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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding Story (US 20130263883 A1): “Story also discloses several shapes that the barrel can take on, including conical (tapering in either direction), corrugated, sinusoidal, and cylindrical shapes. However, Story is silent as to why a skilled artisan would select one disclosed shape over another. At best, Story presents these shapes as different aesthetic choices and does not attribute any technical benefit to the inverse frustoconical shape relied upon by the Office action.”
The above argument is moot and not persuasive because the invention of Story teaches a frustoconical shaped mandrel and further teaches that a mandrel of a hair styling device can be configured as desires as clearly illustrated in Figs. 1-3 depending on one’s preference in order to form varying modes of the hair straightening curling device [0038]. Thus, it is obvious to an ordinary artisan that the shape of a mandrel can be configured to be frustoconical in order to achieve a desired hair styling outcome.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, applicant’s argued regarding the motivation for modifying the device of Lau (EP 0522770 A1) by Story (US 20130263883 A1): “Moreover, the Office action does not provide reasonable motivation for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Story's purported inverse frustoconical barrel with Lau's appliance… The rationale provided by the Office action, namely, to create a device with "distinct sections with varying diameters and temperature", relies on Story's conductive heating architecture and not on any particular shape of Story's barrel. Story achieves temperature variation through selective conductive heating of different barrel regions, whereas Lau relies on airflow passing through a hollow barrel. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Story's conductive heating arrangement when determining a desired barrel shape for Lau's heated air appliance”.
The above argument is moot/not-persuasive because the motivation as articulated in the Office Action mailed 04/28/2026 does not rely on the heating mechanism of Story rather it relies on modification of the shape of the mandrel, “…in order to create a device with distinct sections with varying diameters and temperature …” thus allowing for customizable utilization of the device as the varying diameters/temperature would produce varying hair curling styles. Furthermore, applicant’s conclusion, “. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have looked to Story's conductive heating arrangement when determining a desired barrel shape for Lau's heated air appliance” is moot/not-persuasive because the heating mechanism of Lau is not being modified and as shown in Figs. 1 and 2 of Lau, the invention of Lau can have a mandrel that is a curler (Fig. 1) or a hairbrush (Fig. 2) so it would be rational for an ordinary artisan to look through the shape of the mandrel/barrel of hair curlers when determining a desired barrel shape for Lau’s device.
Applicant’s argument that the modification of the shape of the barrel of Lau by Story would change the principle of operation of the invention of Lau is not persuasive. As articulated above, Lau presents a hair device that can be configured with a curler or hairbrush barrel, and modification of the shape of said barrel would not change the principle of operation of the device of Lau neither would it require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of Lau’s design. The examiner re-iterates that the heating mechanism of Story was not relied upon for the rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, indulging applicant’s assertion that the heating mechanism of Story’s device is via conductive heating, [0027] clearly states that the barrel of the device of Story can be heated directly or indirectly thus, the heating mechanism of the device of Story cannot be interpreted to be limited only to conductive heating as the applicant has asserted.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Tanaka, Braun, Axelrod, Zhao, Shalvoy, Hafemann, Ragosta, Schwob, and Tibbetts are not persuasive because the argument regarding the combination of Lau and Story has been found not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument regarding Annular slot has been considered and not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that “a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify Lau to include any slot configured to generate external air flow as such a modification would be contrary to the express purpose and operation of Lau's hair appliance. Lau is directed to controlling internal airflow to selectively dispense fragrance into a user's hair. Introducing external airflow purportedly taught by Braun or Tanaka would undermine this objective by creating airflow around the appliance, resulting in chaotic and uncontrolled fragrance dispersal, or simply diverting the fragrance entirely”, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use (in this case, an annular slot that allows for the discharge of airflow around the mandrel or barrel of a hair device), then it meets the claim.
The amendments of claim(s) 1, 4 and 16 changes the scopes of the claims than was previously presented 04/11/2025 thus necessitating new search, new interpretation of the prior arts, and new grounds of rejection.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoe (US 9149104 B2) in view of Story (US 20130263883 A1) and further in view of Tanaka (JP 2013059580 A).
