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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/29/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotti (US 2018/0242672) in view of Rabe (US 8,061,367).
Regarding Claim 1, Lotti teaches an artificial eyelash extension system (¶ 0002) comprising:
a plurality of artificial eyelash segments (¶ 0024 and 0043 teach using a set of multiple lash fusions to match the curvature of an eyelid), wherein each of the plurality of artificial eyelash segments has an upward-facing surface that is configured to attach to an underside of a user's natural eyelashes (¶ 0027 teaches an adhesive applied to the top of each lash fusion such that the lash fusion can be applied directly to the underside of the user’s eyelashes), has a width that is no more than half of a width of a lash line of the user's natural eyelashes (¶ 0024 and 0043; Figures 3C and 4), and comprises:
a plurality of eyelash filaments (¶ 0020 teaches that the clusters that are combined to make the lash fusions include a plurality of artificial hairs, as seen in Figure 3A for example), each of the plurality of eyelash filaments having a base (the end of each artificial hair where they are joined together, i.e. the tops in Figure 3A or the right hand sides in Figure 3B) and a tip (the free end of each artificial hair); and
an adhesive element (adhesive applied in ¶ 0027 and 0044) disposed on the upward-facing surface of the eyelash segment (either side of the lash fusion could be considered the upward-ward facing surface depending on how it is held; ