entry (space between 31, Fig 7) to extend to a bottom of the hair rotating rack (see Fig 7).
Claim 4: Lin discloses a width of the hair rotating entry gradually widening from the top to the bottom (see Fig 7).
Claims 7-8: Lin further discloses the curler including a shell (10, see Fig 5) that covers the peripheral side of the hair rotating rack and a side wall of the shell is provided with a hair clipping opening (top of 13) located on a top of the shell and aligned with the hair entry groove in use (see Fig 1). The top hair clipping opening leads to and communicates with an avoidance opening (13, see Fig 5) located there-below (see Figs 1-5).
Claim 12: Lin further discloses the hair rotating rack is rotatable at the top of the handle and is concentrically arranged with the thermal conductive cylinder (see Figs 1-5) and as best understood the two are “in clearance fit” with each other since they are attached together and to the handle.
Claim 13: Lin further discloses the hair entry groove forms a straight line down the thermal cylinder and extends radially along the cylinder at least in part (see Figs 1-6).
Claim 14: the hair rotating entry (gap between 31) is an upside-down U-shape (see Fig 7).
Claim 15: In an initial state, the hair entry groove is at a top, the hair rotating entry is opposite another hair rotating entry and so one of the hair rotating entries is opposite to the hair clipping opening. As best understood, this makes the three “opposite” in as much as applicant discloses this.
Claim 16: the avoidance opening and hair clipping opening are different sizes (see Figs 1-7).
Claim 17: the handle and the shell are both essential to completion and the entire curler is assembled as an integrated structure, so as best understood, this means the handle and shell are “of an integrated structure”.
Claim 18: as best understood there is a “limited step” or bulge where the shell meets the handle (see Fig 2), which as best understood constitutes “a limited step is provided at a boundary between the handle and the shell”.
Claim 19: top surfaces of the hair rotating rack are illustrated as inclined or “an inclined plane” (see Fig 7) and as best understood a height of the rack at the rotating entry is greater than a height of a back surface (34) of the rotating rack that is away from the hair rotating entry (see Fig 7).
Claim 20: Regarding the language “the hair rotating rack is…molded”, the applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In this case, the cited limitations failed to distinguish the claimed structure from the patented Lin. See MPEP § 2113.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-8, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yong (US 20200196728).
Claim 1: Yong discloses a hair curler (see Figs 1-2) comprising: a handle (10); a hair curling component comprising a thermal conductive cylinder (30) [0024] and a hair rotating rack (40, see Figs 3-4). The thermal cylinder is connected to, and extends from, a top of the handle (see Figs 1-2) and at least one hair entry groove (indents at 31) is formed on a top of the thermal cylinder (see Figs 1-2). The hair rotating rack is annular (see Figs 3-4) at least at its bottom, which is what applicant discloses as best understood, and the hair rotating rack is provided on a peripheral side of the cylinder (see Figs 1-2). At least one single hair rotating entry (gaps between 41+44) is provided on/through a sidewall of the hair rotating rack (see Figs 3-4) and extends along a height direction of the hair rotating rack (see Figs 3-4). The hair rotating entry is aligned with the hair entry groove(s) during use.
Claim 2: Yong discloses the hair rotating entry (gaps between 41+44) extending to a bottom of the hair rotating rack (see Figs 3-4).
Claim 3: Yong discloses a width of the hair rotating entry can gradually decrease from the top to the bottom (see Fig 4).
Claim 4: Yong discloses a width of the hair rotating entry can gradually increase from the top to the bottom (see Fig 3).
Claim 5: Yong discloses a baffle strip (42) [0028] protruding from an inner wall of the hair rotating rack (see Fig 3) on both sides of the hair rotating entry and along the height direction of the hair rotating rack (see Fig 3).
Claims 7-8: Yong discloses the curler further comprising a shell (20) configured to fixedly cover the peripheral side of the hair rotating rack (see Figs 1-2) and a sidewall of the shell comprises a hair clipping opening (21) on a top of the shell opposite the hair entry groove (see Figs 1-2). The sidewall of the shell is also provided with an avoidance opening (gap between sidewalls of 20, see Fig 1) located below the hair clipping opening and communicating with the hair clipping opening (see Figs 1-2). The hair clipping opening is aligned with the hair entry groove in use.