Yoe teaches an accessory (40’ Figs. 5-7) for styling hair, designed to be attached to a blowing and heating device (30’ Fig. 5; Col. 3 lines 22-48), comprising: a cylindrical connector (1’ Figs. 5-7); a frustoconical mandrel (2’ Figs. 5-7) comprising a distal side (24’ Fig. 7) and a proximal side (the end proximate to element 16’ Fig. 7), said proximal side being connected to the cylindrical connector (1’ Fig. 7) (see Fig. 7), said mandrel (2’ Fig. 7) comprising a plurality of air outlet orifices (21’ Fig. 7); and a frustoconical deflector (41’ Fig. 7) located inside the mandrel (2’ Figs. 5-7) (Col. 4 lines 36-40) wherein the cylindrical connector (1’ Fig. 7) has an annular slot (16’ Figs. 7 and 8).
Yoe does not teach the distal side of the frustoconical mandrel having a diameter greater than the proximal side; and the frustoconical deflector having a distal dimension greater than a proximal dimension.
Story teaches an analogous device (2 Fig. 1) comprising: a frustoconical mandrel (6 Fig. 1; see that the diameter of element 6 decreases from section 28 through section 22 thus defining a frustoconical shape); and said frustoconical mandrel (6 Fig. 1) comprising a distal side (16 Fig. 1) and a proximal side (18 Fig. 1), the distal side having a diameter greater than the proximal side (see Fig. 1) (See that in Fig. 2, Story teaches another embodiment of the invention of Fig. 1 having a mandrel with configuration similar to that of Yoe. Story further teaches that the features of the disclosed embodiments can be combined with or substituted for one another [0038] thus, it would be obvious and conceivable to an ordinary artisan that the orientation of the mandrel of Yoe can be inversed wherein the distal end would have a diameter greater than the proximal end (the end attached to the blowing device (for Story) or cylindrical connector (for Yoe) in order to create a device that allows for the creation of tighter curls at the proximal end and looser curls at the distal end. Col. 5 lines 4-10 of Yoe discloses that the frustoconical deflector (41’) is shaped to correspond to the shape of the frustoconical mandrel (2’) thus, it would be apparent to an ordinary artisan that inversing the frustoconical mandrel (2’) of Yoe as taught by Story’s Fig. 1 would necessitate inversing the frustoconical deflector as well, wherein the distal dimension of the frustoconical deflector would be greater than its proximal dimension).
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 Yoe to be configured to comprise a frustoconical mandrel having a diameter greater than the proximal side, as taught by Story. One of ordinary skills in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a device with distinct sections with varying diameters thus allowing for customizable utilization of the device during hair styling, as suggested by Story.
Furthermore, Yoe does not teach that the annular slot of the cylindrical connector is configured to generate a protective hot air knife around the mandrel.
Tanaka teaches an analogous device (Figs. 1-2, and 6), comprising: a cylindrical connector (26 Fig. 6); a mandrel (22 Fig. 6); a frustoconical deflector (38 Fig. 6) located inside the mandrel (22 Fig. 6) (see Fig. 6); said cylindrical connector (26 Fig. 6) has an annular slot (32 Figs. 3-6) configured to generate a protective hot air knife around the mandrel (see Fig. 6; the arrows extending from element 32 in perpendicular direction to element 24).
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 Yoe to be configured such that said cylindrical connector has an annular slot configured to generate a protective hot air knife around the mandrel, as taught by Tanaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make a device that offers protective air curtain between the hot air coming from the orifices of the mandrel and the skin of the user when the device is in use.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (EP 0522770 A1) in view of Story (US 20130263883 A1) and further in view of (GB 1530360 A) and Tanaka (JP 2013059580 A).
