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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “I. Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102, 103” of Remarks, filed 04/13/2026, with respect to claim(s) 1-3 and 7-9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) of claim(s) 1-3 and 7-9 has been withdrawn.
However, the amendment of claim 1 to incorporate limitations originally in claim 13 necessitates new grounds of rejection without the introduction of new prior arts than previously cited in the last office action mailed 01/14/2026, nor a new search. The amended claim 1 contains all the limitations of claim 13 (09/20/2024) previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (GB 1530360) in view of Miki (JP 2731200 B2). Thus, the amended claim 1 in its current state would also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (GB 1530360) in view of Miki (JP 2731200 B2). Furthermore, subsequent claims directly/indirectly dependent on the amended claim 1 would be examined to incorporate the new ground of rejection.
Regarding applicant’s arguments to now-cancelled claim 13, examiner respectfully disagrees that the combination is improper because: In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123 USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959) (Claims were directed to an oil seal comprising a bore engaging portion with outwardly biased resilient spring fingers inserted in a resilient sealing member. The primary reference relied upon in a rejection based on a combination of references disclosed an oil seal wherein the bore engaging portion was reinforced by a cylindrical sheet metal casing. The seal construction taught in the primary reference required rigidity for operation, whereas the seal in the claimed invention required resiliency. The court reversed the rejection holding the "suggested combination of references would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements shown in [the primary reference] as well as a change in the basic principle under which the [primary reference] construction was designed to operate.").
The device of (GB 1530360) clearly retains the ability to have both the steam and air in operation given that the air blower and the steam generator have two independent control switches (Col. 4 lines 100-105) that can be operated simultaneously and independently, although in the specific method of use disclosed, (GB 1530360) discloses a sequential process that involves first evaporation step and then air blowing step. Furthermore, (GB 1530360) highlighted that concurrent operation of the air blower 14 and the steam would result in the steam being blown away before it could adequately moisten the hair (Col. 4 lines 92-99), indicating that under the basic principle under which the device of (GB 1530360) was designed to operate, it can sufficiently run both the air blower and the steam concurrently. The examiner asserts that the “intended function” of a device should not be misconstrued as the “basic principle under which the device is designed to operate”.
As noted above, the device of (GB 1530360) retains ability to operate both the air blower and the steam generator thus, there is a motivation for an ordinary artisan to improve upon the device of (GB 1530360) wherein the steam and the air blower can be operating simultaneously without the steam being dispersed by the air blower. Also, there is motivation to improve upon the device of (GB 1530360) wherein the air blower generates air at a lower flow-rate when used concurrently with the steam blower thus, allowing for a mild moistening of the hair.
Modification of the device of (GB 1530360) by one of ordinary skill in the art as proposed in the Office Action mailed 01/14/2026 would not change the basic principle of how the disclosed device was designed to operate, and there are clear motivations for one of ordinary skill in the art to make such modifications as noted above. Additionally, the examiner asserts that the claim language as previously presented in claim 13 (09/20/2024) and currently presented in claim 1 (04/13/2026), does not require the hair to be moistened or wet by the steam generated when steam and air are discharged concurrently.
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(s) 1-3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (GB 1530360 A) in view of Miki (JP 2731200 B2).
Regarding claim 1, (GB 1530360 A) discloses a hair styling apparatus (see Fig. 1) for styling a tress of hair, the apparatus comprising:
a barrel (2 Fig. 1) comprising a circumferential surface about which a tress of hair can be wrapped in use (Col. 2 lines 36 - 40; the hair is placed around the curler rod 2),
a steam generator (7/8/6 Fig. 1) for generating steam (Col. 2 lines 64 - 70);
one or more steam outlets (10 Fig. 1) in fluid communication with the steam generator (7/8/6 Fig. 1) for receipt of steam therefrom (Col. 2 lines 64 - 70), the one or more steam outlets (10 Fig. 1) arranged to discharge steam onto a tress of hair when wrapped about the circumferential surface (Col. 2 lines 31 - 36; steam is discharged to moisten and heat the hair wrapped around the curler (2) via the plurality of holes (10));
an air mover (14 Fig. 1) for moving an airflow through the apparatus (Col. 2 lines 42 - 54); and one or more airflow outlets (18 Fig. 1) in fluid communication with the air mover for receipt of an airflow therefrom, the one or more airflow outlets (18 Fig. 1) arranged to discharge air in a direction along the barrel so as to provide a barrier to the passage of the discharged steam (see Fig. 1; air discharge via element 18 moves in the direction along the barrel and as depicted forms a barrier to steam discharged from element 10). (GB 1530360 A) is silent regarding claim 1, wherein the device is configured to discharge steam from the one or more steam outlets and air from the one or more airflow outlets concurrently.
Miki teaches a hair setter configured to discharge steam from the one or more steam outlets (4 Fig. 7) and air from the one or more airflow outlets (5 Fig. 7) concurrently (See the "action" paragraph of the translation; weak wind is discharged from the wind discharge outlets; in addition, the hair is moistened via the steam discharged from the steam outlets. Furthermore, Miki's invention describes a space between the airflow path and the steam generator to ensure that the steam generator is not cooled by the air flow thus, allowing steam to be generated stably, which indicates that the steam and air discharges concurrently. See highlight 4 of machine translation of JP2731200B2: in this hair setter, the steam heater 17 is also in an energized state when blowing air, but since the steam is blown by blowing, the hair 30 does not wet the hair 30).
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 (GB 1530360 A) to be configured to discharge steam from the one or more steam outlets and air from the one or more airflow outlets concurrently. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a device capable of simultaneously providing steam discharge and air discharge, softening the hair, reducing hair fizziness and heat damage thus, promoting effective hair styling process.
PNG
media_image1.png
302
774
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, (GB 1530360 A) as modified by Miki discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. (GB 1530360 A) further discloses a hair styling apparatus wherein one or more airflow outlets (18 Fig. 1) are configured to discharge the air in the form of an air curtain that is spaced radially from the circumferential surface (see annotated Fig. 1; in this 2- dimensional representation, the direction of the discharged air (annotated in Fig 1) illustrated by the "arrows" spanning substantially the length of the length of element 2 and it is spaced from the surface (which is circumferential in 3-dimension) of 2).
Regarding claim 3, (GB 1530360 A) as modified by Miki discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 2 above. (GB 1530360 A) further discloses a hair styling apparatus wherein the air curtain extends substantially entirely about the circumferential surface (see annotated Fig. 1; interpreted in 3-dimension, the air curtain (spaced "arrows" extending from element 18) extends substantially entirely about the circumference surface of element 2. See claim 2, the enlarged diameter portion (3) has air flow apertures facing towards the curler tongs (the curler tongs comprises elements 2 and 12) and disposed so that in use, flow of the air due to operation of the air transport device as a blower or as a suction device is, respectively, through the said apertures and around the outside of the curler or vice versa (the said apertures disposed on the side of the enlarged diameter portion facing the curler tong is element 18 as depicted in Fig. 1, and the air discharged via element 18 is around the outside (entire circumferential surface) of the curler (Col. 3 lines 90 - 99)).
PNG
media_image2.png
325
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, (GB 1530360 A) as modified by Miki discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. (GB 1530360 A) further discloses a hair styling apparatus wherein the one or more airflow outlets (18 Fig. 1) are provided on a body (1/3 Fig. 1) from which the barrel (2 Fig. 1) extends (Col. 2 lines 16 - 23).
Regarding claim 8, (GB 1530360 A) as modified by Miki discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 7 above. (GB 1530360 A) further discloses a hair styling apparatus wherein the body (1/3 Fig. 1) is a handle of the apparatus (see Fig. 1; Col. 2 lines 20 - 23).
Regarding claim 9, (GB 1530360 A) as modified by Miki discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. (GB 1530360 A) further discloses a hair styling apparatus wherein the one or more steam outlets (10 Fig. 1) are provided on the circumferential surface of the barrel (2 Fig. 1) (Col. 2 lines 31 - 36; the middle zone is interpreted as the portion of element 2 that is not occupied by elements 7 and 8. The steam outlets (10) are provided on element 2 and since element two is a curler rod, it inherently has a circumferential surface).
Claim(s) 4 - 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (GB 1530360 A) in view of Miki (JP 2731200 B2) and further in view of Kengo (EP 1894487 A1).
Regarding claim 4, (GB 1530360 A) as modified by Miki discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. However, (GB 1530360 A) is silent regarding claim 4 wherein each airflow outlet is configured to discharge airflow in an airflow discharge direction that is angled away from a central longitudinal axis of the barrel.
Kengo teaches a hair iron wherein each airflow outlet (26/27 Fig. 2; element 26 is an outlet for charged water particle, an analogous element that teaches the concept of the claimed limitation) is configured to discharge airflow (A Fig. 2) in an airflow discharge direction that is angled away from a central longitudinal axis of the barrel (Col. 5 lines 45 - 55; elements 26/27 is configured to discharge charged water particles away from the central block (5) or an imaginary longitudinal axis running through the middle of the central block).
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 airflow outlets of the device disclosed by (GB 1530360 A) to be configured to discharge airflow in an airflow discharge direction that is angled away from a central longitudinal axis of the barrel as taught by Kengo. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent the discharged airflow from being directed to the barrel and counteracting the effectiveness of the barrel steam outlets in styling the hair while providing an air cushion between the steam generated at the barrel and the user.
Regarding claim 5, (GB 1530360 A) as modified by Miki and Kengo discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 4 above. However, (GB 1530360 A)/Miki/ Kengo (EP 1894487 A1) is silent regarding claim 5 wherein an angle between the airflow discharge direction of each airflow outlet and the central longitudinal axis is between 30 degrees and 60 degrees.
Kengo further teaches a hair iron wherein an angle between the airflow discharge direction (A Fig. 2) of each airflow outlet (26/27 Fig. 2) and the central longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 2) is between 30 degrees and 60 degrees (see annotated Fig. 2; considering an imaginary central longitudinal axis through the main block and a perpendicular axis to the midpoint of the central longitudinal axis, creating four quadrants. The direction of the discharge (A) cuts through the 45 degrees angle from the central longitudinal axis and is qualitatively within the claimed range).
PNG
media_image3.png
846
741
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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 disclosed by (GB 1530360 A)/ Kengo (EP 1894487 A1) to be configured wherein an angle between the airflow discharge direction of each airflow outlet and the central longitudinal axis is between 30 degrees and 60 degrees. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification to create sufficient projection angle away from the central longitudinal axis in order to prevent the discharged airflow from being directed to the barrel and counteracting the effectiveness of the barrel steam outlets in styling the hair while providing an air cushion between the steam generated at the barrel and the user.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (GB 1530360 A) in view of Miki (JP 2731200 B2) and further in view of Brown (US 4827105 A).
(GB 1530360 A) as modified by Miki discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. (GB 1530360 A) is silent regarding claim 6 wherein each airflow outlet is in the form of a circumferentially extending arcuate slot.
Brown teaches an analogous device wherein each airflow outlet (34 Figs. 1A and 3A) is in the form of a circumferentially extending arcuate slot (see Figs. 3A and 3B; element 34 is a transverse arcuate slot circumferentially extending along the cylindrical base of element 16. Fig. 1B shows a side profile of the air duct 16 with element visible from the said side profile thus, a transverse slot on a cylindrical surface that can be observed from a side profile must be arcuate).
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 (GB 1530360 A) be configured such that each airflow outlet is in the form of a circumferentially extending arcuate slot, as taught by Brown. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to offer smooth air stream flow from the airflow outlet and to direct the air stream across the circumferential surface of the barrel in the longitudinal direction.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (GB 1530360 A) in view of Miki (JP 2731200 B2) and further in view of Conrad (US 20210307473 A1).
(GB 1530360 A) as modified by Miki discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. (GB 1530360 A) is silent regarding claim 10, wherein the airflow discharged from the one or more airflow outlets is provided substantially at or below ambient temperature.
Conrad teaches an analogous device configured such that the airflow discharged from the one or more airflow outlets (56 Figs. 3 - 5) is provided substantially at or below ambient temperature (paragraph 49; in the first operating mode, the device taught by Conrad can dry hair using high air velocity (paragraph 500) which air may be at ambient temperature; paragraphs 491 and 601).
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 disclosed by Tsuji to be configured such that the airflow discharged from the one or more airflow outlets is provided substantially at or below ambient temperature, as taught by Conrad, in order to remove excess moisture from the hair being styled and to protect the hair from damages caused by excessive heat.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (GB 1530360 A) in view of Miki (JP 2731200 B2) and further in view of Kishimoto (JP 2008289543 A).
(GB 1530360 A) as modified by Miki, discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. (GB 1530360 A) is silent regarding claim 11, wherein the steam generator is configured to provide a steam flow rate through the one or more steam outlets of between 5 and 10 g/min.
Kishimoto teaches an analogous device wherein the steam generator (12 Fig. 11) is configured to provide a steam flow rate through the one or more steam outlets (7 Fig. 9) of between 5 and 10 g/min (Paragraph 114; the conditions of hot steam are steam generation amount 6 cc/min (cubic centimeters per min). water being the source of steam and using the density of water, 6 cc/min equals 6 g/min, which is within the 6 g/min and 10 g/min range).
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 steam generator of the device disclosed by (GB 1530360 A) be configured to provide a steam flow rate through the one or more steam outlets of between 5 and 10 g/min, as taught by Kishimoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a steam generator that provides a steam at the flow rate that ensures a gentle, controlled, and consistent steam to moisten the hair and improve the hair styling process.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (GB 1530360 A) in view of Miki (JP 2731200 B2) and further in view of Boateng et al. (GB 2542207 A).
(GB 1530360 A) as modified by Miki, discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. (GB 1530360 A) is silent regarding claim 12, wherein the air mover is configured to provide an air flow rate through the one or more airflow outlets of between 6 and 10 L/s.
Boateng et al. teaches an apparatus for drying hair wherein the air mover (26 Fig. 1) is configured to provide an air flow rate through the one or more airflow outlets of between 6 and 10L/s (Page 23 line 17; the air mover provides air flow rate of 0.03 m³/min to 2 m³/min which is equivalent to 0.5 L/s to 33 L/s, covering the claimed invention requirement of an air flow rate of between 6 and 10 L/s).
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 air mover of the device disclosed by (GB 1530360 A) be configured to provide an air flow rate through the one or more airflow outlets of between 6 and 10 L/s. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to create a hair styling device configured with an air mover that provides air at a flow rate that provide good heat transfer by convection and minimizing heat damage as suggested by Boateng et al.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (GB 1530360 A) in view of Miki (JP 2731200 B2) and further in view of Sahm (CH 687056 A5).
(GB 1530360 A) as modified by Miki, discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. (GB 1530360 A) is silent regarding claim 14, comprising a flow diverter moveable between: a first position in which the flow diverter directs airflow to the one or more airflow outlets; and a second position in which the flow diverter directs airflow to the one or more steam outlets or to one or more further airflow outlets arranged to discharge airflow onto hair being styled by the apparatus in use.
Sahm teaches a hair roller comprising a flow diverter (9/10/16 Fig. 1) moveable between: a first position (8 closed and 7 open) in which the flow diverter directs airflow to the one or more airflow outlets (7 Fig. 1); and a second position (8 open and 7 closed) in which the flow diverter directs airflow to the one or more steam outlets or to one or more further airflow outlets (8 Fig. 1) arranged to discharge airflow onto hair being styled by the apparatus in use (Col. 3 lines 49 - 64: The sleeves 9, 10 are rotated into that position (which can be accomplished before or after winding) in which the air outlet openings 8 are blocked. Thereafter, the treatment for producing perms is carried out according to the known procedure. The heating is now carried out by the warm air exiting only axially from the air outlet openings 7 of the hollow flange section 2. After the hair has been rinsed out, the sleeves 9, 10 are rotated into the release position of the air outlet openings 8 of the outer sleeve 10, so that the hair is dried uniformly from the inside through the openings 8 and from the outside through the openings 7).
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 disclosed by Tsuji to be configured with a flow diverted moveable between a first position in which the flow diverter directs air to one or more airflow outlets, and a second position in which the flow diverter directs airflow to the one or more steam outlets or to one or more further airflow outlets arranged to discharge airflow onto hair being styled by the apparatus in use, as taught by Sahm. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a device with two operable positions that allows for uniform drying of hair by allowing direction of airflow to distinct airflow outlets as prompted by the user's hair styling needs.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (GB 1530360 A) in view of Miki (JP 2731200 B2) and Sahm (CH 687056 A5), and further in view of Tsuji (US 4,936,027 A).
(GB 1530360 A) as modified by Miki and Sahm discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 14. (GB 1530360 A)/Miki/Sahm is silent regarding claim 14, wherein the apparatus is configured to operate in: a first mode in which steam is discharged from the one or more steam outlets and air is discharged from the one or more airflow outlets; and a second mode in which steam is not discharged from the one or more steam outlets and airflow is discharged from the steam outlets or from the one or more further airflow outlets.
Tsuji teaches a hair styling apparatus wherein the apparatus is configured to operate in a first mode in which steam is discharged from the one or more steam outlets and air is discharged from the one or more airflow outlets (summary of invention and Col. 2 lines 51 - 54: see that the claimed device is operable in a mode wherein airflow is discharge from the airflow chamber via the airflow vent and stem is discharged from the stem chamber via the stem vents, providing a hair dryer and steamer combination); and a second mode in which steam is not discharged from the one or more steam outlets and airflow is discharged from the steam outlets or from the one or more further airflow outlets (Col. 2 lines 23 - 28: see that claimed invention is capable of being selectively utilized as a dryer and a steamer by a single device, thus, defining a drying mode where steam is not discharged).
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 disclosed by (GB 1530360 A)/Sahm to be configured to operate in: a first mode in which steam is discharged from the one or more steam outlets and air is discharged from the one or more airflow outlets; and a second mode in which steam is not discharged from the one or more steam outlets and airflow is discharged from the steam outlets or from the one or more further airflow outlets, as taught by Tsuji. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a device capable of functioning distinctively as a steaming device with concurrent airflow discharge to open the hair cuticle and moisten the hair using moist heat, and as a dryer device in order to remove excess moisture from the hair, thus improving hair styling process.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIEMERIE C AZUBUOGU whose telephone number is (571)272-0664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00PM.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (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 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.
/C.A./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights