DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The partial substitute specification filed 8/7/25 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: the statement as to a lack of new matter under 37 CFR 1.125(b) is missing; and because a clean copy of the substitute specification has not been supplied.
The changes to the disclosure submitted on 3/13/26 are accepted.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 3/13/26, these overcome the previous drawing objection(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3: directly conflicts with applicant’s disclosure by now requiring “a radius of curvature…between 5-40mm”; however, while applicant has the written description support for this radius to be “between 1 and 10mm for example between 1 and 5mm” Page 4, 1-5, there is no support for this radius to be 5-40mm as applicant now attempts to claim. This is a new matter rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1: this claim was amended to require “a radius of curvature between 1 and 10mm, the length of the fibres, when straightened, being between 1 and 100 mm, the bunch comprising fibres of length greater than 5 mm”; however, how many lengths are being claimed? This new 5mm length does not refer back to “the length” already required and it would appear to conflict with the preceding lines that allow for fibres as small as 1mm. Is this the same fibres recited in the previous line or is applicant trying to claim multiple different groups of fibres form this bunch or “first bunch”? Furthermore, this claim language has become confusing because is applicant claiming the fibers are curly and also straightened? This is improper and confusing because it is unclear if applicant is claiming a bunch of curly fibers with a radius of curvature of 1-10mm or if applicant is claiming a bunch of straightened fibers with a length of 1-100mm or a combination of both. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 3: depends from claim 1, which requires “a radius of curvature between 1 and 10mm”; claim 3 then attempts to require “a radius of curvature of 5 and 40mm”; however, this directly contradicts the range set forth in claim 1 making it unclear what radius of curvature the fibers need to have to meet the claims. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “between 1 and 5mm” because this is what applicant has support for (Page 4, 1-5). Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 12: this claim was previously amended to recite “wherein with SL between .06 and .12 where SL is the ratio between, firstly the sum of the lengths of the fibres deposited with a portion in contact with the adhesive and secondly, the sum of the lengths of all the fibres of the bunch” but this language is unclear. Is this formula claiming a sum of the lengths as in the measured length L of each fibre in contact with adhesive or is this trying to say the sum of the number of fibres in contact with adhesive? The language is confusing and unclear and the disclosure does not remedy this issue. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 14: this claim depends from claim 13, which requires “wherein a second bunch of fibres is applied to said area covered with the adhesive such that at least some of the fibres of the bunch come into contact with the fibres of the second bunch”; claim 14 then goes on to require “the first part of the fibres of the second bunch being held on the scalp without contact with the adhesive”; however, this would appear to directly conflict with claim 13 that requires the second bunch be applied to the area covered in adhesive. This language is confusing and unclear. Furthermore, this claim was amended to recite “a first part of the fibres of the second bunch is held on the scalp by entanglement with a second part of the fibres of the second bunch”; however, this is confusing. It would appear applicant is trying to claim that the fibres of the second bunch tangle with themselves and that by simply tangling with themselves, this holds them on a user’s scalp? This does not seem physically possible nor is there any clear explanation of how this is accomplished. How does on apply the second fibres to an area “covered with adhesive” without letting parts of the second fibres contact the adhesive in any way, and the fibres are tangled among themselves and absent adhesive stick to the scalp by virtue of tangling among themselves? This is not known to be physically possible nor would one of ordinary skill in the art understand how to perform this method. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “wherein some fibres of the second bunch are held on the scalp by entanglement with the fibres of the bunch”. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 21: this claim was amended to include the same language as claim 14 above and presents the same issues as a result. Clarification or correction is requested.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4: recites “wherein the length of the fibres of the bunch, when straightened, being between 1 and 100mm”; however, this is already required by claim 1, so this is repeating limitations in claim 1 and is not further limiting.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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) 1-5, 7, 11, 14, and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ismach (US 20170035133) in view of KR-689 (KR 2009-0010689) and Cloete (“The what, why and how of curly hair: a review”, by Cloete et al. published Nov 20, 2019).