Regarding claim 1, Lau discloses an accessory for styling hair (Figs. 1 -2), designed to be attached to a blowing and heating device (1 Fig. 1), comprising:
a cylindrical connector (see annotated Fig. 1);
a mandrel (2 Fig. 1; Col. 3 lines 20-22) comprising a distal side (see annotated Fig. 1) and a proximal side (see annotated Fig. 1), said proximal side (see annotated Fig. 1) being connected to the cylindrical connector (see annotated Fig. 1), said mandrel (2 Fig. 1; Col. 3 lines 20-22) comprising a plurality of air outlet orifices (4 Fig. 1; Col. 3 lines 17-18); and
PNG
media_image1.png
634
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a frustoconical deflector (6 Fig. 1; Col. 3 lines 22-25: The diameter of the air flow divider 6 increases towards the outer end of the hollow barrel 2 (the mandrel)…) located inside the mandrel (2 Fig. 1; Col. 3 lines 20-22) (Col. 3 lines 20-25: The air brush further comprises an air flow divider 6 located within the hollow barrel 2 at the outer end thereof.) and having a distal dimension greater than a proximal dimension (see that the annotated distal of the element 6 is greater than the proximal portion of element 6).
Lau is silent regarding claim 1 comprising: a frustoconical mandrel; and said frustoconical mandrel comprising a distal side and a proximal side, said proximal side being connected to the cylindrical connector.
Story teaches an analogous device (2 Fig. 1) comprising: a frustoconical mandrel (6 Fig. 1; see that the diameter of element 6 decreases from section 28 through section 22 thus defining a frustoconical shape); and said frustoconical mandrel (6 Fig. 1) comprising a distal side (16 Fig. 1) and a proximal side (18 Fig. 1).
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 Lau to be configured to comprise a frustoconical mandrel; and said frustoconical mandrel comprising a distal side and a proximal side, said proximal side being connected to the cylindrical connector, as taught by Story. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a device with distinct sections with varying diameters and temperature thus allowing for customizable utilization of the device during hair styling, as suggested by Story.
Furthermore, Lau is silent regarding claim 1 comprising; a cylindrical connector, wherein the cylindrical connector has an annular slot configured to generate a protective hot air knife around the mandrel.
(GB 1530360 A) teaches an analogous device (Fig. 1) comprising: a connector (3 Fig. 1), a mandrel (2 Fig. 1), and a deflector (4 Fig. 1). Regarding claim 1, (GB 1530360 A) further teaches said connector (3 Fig. 1) comprising a slot (18 Fig. 1; see that air outlet 18 is located at the connector (3) and the discharged air illustrated by the “arrows” is spaced from the surface (which is circumferential in 3-dimension) of 2. However, (GB1530360) did not specifically disclose element 18 to be an annular slot or annular outlet. Furthermore, the limitation as stated is functional thus, while (GB 1530360 A) does not have to teach the device as claimed, it clearly demonstrates that the device of (GB 1530360 A) is capable of functioning as claimed, therefore satisfies the claimed limitation) configured to generate a protective hot air knife (11 Fig. 1) around the mandrel (2 Fig. 1) (see annotated Fig. 1; interpreted in 3-dimension, protective hot air knife (spaced “arrows” extending from element 18) is generated around the mandrel. See claim 3, the enlarged diameter portion (3) (connector) 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 of the curler (the mandrel, element 2) (Col. 3 lines 90 – 99)).
PNG
media_image2.png
613
1429
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lau to be configured such that said connector would comprise an annular slot allowing, in use, a protective hot air knife to be generated around the mandrel, as taught by (GB 1530360 A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make a device that offers protective air curtain between the hot air coming from the orifices of the mandrel and the skin of the user when the device is in use.
Similarly, Tanaka also teaches an analogous device (Figs. 1-2, and 6), comprising: a cylindrical connector (26 Fig. 6); a mandrel (22 Fig. 6); a frustoconical deflector (38 Fig. 6) located inside the mandrel (22 Fig. 6) (see Fig. 6); said cylindrical connector (26 Fig. 6) has an annular slot (32 Figs. 3-6) configured to generate a protective hot air knife around the mandrel (see Fig. 6; the arrows extending from element 32 in perpendicular direction to element 24).