Claim 12: the hair rotating rack is rotatably attached to the top of the handle and concentrically arranged with the thermal conductive cylinder and since they are all joined together (see Fig 1), as best understood the thermal conductive cylinder is in a clearance fit with the hair rotating rack.
Claim 14: the hair rotating entries (see Fig 3) are an upside-down U-shape (see Fig 3).
Claim 15: In an initial state, the hair entry groove is at a top, the hair rotating entry is opposite another hair rotating entry and so one of the hair rotating entries is opposite to the hair clipping opening. As best understood, this makes the three “opposite” in as much as applicant discloses this.
Claim 16: the avoidance opening and the hair clipping opening are different sizes (see Figs 1-3).
Claim 17: the handle and shell are joined together with the other components to form an integrated structure (see Fig 1).
Claim 18: an inclined lip, or “limited step”, is illustrated at the junction between the handle and the shell (see Fig 2), which the office interprets as “a limited step is provided at a boundary between the handle and the shell”.
Claim 20: Regarding the language “the hair rotating rack is…molded”, the applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In this case, the cited limitations failed to distinguish the claimed structure from the patented Yong. See MPEP § 2113.
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(s) 1-2, 5-14, and 16-20, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Yeung (US 20170215541) in view of Lin (US 20240292935).
Claim 1: Yeung discloses a hair curler (20, see Figs 8-9) comprising: a handle (211); a hair curling component comprising a thermal conductive cylinder (221) [0048] and a hair rotating rack (222). The thermal conductive cylinder protrudes from a top of the handle (see Figs 8-9), the hair rotating rack has an annular structure (see Fig 9) with a central opening and is rotatably provided on a peripheral side of the thermal conductive cylinder (see Figs 8-9). At least a single hair rotating entry (222a) is provided on/through a sidewall of the hair rotating rack and extends along a height direction of the hair rotating rack (see Figs 8-12). Yeung discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for a hair entry groove formed on a top of the thermal conductive cylinder aligned with the hair rotating entry.
Lin, however, teaches a hair curler (see Fig 1) comprising: a handle (40); a hair curling component comprising a hair wrapping cylinder (20) that protrudes from a top of the handle (40), a hair entry groove (21) is formed on a top of the cylinder (see Figs 1-7). The curling component also includes an annular rotating rack (30) rotatably provided on a peripheral side of the cylinder (see Figs 1-2). A hair rotating entry (spaces between 31, Fig 7) is provided on a side wall of the hair rotating rack and is configured to extend along a height direction of the hair rotating rack and this hair entry groove is aligned with the hair rotating entry (see Fig 7). The cylinder has the hair entry groove (21) formed on the top in order to assist in trapping and wrapping the hair around the cylinder in use [0065-0066]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the curler of Yeung by providing the thermal conductive cylinder of Yeung with a hair entry groove in view of Lin order to better trap and entrain hair during use for curling.
Claim 2: Modified Yeung discloses the invention of claim 1 and Yeung further discloses the hair rotating entry extending to a bottom of the hair rotating rack (222, see Fig 9).
Claim 5: Modified Yeung discloses the invention of claim 2 and Yeung further discloses a baffle strip (222E, Fig 12) protruding from an inner wall of the rotating rack on both sides of the hair rotating entry and the baffle strip extends along the height direction of the hair rotating rack (see Figs 9 & 12).
Claim 6: Modified Yeung discloses the invention of claim 1 and Yeung further discloses another opening, or “transparent area”, (222b) on the sidewall of the hair rotating rack (see Fig 12) and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for this area covered by a transparent material.
According to applicant’s own disclosure, however, this is an obvious matter of design choice (see [0038] of applicant’s disclosure that states the “transparent area” can either be a cutout (as taught by Yeung) or a cutout covered with a transparent material. In other words, applicant’s own disclosure states that these are equivalent in the art and nothing more than a matter of design choice. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice at the time of filing to modify the curler of modified Yeung by providing the transparent area with a transparent cover, since the applicant has not disclosed that this cover solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the cutout and because applicant’s own disclosure states these are obvious variations with no criticality to the invention [0038].
