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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) has been acknowledged. It is noted that newly filed claim 45 recites structure that was not previously disclosed in the parent application 16/154,398; therefore, claim 45 will receive the priority date of 1/26/2022.
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) 16, and 37-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2004/0200494) in view of Solomon (US 9,138,024) and Kennedy (US 2018/0103740).
Lee discloses a hair topper system comprising a headband (10) detachably secured around a user’s head the headband comprising a first attachment element (11) at one end and a second attachment element (11) at the other end, the headband to be secured to the user’s head by engaging the first attachment element with the second attachment element (see Figures 1 and 2); and a hair topper device (14) to be placed atop a user’s head, the hair topper device comprising a body having a first and second end, one or more wefts (13) attached to the body; a clipping element (15) disposed along a surface of the body, and detachably engaged with the headband (see Figures 1 and 2). Lee does not disclose a strap connected to the first end of the body the strap and the second end of the body each having one of a hook and a loop to detachably connect the strap to the second end of the body such that the strap and the body together wrap around the headband on the user’s head, the strap further comprising a tensioner which allows a length of the strap to be adjusted to tighten the body around the headband to fit a particular wearer.
Solomon discloses a hair topper device comprising a body (A) having a first end and a second end, the body configured to be placed near a top portion of a user’s head (see Figure 4); one or more wefts (D) attached to the body; a clipping element (C) disposed along a surface of the body, the clipping element configured to be engaged with a headband secured around a user’s head (the device is capable of attaching to a headband); and a strap (B) connected to the first end of the body (see Figures 1-4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the device of Lee be a partial hairpiece with a strap as taught by Solomon to secure along the user’s head for partial coverage. Furthermore, Kennedy teaches a strap (14) connected to the first end of the body the strap and the second end of the body each having one of a hook (18) and a loop (20) to detachably connect the strap to the second end of the body comprising such that the strap wraps around the headband on the user’s head, the strap further comprising a tensioner (16) which allows a length of the strap to be adjusted to tighten the body around the headband to fit a particular wearer (see Figures 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the strap of Lee as modified by Solomon be made a connector and tensioner as taught by Kennedy to allow the user to adjust the length of the strap to fit a variety of head sizes.
Regarding claim 37, Lee discloses the clipping element is fixedly attached along an edge of the body (see Figure 2).
Regarding claim 38, Lee discloses the clipping element comprising one or more tines (see Figure 2), regarding the limitation configured to be inserted under the headband there is nothing precluded the user from installing the headband upside down and attaching the hairpiece under.
Regarding claim 39, the combination of Lee and Solomon teaches wefts are woven onto the body (Solomon; col. 3, lines 5-10).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of Lee and Solomon disclose the wefts are configured to conceal at least a portion of the body from an observer (see Figure 2 of Lee).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2004/0200494) in view of Solomon (US 9,138,024) and Kennedy (US 2018/0103740) as applied to claims 16, and 37-40 above, and further in view of Bermeister (US 2011/0041866).
The combination discloses the claimed invention except for the first material is velvet. Bermeister teaches a headband for a hair topper wherein the headband has a first material that is velvet (paragraph 43). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the combination of Lee and Solomon and Kennedy have the head band be made from a velvet material as taught by Bermeister to allow for a soft and secure attachment to the user’s hair.
Claim(s) 45 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2004/0200494) in view of Solomon (US 9,138,024) and Kennedy (US 2018/0103740) as applied to claims 16, and 37-40 above, and further in view of Geisinsky (US 2022/0192300).
The combination of Lee, Solomon and Kennedy disclose the claimed invention except for the body comprises a first loop at the first end and a second loop at the second end and the strap comprises a hook at each end to attach to the respective loops. Geisninsky teaches a headband comprising a body (112) wherein the body comprises a first loop (120) at the first end and a second loop (122) at the second end and the strap comprises a hook (136) at each end to attach to the respective loops (see Figures 1-3). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the body of Lee, Solomon and Kennedy be made with a first and second loop with a strap comprising hooks attached to the respective loops as taught by Geisinsky to allow for removal and adjustment means.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this instant case, Lee discloses wig structure secured via headband and comb arrangement, Solomon discloses a strap-based hair system, Kennedy discloses an adjustable strap structure for headwear. The rejection does not rely on any single reference to teach all features in isolation. Rather, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references. The examiner's rationale for combining references to provide adjustability and to accommodate varying head sizes and improve fit remain supported by Kennedy's teaching adjustable strap structures for head mounted devices.
In response to applicant’s argument that the references failed to state avoidance of hair damage, the test for obviousness is not whether the prior art recognizes applicant’s advantage but whether the structural modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. An express teaching of avoiding traction for alopecia is not required.
In response to applicant’s argument of secondary consideration relying on alleged copying, industry praise, and long felt need these arguments are not persuasive. Adjustable straps in headwear were known by Kennedy. Strap-based retention systems were known by Solomon. Hair toppers and wig retention systems were known by Lee. The evidence does not sufficiently establish that the alleged copying is specifically attributed to the claimed combination as a whole rather than to unclaimed or known features. Screenshot shots and declarations asserting similarity are insufficient to demonstrate that competitors copied the claimed invention rather than independently adopting known adjustable strap technology.
Applicant further argues that competitor products appeared after publication of applicant’s parent application. However, the proximity between publication and product is not established copying, the record does not contain direct evidence of access plus appropriation of the specific claim features beyond general similarity. Furthermore, adjustable strap technology was known in prior art prior to applicant’s filing.
In response applicant argument that if the modification were obvious competitors would have adopted earlier is not persuasive. The obviousness analysis does not require that all prior art features be widely adopted before invention. The proper inquiry is whether the claimed combination would been obvious at the time the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 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
3/3/2026