Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 25, 2026
Application No. 19/482,420

HAIR STYLING APPLIANCE

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Nov 07, 2025
Priority
May 11, 2023 — GB 2306956.0 +1 more
Examiner
STEITZ, RACHEL RUNNING
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Dyson Operations Pte. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
54%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 11m
Est. Remaining
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 54% of resolved cases
54%
Career Allowance Rate
672 granted / 1236 resolved
-15.6% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+26.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
47 currently pending
Career history
1286
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.9%
-38.1% vs TC avg
§103
48.0%
+8.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
§112
20.9%
-19.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1236 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 2022/0160096) in view of Choi (US 8,230,868). Harrison et al. disclose a hair styling appliance comprising a first arm (14) and a second arm (16) coupled together for reciprocal movement towards and away from each other, and arranged to receive hair within a region between each other; a plenum (15, 17) disposed within at least one of the first arm and the second arm, the plenum comprising an air inlet for receiving airflow from an air outlet of a fan unit (38) and an air outlet for emitting airflow towards the hair within the region; and a hair clamp comprising first and second clamping members (20a, 22a) for gripping hair therebetween, wherein: the first clamping member comprises a first clamping surface (20a) for contacting the hair; and the second clamping member comprises a second clamping surface (22a) for contacting the hair (Fig. 10) Harrison et al. does not disclose wherein the first clamping surface has a higher coefficient of friction than the second clamping surface. Choi teaches a hair clamp comprising first and second clamping members (12,40) for gripping hair therebetween, wherein: the first clamping member comprises a first clamping surface (40) for contacting the hair; and the second clamping member comprises a second clamping surface (12) for contacting the hair wherein the first clamping surface (40) has a higher coefficient of friction than the second clamping surface (col. 3, lines 50-60 and col. 4,lines 20-30). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the first clamping surface of Harrison be made from a higher coefficient of friction than the second clamping surface as taught by Choi to allow to reduce damage done to the hair by the heating plates. Regarding claim 2, the combination of Harrison and Choi disclose wherein the first clamping surface (i.e. silicone) and the second clamping surface (metallic) comprise relatively different materials for contacting the hair (Choi; col. 4, lines 20-30). Regarding claim 3, the combination of Harrison and Choi disclose wherein the first clamping surface comprises a more resiliently deformable material (silicone) than the second clamping surface (metallic) (Choi; col. 4, lines 20-30). Regarding claim 4, the combination of Harrison and Choi disclose wherein the first clamping surface (40) comprises a polymer (Choi; col. 3, lines 50-65). Regarding claim 5, the combination of Harrison and Choi disclose wherein the first clamping surface (40) comprises an elastomer (Choi; col. 3, lines 50-65). Regarding claim 6, the combination of Harrison and Choi disclose wherein the second hair engaging material clamping surface comprises a metallic material and/or a ceramic material (Choi; col. 4, lines 20-30). Regarding claim 7, the combination of Harrison and Choi disclose wherein at least one of the first clamping member and the second clamping member is mounted to move relative to the arm upon which it is supported (open and closed position), between an extended position and a retracted position, and wherein the movement is biased towards the extended position. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Harrison and Choi disclose extended position (Choi; Fig. 3B), the distance between the first and second clamping surfaces is less than the distance between an inner wall of the first arm and an inner wall of the second arm (Choi; Fig. 3B and 4). Regarding claim 9, the combination of Harrison and Choi disclose wherein the second clamping surface (12) comprises a metallic material and/or a ceramic material (Choi; col. 4, lines 25-30). Regarding claim 10, the combination of Harrison and Choi disclose wherein the first clamping surface (40) comprises an elastomer (Choi; col. 4, line 20-30). Regarding claim 11, the combination of Harrison and Choi disclose wherein the elastomer is silicone (Choi; col. 4, lines 20-30). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL RUNNING STEITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm EST. 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. /RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 8/27/2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 07, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12765655
DEVICE AND METHOD FOR SHAPING AND TREATING KERATIN FIBRES SUCH AS THE HAIR
2y 9m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12757955
HAIR EXTENSION ATTACHMENT TOOL
4y 4m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12757954
ARTIFICIAL HAIR APPARATUS AND METHOD
2y 2m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12745813
HAIR WEFT AND PREPARATION PROCESS THEREOF
1y 3m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12740629
Hair Fasteners and Methods of Manufacture Thereof
4y 7m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
54%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+26.1%)
2y 11m (~1y 11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1236 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month