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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claims 4-25 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot refer back to another multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 4-25 have not been further treated on the merits.
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 1-3 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.
Regarding claim 1, text in parentheses are not given patentable weight. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by “peak(s)” and “trough(s)” in claim 1.
Claim(s) 2 – 3 are dependent on claim 1 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, thus, claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison et al. (US 20220160096 A1) in view of Wong et al. (US 20090014024 A1) and further in view of Stephen (GB 2567450 A).
Regarding claim 1, Harrison et al. discloses a hair styling device comprising: a first panel (see annotated fig. 1); a second panel, the second panel being movable relative to the first panel (see annotated Fig. 1. See that element 16 is movable relative to element 14); the device having an open condition in which the first and second panels are spaced apart by a first distance (see Fig. 1; the space or gap between elements 16 and 14 is a first distance), and a closed condition in which the first and second panels are spaced apart by a second distance (see Fig. 10; element 13 is a second distance. Paragraph 0091; element 13 is an intra-arm plenum chamber, an enclosed space between the first and second panels), the second distance being greater than zero and smaller than the first distance (see Figs. 1 and 10; element 13 is greater than zero and smaller than the space between the first and second panels in an open configuration), the first and second panels facing one another in the closed condition (see Figs. 1-2 and 10); an electric motor (see paragraph 0093); an impeller (38 Figs. 4 and 5; paragraph 0093 – 94); an electric heating element (40 Fig. 26; paragraph 0095); an air flow channel, at least a part of the impeller and at least a part of the heating element being in the air flow channel (see Fig. 26; see the space through which heated and cool air travels to the chambers of element 14. See that element 40 is in the said air flow chamber. Though not shown, the air is directed by the fan which is part of the air flow chamber); the first panel having a number of first apertures (24 see annotated Fig.1), the first apertures being in communication with the air flow channel (see Fig. 26); the second panel having a number of second apertures (24 see Fig. 10); an exhaust channel (26 Fig. 6) in
PNG
media_image1.png
505
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
communication with the second apertures (see Fig. 10; paragraph 0113).
Harrison et al. is silent regarding the first and second panels being corrugated with peak(s) and trough(s) of the first panel facing corresponding trough(s) and peak(s) respectively of the second panel.
Wong et al. teaches an analogous device (see Figs. 3 – 3B) comprising first and second panels being corrugated with peak(s) and trough(s) of the first panel facing corresponding trough(s) and peak(s) respectively of the second panel (see annotated Fig. 3A; see paragraph 0007).
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 Harrison et al. to be configured with the first and second panels being corrugated with peak(s) and trough(s) of the first panel facing corresponding trough(s) and
PNG
media_image2.png
394
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
peak(s) respectively of the second panel, as taught by Wong et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create hair ripple design or increase the surface area of the crimping/styling surface of the device to reduce hair damage and increase effective drying and styling of the hair, as suggested by Wong et al.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison et al. (US 20220160096 A1) in view of Stephen (GB 2567450 A).
Harrison et al./Wong et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. Harrison et al./ Wong et al. is silent regarding claim 2 where the first and second panels in their closed condition are spaced apart by a distance of at least approximately 0.2 mm.
Stephen et al. teaches an analogous device in which the first and second panels in their closed condition are spaced apart by a distance of at least approximately 0.2 mm (see abstract and claims 6 - 8; the device has at least one protrusion that retains a gap between the first arm and second arm in a closed position/configuration, and said protrusion can have a height range of 0.1 mm to 1.0 mm. Thus, the gap between the first and second arms, retained by the protrusion will be at least approximately 0.2 mm).
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 Harrison et al./Wong et al. be configured such that the first and second panels in their closed condition are spaced apart by a distance of at least approximately 0.2 mm, as taught by Stephen et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make this modification in order to allow for easy passage of hair between the first and second panels during the drying or styling process, thus preventing hair damage and promoting effective/even drying or styling of the hair by the user, as suggested by Stephen et al.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison et al. (US 20220160096 A1) in view of (KR 200346007 Y1).
Harrison et al./ Wong et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1 above. Harrison et al. is silent regarding claim 3 in which the spacing between the first and second panels in the closed condition is adjustable.
(KR 200346007 Y1) teaches an analogous device in which the spacing between the first and second panels in the closed condition is adjustable (abstract; a pair of plates facing each other and the gap is adjusted).
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 Harrison et al. be configured such that the spacing between the first and second panels in the closed condition is adjustable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a hair styling device that allows the user to adjust the spacing between the panels in a closed position to fit the user’s styling preference and needs.
Conclusion
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 - Friday 7:30 AM - 5:00PM.
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