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 Lau to be configured such that said cylindrical connector has an annular slot configured to generate a protective hot air knife around the mandrel, as taught by Tanaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make a device that offers protective air curtain between the hot air coming from the orifices of the mandrel and the skin of the user when the device is in use.
PNG
media_image3.png
682
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Lua further discloses the accessory of claim 1, wherein a surface of the frustoconical deflector (6 Fig. 1) comprises obstacles (see annotated Fig. 1) configured, in use, to radially deflect an internal hot air flow through the air outlet orifices (4 Fig. 1) of the mandrel (2 Fig. 1) (see Col. 3 lines 24-29: …and the divider 6 serves to guide air which is approaching the outer end of the hollow barrel 2 in a generally radially outward direction, thus ensuring smooth flow and preventing any back pressure or turbulence at the outer end of the hollow barrel 2...).
PNG
media_image3.png
682
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, regarding claim 2, Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Lua further discloses the accessory of claim 1, wherein a surface of the frustoconical deflector (6 Fig. 1) comprises obstacles (see annotated Fig. 1). However, Lau does not explicitly disclose said obstacles being configured, in use, to radially deflect an internal hot air flow through the air outlet orifices of the mandrel.
Tanaka teaches an analogous device (Figs. 1-2, and 6), comprising: a cylindrical connector (26 Fig. 6); a mandrel (22 Fig. 6); a frustoconical deflector (38 Fig. 6) located inside the mandrel (22 Fig. 6) (see Fig. 6); said cylindrical connector (26 Fig. 6) comprising annular slot (32 Fig. 6) allowing, in use, a protective hot air knife (see Fig. 6; the arrows extending from element 32 in perpendicular direction to element 24). Regarding claim 2, Tanaka further teaches the analogous device wherein a surface of the frustoconical deflector (38 Fig. 6) comprises obstacles (40 Fig. 6) configured, in use, to radially deflect an internal hot air flow (see Fig. 6: the arrows shows the movement of an internal hot air flow) through the air outlet orifices (48 Fig. 6) of the mandrel (22 Fig. 6) (see Fig. 6: see that element 40 is configured such that it influences the flow direction of the internal hot air flow to flow towards element 48, which are discharge ports).
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 Lau to be configured such that the obstacles on the surface of the frustoconical deflector is configured, in use, to radially deflect an internal hot air flow through the air outlet orifices of the mandrel, as taught by Tanaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make a device where the internal hot air generated within the device is effectively radially discharged via the discharge ports on the surface area of the mandrel thus promoting efficient hair drying and styling, as suggested by Tanaka.
Regarding claim 3, Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 2. Lau further discloses the accessory of claim 2, wherein the obstacles (see annotated Fig. 1) on the surface of the frustoconical deflector (6 Fig. 1) comprise shoulders (see annotated Fig. 1; see that the shoulders are formed at the point of connection between two cylinders. Given that the diameter increases, the difference in the diameter forms the shoulders) formed by a succession of interconnected cylinders (see annotated Fig. 1) having increasing diameters (see annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image4.png
682
627
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5, Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 3. Lau further discloses the accessory of claim 3, wherein a conicity of the deflector (6 Fig. 1) is greater than that of the mandrel (2 Fig. 1) (see Fig. 1; see that the mandrel as disclosed by Lau has almost zero conicity compared to the deflector (4) with diameters that increases towards the outer end of the mandrel (hollow barrel 2)).
Regarding claim 6, Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 3. Lau further discloses the accessory of claim 3, wherein the shoulders (see annotated Fig. 1) are perpendicular to a longitudinal axis (see annotated Fig. 1; longitudinal axis of element 6) of the deflector (6 Fig. 1) (see annotated Fig. 1; see that the shoulders are perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of element 6 as
PNG
media_image5.png
682
657
media_image5.png
Greyscale
illustrated in the annotated Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Lau is silent regarding claim 8, wherein a ratio of the diameter of the distal side of the mandrel to the diameter of the proximal side is 1.1 to 2.
Story teaches an analogous device (2 Fig. 1) comprising: a frustoconical mandrel (6 Fig. 1; see that the diameter of element 6 decreases from section 28 through section 22 thus defining a frustoconical shape); and said frustoconical mandrel (6 Fig. 1) comprising a distal side (16 Fig. 1) and a proximal side (18 Fig. 1). Regarding claim 8, Story further teaches the analogous device, wherein a ratio of the diameter of the distal side (16 Fig. 1) of the mandrel (6 Fig. 1) to the diameter of the proximal side (18 Fig. 1) is 1.1 to 2 (see Fig. 1; see that the mandrel disclosed by story has a mandrel (6) comprising a distal end (16) that is qualitatively bigger than the proximal side. Story did not disclose that the ration of the diameter of the distal side to the diameter of the proximal side to be within the range of 1.1 to 2. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the diameters of the distal side and the diameter of the proximal side such that the ratio of the diameter of the distal side to the diameter of the proximal side to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Story disclosed a distal end bigger than the proximal side), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art)
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 Lau to be configured to comprise a frustoconical mandrel wherein a ratio of the diameter of the distal side of the mandrel to the diameter of the proximal side is 1.1 to 2, as taught by Story. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a device with distinct sections with varying diameters and temperature thus allowing for customizable utilization of the device during hair styling, as suggested by Story.
Regarding claim 15, Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Lau further discloses a blower brush (Fig. 1) comprising:
a handle (1 Fig. 1);
a blowing and heating device (Col. 3 lines 12-15: Referring initially to Figure 1, the warm air brush comprises a handle 1 including a heater blower mechanism (not shown) which generates a stream of warm air, a hollow barrel 2…); and
the accessory of claim 1 (elements 2/6 Fig. 1, as modified and set forth above) attached to the handle (1 Fig. 1) of the blower brush (see Fig. 1).
For claim 4, see examiners interpretation of “a distance between the cylinders” and “a distance between the shoulders…” in the 35 U.S.C 112b rejection section above.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (EP 0522770 A1) in view of Story (US 20130263883 A1), (GB 1530360 A), and Tanaka (JP 2013059580 A) and further in view of Axelrod et al. (US 20200037580 A1).
Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 3 above. Regarding claim 4, Lau is silent wherein an axial distance between adjacent shoulders is 8 to 14 mm.
Axelrod et al. teaches a hair styling device (Fig. 5) comprising interconnected cylinders (see annotated Fig. 5), wherein an axil distance (502 Fig. 5; an axial distance as interpreted by the examiner is a linear gap or measurement running parallel to an axis of rotation or a center axis of a device; see that element 502 is parallel to the annotated central axis or axis of rotation) between adjacent shoulders (the distance between the first shoulder and the adjacent shoulder, defined as 502) is 8 to 14 mm (paragraph 0029: the separation distance 502 between adjacent teeth may measure in a range of 3 mm to 10 mm. By way of still further example, when the first plurality of teeth 206 is in the extended position and the second plurality of teeth 208 is in the retracted position, the separation distance 502 between adjacent teeth may measure in a range of 4 mm to 8 mm. see that each tooth (206) is positioned at the shoulders of each interconnected cylinders).
PNG
media_image6.png
752
707
media_image6.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 interconnected cylinders of the frustoconical deflector of Lau to be configured wherein an axial distance between adjacent shoulders is 8 to 14 mm, as taught by Axelrod et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create interconnected cylinders with adjustable separation distance thus allowing each cylinder to function or move independent of the adjacent cylinder, as suggested by Axelrod, in this case allowing uninterrupted air flow deflection by each interconnected cylinder.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (EP 0522770 A1) in view of Story (US 20130263883 A1), (GB 1530360 A), and Tanaka (JP 2013059580 A), and further in view of Zhao (CN 113229585 A).
Regarding claim 5, Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 3. Lau is silent regarding the accessory of claim 3, wherein a conicity of the deflector is greater than that of the mandrel.
Zhao teaches an analogous device (Fig. 23) comprising: a cylindrical connector (114 Fig. 23); a frustoconical mandrel (230/220/210 Fig. 23; see that the third body component (230) is smaller than the second (220) and the first (210) body components, the second body component is bigger than the third body component (230) but smaller than the first body component (210), defining a frustoconical configuration); and a frustoconical deflector (120 Fig. 23). Regarding claim 5, Zhao further teaches the accessory of claim 3, wherein a conicity of the deflector (120 Fig. 23) is greater than that of the mandrel (230/220/210 Fig. 23)
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 deflector of Lau to be configured such that conicity of the deflector is greater than that of the mandrel, as taught by Zhao, in order to efficiently fit into the mandrel, as suggested by Zhao thus, effectively guiding air/fluid through the air/fluid outlets of the mandrel during hair trying or styling process.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (EP 0522770 A1) in view of Story (US 20130263883 A1), (GB 1530360 A) and Tanaka (JP 201359580 A), and further in view of Shalvoy (US 3990460 A).
Regarding claim 7, Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Lau is silent regarding claim 7, wherein the mandrel (3) is connected to the cylindrical connector (2) by a star-shaped attachment (16).
Shalvoy teaches an analogous device (10 Fig. 1) comprising: a cylindrical connector (14 Figs. 2-5) and a mandrel (18 Figs. 2 and 4). Regarding claim 7, Shalvoy further teaches the analogous device (10 Fig. 1), wherein the mandrel (18 Figs. 2 and 4) is connected to the cylindrical connector (14 Figs. 2-5) by a star-shaped attachment (28 Figs. 2-3).
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 Lau to be configured such that the mandrel is connected to the cylindrical connector by a str-shaped attachment, as taught by Shalvoy. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make a star-shaped attachment that supports the mandrel by directly connecting the mandrel to the cylindrical base and the star-shape further funneling discrete paths of air along the axial of the mandrel, as suggested by Shalvoy.
Regarding claim 11, Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Lau is silent regarding claim 11, wherein a height of the annular slot is 0.5 to 2 mm.
PNG
media_image7.png
214
499
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Shalvoy further teaches the analogous device (10 Fig. 1) comprising: a cylindrical connector (14 Figs. 2-5) and said cylindrical connector (14 Figs. 2-5) comprising an annular slot (26 Fig. 4), wherein a height (see annotated Fig. 4) of the annular slot is 0.5 to 2 mm (While Shalvoy discloses a height of the annular slot as illustrated in Fig. 4 to be at the base edge of element 14 to the slanted edge connecting element 14 to the body of the mandrel (18), Shalvoy did not disclose a specific range of value for the height of the annular slot. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the height of the height disclosed by Shalvoy as desired or to be suitable to a handheld device or to be within the disclosed range, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Shalvoy disclosed an annular slot (26) and said annular slot has a defined height), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art).
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 Lau to be configured wherein a height of the annular sloth is 0.5 to 2 mm, as taught by Shalvoy, in order to provide a device that allows for the direction of air axially along the outer surface of the mandrel of the device for a more effective drying or styling experience.
Claim(s) 9, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (EP 0522770 A1) in view of Story (US 20130263883 A1), (GB 1530360 A) and Tanaka (JP 201359580 A), and further in view of Hafemann (US 7124763 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Lau further discloses the accessory of claim 1, wherein the mandrel (2 Fig. 1) comprises, at the base of the mandrel, an opening configured to allow passage of internal hot air flow supplying the deflector (6 Fig. 1)(see Col. 3 lines 12-18; although Lau did not specifically describe an opening at the base of the mandrel, Lau did disclose that the handle (1 Fig.1) contains a heater blower mechanism which generates a stream of warm air which flows into and along the mandrel (2 Fig. 2) thus it is inherent that there must be an opening at the base of the mandrel (2 Fig. 1) that would allow the passage of the stream of warm air generated in the handle (1 Fig. 1) to flow into element 2. Furthermore, element 6 is housed within element 2 and described to guide the air direction (see Col. 3 lines 24-28). Lau is silent regarding the accessory of claim 9, wherein a ratio of a surface area of the opening to a surface area of the annular slot being 2 to 5.
Hafemann teaches an analogous device (Fig. 1) comprising: a connector (the cylindrical structure localized between element 3 and element 2, as shown in Fig. 1) a mandrel (6 Figs. 1 and 2), an annular slot (4 Figs. 1 and 2). Regarding claim 9, Hafemann further teaches the analogous device wherein a ratio of a surface area of the opening (7 Fig. 2) to a surface area of the annular slot (4 Fig. 2) being 2 to 5 (Hafemann discloses the analogous device wherein the annular slot qualitatively appears to have a more bigger surface area compared to the surface area of the opening (7). Hafemann did not disclose that the ratio of the surface area of the opening (7) to the surface area of the annular slot (4) to be 2 to 5. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the surface area of the opening (7) and surface area of the annular slot (4) such that the ratio of the surface area of the opening (7) to the surface area of the annular slot (4) to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Hafemann discloses a surface area of annular slot that is qualitatively bigger than the surface area of the opening (7)), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art)
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 Lau to be configured such that a ratio of a surface area of the opening to a surface area of the annular slot being 2 to 5, as taught by Hafemann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow the hot air generated within the handle of the device to be effectively distributed circumferentially along the longitudinal axis of the mandrel, as suggested by Hafemann, for a more efficient hair styling experience.
Regarding claim 12, Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Lau is silent regarding the accessory of claim 12, wherein the mandrel (3) comprises a conductive metal.
Hafemann further teaches the analogous device (Fig. 1), wherein the mandrel (6 Figs. 1 and 2) comprises a conductive metal (Col. 4 lines 34-36 and 59-65; elements 11, L1-L3, and 14, components of the mandrel (element 6), comprises of aluminum which is a conductive metal as defined in the Specification [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lau to be configured such that the mandrel comprises a conductive metal, as taught by Hafemann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a mandrel comprising a metal such as aluminum with good conducting properties to aid in the warming process of the hair when the device is in-use, as suggested by Hafemann.
Regarding claim 13, Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka /Hafemann as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 12. Lau is silent regarding the accessory of claim 13, wherein the mandrel (3) comprises aluminum or cooper.
Hafemann further teaches the analogous device (Fig. 1), wherein the mandrel (6 Figs. 1 and 2) comprises aluminum or copper (Col. 4 lines 34-36 and 59-65; elements 11, L1-L3, and 14, components of the mandrel (element 6), comprises of aluminum which is a conductive metal as defined in the Specification [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lau to be configured such that the mandrel comprises aluminum or copper, as taught by Hafemann. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a mandrel comprising aluminum which has good conducting properties to aid in the warming process of the hair when the device is in-use, as suggested by Hafemann.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (EP 0522770 A1) in view of Story (US 20130263883 A1)/ (GB 1530360 A)/ Tanaka (JP 201359580 A)/ Hafemann (US 7124763 B2), and further in view of Ragosta et al. (US 20130319450 A1).
Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka /Hafemann as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 12. Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Hafemann are silent regarding claim 14, wherein the mandrel includes a ceramic layer.
Ragosta et al. teaches an analogous device (120 Fig. 6) comprising: a connector and a mandrel (124 Fig. 6). Regarding claim 14, Ragosta et al. further teaches the analogous device (120 Fig. 6), wherein the mandrel (124 Fig. 6) includes a ceramic layer (64 Fig. 6) (paragraph 0064: The cylinder 124 includes a heat transfer assembly 64 attached to an inner circumferential surface of the cylinder and adapted to allow the cylinder to slide over and make contact with the heating rod 60. The heat transfer assembly 64 may be any suitable heat transfer material, for example, plastic, metal, ceramic, or any combination thereof.).
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 Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Hafemann as modified, to be configured such that the mandrel includes a ceramic layer, as taught by Ragosta et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for efficient conductive heat transfer from the heating rod to the surface of the mandrel via a ceramic layer which has suitable heat transfer properties, as suggested by Ragosta et al.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (EP 0522770 A1) in view of Story (US 20130263883 A1), (GB 1530360 A) and Tanaka (JP 201359580 A), and further in view of Schwob (FR 2493689 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1. Lau is silent regarding claim 10, wherein a ratio of a total surface area of all the air outlet orifices (13) to a surface area of the annular slot (6) is 15 to 25.
Schwob teaches an analogous device (Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a connector (9/11 Figs. 1 and 2) and a mandrel (4 Figs. 1 and 2). Regarding claim 10, Schwob further teaches the analogous device (Figs. 1 and 2), wherein a ratio of a total surface area of all the air outlet orifices (7 Figs. 1-2 and 4) to a surface area of the annular slot (8 Figs. 2 and 4) is 15 to 25 (Schwob discloses the analogous device wherein the annular slot qualitatively appears to have a more bigger surface area compared to the surface area of each opening (7), as best illustrated in Figs. 1-2 and 5. Schwob did not disclose that the ratio of the total surface area of the openings (7) to the surface area of the annular slot (8) to be 15 to 25. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the surface area of each opening (7) and the surface area of the annular slot (8) such that the ratio of the total surface area of the opening (7) to the surface area of the annular slot (8) to be within the claimed range, since it has been held that where general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art (Schwob discloses a surface area of annular slot that is qualitatively bigger than the surface area of each opening (7)), discovering the optimum or workable ranges involve only routine skill in the art ).
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 Lau to be configured, wherein a ratio of a total surface area of all the air outlet orifices (13) to a surface area of the annular slot (6) is 15 to 25, as taught by Schwob. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to make a device with outlet orifices sized to enhance the radial outward flow of air through element 7 while maintaining a robust air discharge down the circumferential surface of the mandrel in the longitudinal direction, as suggested by Schwob.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lau (EP 0522770 A1) in view of Story (US 20130263883 A1), (GB 1530360 A), and Tanaka (JP 201359580 A), and further in view of Tibbetts et al. (WO 2022069881 A1).
Lau/Story/(GB 1530360 A)/Tanaka as modified discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 15. Lau is silent regarding claim 16, wherein the blower brush according to claim 15, further comprising a first lock of the brush configured to engage with a second lock of the accessory, such that the accessory is removable.
Tibbetts et al. teaches an analogous blower brush (10 Fig. 1) comprising:
PNG
media_image8.png
702
391
media_image8.png
Greyscale
a handle (20 Fig. 1); a blowing and heating device (page 4 lines 3 -4: The handle unit then comprises the blower…); and the accessory (100 Fig. 1) attached to the handle (20 Fig. 1) of the blower brush (10 Fig. 1). Regarding claim 16, Tibbetts et al. further teaches a first lock (although not shown, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that intrinsic to the structure of the handle, would be lock engaging recesses or grooves to engage the locking protrusions (annotated “a lock of the accessory (100)”) on element 100) of the brush (20 Fig. 1) configured to engage with a second lock (a lock of the accessory (100), see annotated Fig. 1; Tibbetts discloses an accessory with a lock (the protrusions at the base of element 100 as annotated) of the accessory (100 Fig. 1), such that the accessory is removable (page 4 line 9: The attachment (100) may be removably attached to the handle unit.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Lau to be configured to further comprise a first lock of the brush configured to engage with a second lock of the accessory, such that the accessory is removable, as taught by Tibbetts et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create a device that allows for the attachment of varying accessories thus allowing for various drying and styling process using just one blower brush device, as suggested by Tibbetts.
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