DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/7/25 has been entered.
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.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 8/7/25, these overcome some of the previous drawing objections, but not all of them.
Figures 4-5 remain objected to for having frames around the figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 13 is/are objected to.
Claim 13: replace “adhesivesuch” with ---adhesive such---.
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, 14, and 21 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.
Claims 14 and 21: each of these claims recites “deprived of contact with the adhesive”; however, there is not support for the language “deprived of contact” in applicant’s disclosure. 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) 3-4, 12 and 14 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 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 4: depends from claim 1, which requires “the length of the fibres of the bunch, when straightened being between 3 and 80mm”; claim 3 then attempts to require “the length of the fibres of the bunch when straightened being between 1 and 100mm”, but this contradicts claim 1 because a 1mm length fibre would meet claim 4, but not claim 1, yet claim 4 depends from claim 1. The metes and bounds of the claims are unclear and cannot be reworded in any way to overcome this issue without failing to be further limiting. 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 was amended to recite “at least some of the fibres of the second bunch being held on the scalp without contact with the adhesive by entanglement with the fibres of the second bunch and by contact with the fibres of the bunch”; however, this is confusing and does not make sense. How would fibers hold themselves on the scalp by entanglement with themselves and without adhesive? This does not appear to make sense when no natural adhesivity of fibres is claimed or disclosed making the metes and bounds of this claim unclear. Clarification or correction is requested.
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, 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 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]. 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 enabling covering of bald portions easily.
Ismach discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the fibres 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 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. Ismach discloses the fibres having a length of .1-1.5mm [0020], so modified Ismach teaches the length of the fibres of the bunch falling within 1-100mm (see claim 4) and discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the length being 3-80mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the fibre length to be 3-80mm, 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).
The office notes that applicant’s own disclosure explicitly states the range can be 1-100mm and then goes on to recite “3 and 80mm” and “5 and 40mm” with no criticality given to any of the ranges nor any explanation of why one is more preferred over another. In other words, this range is not critical according to applicant’s own disclosure (Page 4, “Length”).
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 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) in view of 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]. 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 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 enabling 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 and a length when straightened between 3-80mm.
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 teaches the length of the fibres of the bunch falling within 1-100mm (see claim 4) and Ismach modification above and modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the length of the fibres when straightened being 3-80mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the fibre length to be 3-80mm, 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).
The office notes that applicant’s own disclosure explicitly states the range can be 1-100mm and then goes on to recite “3 and 80mm” and “5 and 40mm” with no criticality given to any of the ranges nor any explanation of why one is more preferred over another. In other words, this range is not critical according to applicant’s own disclosure (Page 4, “Length”).
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 enabling 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 and a length when straightened between 3-80mm.
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 teaches the length of the fibres of the bunch falling within 1-100mm (see claim 4) and Ismach modification above and modified Eigenbrod discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the length of the fibres when straightened being 3-80mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the fibre length to be 3-80mm, 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).
The office notes that applicant’s own disclosure explicitly states the range can be 1-100mm and then goes on to recite “3 and 80mm” and “5 and 40mm” with no criticality given to any of the ranges nor any explanation of why one is more preferred over another. In other words, this range is not critical according to applicant’s own disclosure (Page 4, “Length”).
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 Ismach (US 20170035133) in view of 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 8/7/25 have 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 that Ismach fails to teach a bundle. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Eigenbrod teaches a bundle of fibers, Ismach is not required to also teach this limitation.
Applicant argues that “entangled fibres” is novel; however, the office notes that all hairs when not brushed become “entangled fibres”, particularly curly hairs, it is the entire reason for the existence of hair brushes. Applicant did not invent curly hairs becoming “entangled” into “bunches”, this is a naturally occurring phenomenon and is the definition of a hair “tangle” or “knot”. This argument is not persuasive for at least the above reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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-Friday 10:00am-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
Prosecution Insights