Claims 7-8: Modified Yeung discloses the invention of claim 1 and Yeung further discloses the curler further comprising a shell (212) covering the peripheral side of the hair rotating rack and a sidewall of the shell is provided with a hair clipping opening (top opening of 212) on a top of the shell and aligned with the hair entry groove (because this would happen based on the proposed modification above to claim 1) and the sidewall of the shell is also provided with an avoidance opening (213) located below the hair clipping opening and communicating with the hair clipping opening (see Figs 8-12).
Claims 9-10: Modified Yeung discloses the invention of claim 7 and Yeung further discloses the thermal conductive cylinder and the handle being arranged spaced apart, or eccentrically along the longitudinal axis of the device (see Fig 6); and a central axis of the thermal conductive cylinder is aligned to a central axis of the handle. A diameter of the shell is larger than a diameter of the handle (see Fig 6) and a side fo the shell away from the hair clipping opening is arranged flush with the handle (see Fig 6 & 13) with a side of the shell with the hair clipping opening protruding from the handle (see Fig 10-11 & 13).
Modified Yeung discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the conductive cylinder being arranged eccentrically to the handle (however, it is noted applicant has no support for this in their originally filed disclosure; the shell is offset from the handle, not the cylinder in all of applicant’s figures).
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to at the time of filing to modify the curler of modified Yeung by providing the cylinder arranged eccentrically to the handle, since the applicant has not disclosed that this cover solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the cutout and because applicant’s own disclosure states these are obvious variations with no criticality to the invention [0038].
Claim 11: Modified Yeung discloses the invention of claim 9 and Yeung further discloses the curler further comprising a driving motor (see Fig 5) [0022] inside the handle and located at a top of the handle (see Fig 5); an internal gear (123b) is attached to the motor output shaft to rotate via the motor (see Fig 5); and an external gear (interior of 123a) provided at a bottom of the hair rotating rack and the internal and external gears mesh to rotate the rotating rack [0022].
Claim 12: the rotating rack is provided at a top of the handle and is concentrically arranged with the thermal conductive cylinder and so as best understood the cylinder and rotating rack have a clearance fit between them (see Fig 6).
Claim 13: The proposed modification is to provide the hair entry groove of Lin on the thermally conductive cylinder of Yeung and Lin further discloses the hair entry groove forms a straight line down the thermal cylinder and extends radially along the cylinder at least in part (see Figs 1-6). So modified Yeung teaches these limitations.
Claim 14: Yeung further discloses the hair rotating entry is U-shaped (see Figs 1-4).
Claim 16: Yeung further discloses the avoidance opening being a different size than the hair clipping opening (see Figs 1-4).
Claim 17: Yeung further discloses the entire device forming “an integrated structure” (see Figs 1-4).
Claim 18: Yeung further discloses the shell having a step (bottom of 112b, see Fig 3) forming a “limited step” or curved region at a boundary between the handle and the shell (see Figs 1-2).
Claim 19: Yeung further discloses a top surface of the hair rotating rack forming an inclined plane (see Fig 4) and a height of a region of the rotating rack near the hair rotating entry is greater than a height of a back surface of the rotating rack away from the rotating entry (see Fig 4).
Claim 20: Regarding the language “the hair rotating rack is…molded”, the applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In this case, the cited limitations failed to distinguish the claimed structure from Yeung (or modified Yeung). See MPEP § 2113.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/26 have been fully considered but they are all drawn to the newly presented limitations, which have been addressed above.
Applicant predominantly argues that the claims require “a single hair rotating entry”; however, the claims recite “comprising” not “consisting” so the limitation “a single hair rotating entry” means the claims require “at least one” and the references disclosing two hair rotating entries still reads on the claims as currently presented. These arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Gill whose telephone number is (571)270-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, can be reached on 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER GILL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