Claims 1-4, 7, 11, 14, and 17-18: Ismach discloses a cosmetic method comprising: applying an adhesive composition [0007 & 0019 & 0026 & see abstract] directly to an area of a human scalp [0007] and then applying a first bunch of at least 50-1000 entangled fibres [0007-0008] (see Fig 1) to said area covered with the adhesive (see Fig 1) [0008 & 0024-0026], the application taking place in such a way that for at least some of the fibres of the bunch, the fibres only come into contact with the adhesive over part of their length at least in part because of an electrostatic attraction [0008]. The method can be practiced with an assembly or package including the glue and the fibres [0015 & 0030]. Ismach indicates that this method can be applied to cover any scalp area [0007] including eyebrows and that the fibres as meant to look like human hair in order to enable covering of bald portions easily.
Ismach discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the fibres having a radius of curvature of 1-10mm and the bunch including fibers with lengths of 5-100mm.
Ismach does clearly illustrate the fibres resembling human eyebrow hairs (see Fig 1). KR-689, however, teaches an artificial eyelash comprising a series of fibres (see Fig 1); it is common knowledge that human eyelash hairs and human eyebrow hairs of one user tend to have a same length because these hairs share the same short growth cycle. KR-689 teaches the eyelash hairs/fibres to have lengths ranging from 5-15mm (see last paragraphs of Detailed Description). In other words, KR-689 teaches that it is known that human eyelashes and eyebrows can have fibre lengths of about 5-15mm and Ismach teaches providing artificial eyebrow fibres that resemble the natural human hair in color and size [0030] (see Fig 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the fibres of Ismach to include hairs that are 5-15mm in length in view of KR-689 since KR-689 teaches this is the known length of artificial eyebrows and eyelash hairs/fibres.
Modified Ismach, discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the fibres having a radius of curvature of 1-10mm. Cloete, however, teaches that naturally curly human hair is known to have a curl radius, or radius of curvature of 6-160mm (Page 7, paragraph 1). Ismach teaches matching a person’s eyebrow fibres or hair fibres [0030] to their natural hair. Cloete is evidence that naturally curly human hair is known to include hairs/fibres with a curl radius of 6-160mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the fibres of Ismach to include such a curl radius in view of Cloete since Cloete teaches this is a known curl radius range for naturally occurring human hairs and Ismach explicitly states the goal is to blend the fibres to look like the naturally occurring human hair of the subject. So common sense would result in someone modifying the method of modified Ismach to include fibers that are curly to match a user with naturally curly hair who is balding.
Claim 5: Ismach discloses the fibres being about the size of a human eyebrow which has a diameter of 47-54 micrometers, so modified Ismach teaches the diameter of the fibre being 47-54 micrometers, which falls in the claimed range of 40-120 micrometers.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 11, and 14 and 17-18, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ismach (US 20170035133) in view of KR-689 (KR 2009-0010689) and Horihata (US 20120052219).
Claims 1-4, 7, 11, 14, and 17-18: Ismach discloses a cosmetic method comprising: applying an adhesive composition [0007 & 0019 & 0026 & see abstract] directly to an area of a human scalp [0007] and then applying a bunch of at least 50-1000 entangled fibres [0007-0008] (see Fig 1) to said area covered with the adhesive (see Fig 1) [0008 & 0024-0026], the application taking place in such a way that for at least some of the fibres of the bunch, the fibres only come into contact with the adhesive over part of their length at least in part because of an electrostatic attraction [0008]. Ismach discloses the fibres having a length of .1-1.5mm [0020], so Ismach discloses the length of the fibres of the bunch falling within 1-100mm.The method can be practiced with an assembly or package including the glue and the fibres [0015 & 0030]. Ismach indicates that this method can be applied to cover any scalp area [0007] in order to enable covering of bald portions easily.
Ismach discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the fibres having a radius of curvature of 1-10mm and the bunch including fibers with lengths greater than 5mm.
Ismach does clearly illustrate the fibres resembling human eyebrow hairs (see Fig 1). KR-689, however, teaches an artificial eyelash comprising a series of fibres (see Fig 1); it is common knowledge that human eyelash hairs and human eyebrow hairs of one user tend to have a same length because these hairs share the same short growth cycle. KR-689 teaches the eyelash hairs/fibres to have lengths ranging from 5-15mm (see last paragraphs of Detailed Description). In other words, KR-689 teaches that it is known that human eyelashes and eyebrows can have fibre lengths of about 5-15mm and Ismach teaches providing artificial eyebrow fibres that resemble the natural human hair in color and size [0030] (see Fig 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the fibres of Ismach to include hairs that are 5-15mm (which includes lengths greater than 5mm) in length in view of KR-689 since KR-689 teaches this is the known length of artificial eyebrows and eyelash hairs/fibres.
Modified Ismach, discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the fibres having a radius of curvature of 1-10mm.
Horihata, however, teaches an artificial hair filament, wherein the filaments have a radius of curvature of about 1.5mm (see abstract) in order to produce a crimp wave shape in the hair, a known desirable style. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the method and apparatus of modified Ismach by providing the fibres curly and with a radius of curvature of about 1.5mm in view of Horihata in order to create crimp wave shapes in the hair as desired for the common-sense reason that if one was supplementing this texture/curl of hair it would blend better having the same curvature.
Claim 5: Modified Ismach discloses the invention of claim 1 and Ismach further discloses the fibres being about the size of a human eyebrow which has a diameter of 47-54 micrometers, so modified Ismach teaches the diameter of the fibre being 47-54 micrometers, which falls in the claimed range of 40-120 micrometers.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7-21, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eigenbrod (US 20060260631) in view of Ismach (US 20170035133) and Horihata (US 20120052219).
Claims 1-4, 7, and 17-19: Eigenbrod discloses applying an adhesive to a bunch of at least 50-1000 entangled fibres (see Fig 6) wherein the fibres can have any type of curl, or radius of curvature [0079] and an adhesive (30 & 38 & 58 & 46) that is applied to an area of the scalp [0062 & 0070 & 0076] with the fibres having at least a portion of their lengths in contact with the adhesive and Eigenbrod discloses providing a series of bunches in a kit with the adhesive (see Fig 7) [0099]. At least some fibres of the bunch have a length greater than 5mm. Eigenbrod also discloses a kit including the bundles of fibres and the adhesive. Eigenbrod states any natural or synthetic hair can be used in the invention [0079] and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for applying an adhesive directly to an area of the human scalp before applying the bundle and explicitly stating the curls having a radius of curvature between 1-5mm and that some of the fibres have a length when straightened between 1-100mm.
Ismach, however, teaches a cosmetic method comprising: applying an adhesive composition [0007 & 0019 & 0026 & see abstract] directly to an area of a human scalp [0007] and then applying fibres [0007-0008] to said area covered with the adhesive (see Fig 1) [0008 & 0024-0026], the application taking place in such a way that for at least some of the fibres of the bunch, the fibres only come into contact with the adhesive over part of their length at least in part because of an electrostatic attraction [0008]. Ismach states the fibers can be 0.1-1.5mm in length [0020] and indicates that this method can be applied to cover any scalp area [0007] in order to enable covering of bald portions easily. The office interprets this as Ismach discloses the fibers when straightened can have a length between 1-100mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the method of Eigenbrod by applying adhesive directly to the scalp prior to application of the bundle of fibres in view of Ismach and to provide fibers with lengths as short as 1.5mm for the common-sense reason that more glue would mean the fibres are more likely to hold for a longer period of time and shorter fibers would help to cover bald areas for shorter haired individuals.
Modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the fibres or hair filaments having a radius of curvature of 1-5mm.
Horihata, however, teaches an artificial hair filament, wherein the filaments have a radius of curvature of about 1.5mm (see abstract) in order to produce a crimp wave shape in the hair, a known desirable style. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the method and apparatus of modified Eigenbrod by providing the fibres curly and with a radius of curvature of about 1.5mm in view of Horihata in order to create crimp wave shapes in the hair as desired for the common-sense reason that if one was supplementing this texture/curl of hair it would blend better having the same curvature.
Claim 5: modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention of claim 1 and Eigenbrod further discloses the hair can have a variety thicknesses [0093] and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the fibres having a diameter of 40-120 micrometers. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of modified Eigenbrod to include fibres with a diameter of 40-120 micrometers since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim 8: modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention of claim 1 and Eigenbrod further discloses the fibres can be natural hair [0079] which is known to have a circular cross-sectional shape.
Claim 9: modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention of claim 1 and Eigenbrod further discloses the fibres can be any synthetic or natural hair [0079]. Modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the fibres comprising a non-circular cross-sectional shape.
Horihata, however, teaches that it is an obvious matter of design choice to provide synthetic hair with either circular or non-circular cross-sectional shapes [0060]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the method of modified Eigenbrod by providing the fibres with a non-circular cross-sectional shape in view of Horihata since Horihata teaches this to be an obvious matter of design choice.
Claim 10: modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention of claim 1 and Eigenbrod further discloses the fibres of the bunch contacting the adhesive over less than 20% of their total length (see Fig 6).
Claims 11-12: modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention of claim 1 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for at least some of the fibres of the bunch being attached by entanglement with the other fibres without coming in contact with the adhesive so that some lengths of fibres are in touch with the adhesive and some are not. However, after extended use, glue is known to break down with time so with time at least one fibre of the braided bundle or curled bundles would disconnect from the glue, but remain entangled with the bunch. In other words, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the method of Eigenbrod to include some fibres entangled with the bunch and not in contact with the adhesive, since the applicant has not disclosed that this solves any problem or is for a particular reason and since the proposed modification already makes the fibres shorter in length so they would have electrostatic attraction because this is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the fibres all in contact with the adhesive.
Claims 13-14: Modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention of claim 1 and Eigenbrod further discloses that multiple bunches can be applied to each other coming into contact with each other and the head (see Fig 5). Modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention of claim 1 and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for at least some of the fibres of the bunch being attached by entanglement with the other fibres without coming in contact with the adhesive so that some lengths of fibres are in touch with the adhesive and some are not. However, after extended use, glue is known to break down with time so with time at least one fibre of the braided bundle or curled bundles would disconnect from the glue, but remain entangled with the bunch. In other words, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the method of Eigenbrod to include some fibres entangled with the bunch and not in contact with the adhesive, since the applicant has not disclosed that this solves any problem or is for a particular reason and since the proposed modification already makes the fibres shorter in length so they would have electrostatic attraction because this is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the fibres all in contact with the adhesive.
Claim 15: modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention of claim 1 and Eigenbrod further discloses the bunch can be in the form of a ball (see Fig 6C).
Claim 16: modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention of claim 1 and Eigenbrod further discloses the hair can have any variety of lengths [0093] depending on the intended use, including for example approximately one foot [0100], or about 305 mm. Modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the fibres having lengths of 5mm and less than 5mm. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the method of modified Eigenbrod to include fibres with lengths of greater than 5mm and less than 5mm since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim 20: modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention of claim 17 and Eigenbrod further discloses the fibres to have a length greater than 5mm (see Fig 5).
Claim 21: Eigenbrod discloses applying an adhesive to a bunch of at least 50-1000 entangled fibres (see Fig 6) wherein the fibres can have any type of curl, or radius of curvature [0079] and an adhesive (30 & 38 & 58 & 46) that is applied to an area of the scalp [0062 & 0070 & 0076] with the fibres having at least a portion of their lengths in contact with the adhesive and Eigenbrod discloses providing a series of bunches in a kit with the adhesive (see Fig 7) [0099]. Eigenbrod also discloses a kit including the bundles of fibres and the adhesive. Eigenbrod further discloses that multiple bunches can be applied to each other coming into contact with each other and the head and adhesive (see Fig 5). Eigenbrod states any natural or synthetic hair can be used in the invention [0079] and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for applying an adhesive directly to an area of the human scalp before applying the bundle and explicitly stating the curls having a radius of curvature between 1-5mm and a length when straightened between 1-100mm (see claim 4) or 3-80mm.
Ismach, however, teaches a cosmetic method comprising: applying an adhesive composition [0007 & 0019 & 0026 & see abstract] directly to an area of a human scalp [0007] and then applying fibres [0007-0008] to said area covered with the adhesive (see Fig 1) [0008 & 0024-0026], the application taking place in such a way that for at least some of the fibres of the bunch, the fibres only come into contact with the adhesive over part of their length at least in part because of an electrostatic attraction [0008]. Ismach states the fibers can be 0.1-1.5mm in length [0020] and indicates that this method can be applied to cover any scalp area [0007] in order to enable covering of bald portions easily. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the method of Eigenbrod by applying adhesive directly to the scalp prior to application of the bundle of fibres in view of Ismach and to provide fibers with lengths as short as 1.5mm for the common-sense reason that more glue would mean the fibres are more likely to hold for a longer period of time and shorter fibers would help to cover bald areas for shorter haired individuals.
Modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the fibres or hair filaments having a radius of curvature of 1-5mm.
Horihata, however, teaches an artificial hair filament, wherein the filaments have a radius of curvature of about 1.5mm (see abstract) in order to produce a crimp wave shape in the hair, a known desirable style. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the method and apparatus of modified Eigenbrod by providing the fibres curly and with a radius of curvature of about 1.5mm in view of Horihata in order to create crimp wave shapes in the hair as desired for the common-sense reason that if one was supplementing this texture/curl of hair it would blend better having the same curvature.
Modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for at least some of the fibres of the bunches being attached by entanglement with the other fibres of other bunches without coming in contact with the adhesive so that some lengths of fibres are in touch with the adhesive and some are not. However, after extended use, glue is known to break down with time so with time at least one fibre of the braided bundle or curled bundles would disconnect from the glue, but remain entangled with the bunch. In other words, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the method of modified Eigenbrod to include some fibres entangled with the bunch and not in contact with the adhesive, since the applicant has not disclosed that this solves any problem or is for a particular reason and since the proposed modification already makes the fibres shorter in length so they would have electrostatic attraction because this is a naturally occurring phenomenon. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the fibres all in contact with the adhesive.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of KR-689 (KR 2009-0010689) and Horihata (US 20120052219) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Lefler (“DIY Doll with Curly Hair”, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITV4XoFiL4c).
Claim 6: Modified Ismach discloses the invention of clam 1 and Ismach further discloses application of the fibres being done by manually dabbing or tapping the area covered with the adhesive with the bunch [0026]. Modified Ismach discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for holding the bunch between two fingers during application.
Lefler, however, teaches a cosmetic treatment method comprising: applying an adhesive to an area of a doll’s scalp (5:15-5:21), applying fibres in the form of a bundle (4:13 & 1:14-1:18) to the area covered with the adhesive (5:15-5:21). The bunch includes at least 50 entangled fibres because the bunch is described as made up of a series of six curled ringlets (3:10 & 4:02-4:05) with each ringlet made up of five pieces of floss (1:15-1:18) and each piece of embroidery floss comprises six strands because that is how this embroidery floss (0:18) is made. So the total number of fibres that are “entangled” forming the curls of the bunch is or = 6 ringlets x 5 55/ringlet x 5fibres figs, = 180 fibres. The fibres are curled around bamboo skewers (0:26 & 1:27-3:09) which have a diameter of 3mm, meaning the fibres when curled have a radius of curvature of 1.5mm, which falls between 1-10mm and the fibres of the bunch only come into contact with the adhesive over part of their length. The application of the fibres to the area is performed manually (5:20-5:29) by tapping the area covered with adhesive with the bunch held between the fingers and then tapped down with the fingers (5:15-5:29). In other words, Lefler teaches that it is old and well known to apply bundles of fibres to a scalp by holding the fibre bundle between two fingers for application. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the method of modified Ismach to include dabbing/tapping additional fibres by holding a/the bundle between two fingers in view of Lefler since Lefler teaches this to be another known method for applying fibres to a hairless area.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/26have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the newly presented claim limitations, which have been addressed with modified ground of rejection, as needed.
Applicant argues the new claim amendment overcomes the prior rejection; the new claim amendment adds ambiguity and confusion to claim 1 because claim 1 requires a length of 1-100mm and then requires a length greater than 5mm with no upper limit and without clearly referring back to “the length” already recited in the claim making it unclear if these are the same length or different or the same fibres or different.
The claims require, applying glue to a person’s scalp or skin and applying fibres to the glue area, which is clearly disclosed by Ismach. The particular dimensions of the various hair fibres applicant is claiming are also naturally occurring phenomenon; the claimed curl radius is known, bundles of 50+ fibres applied to glue is known, the claimed lengths are known lengths of eyebrow hairs. Entangle fibres, is what happens to hair naturally when it is not brushed or combed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Gill whose telephone number is (571)270-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER GILL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
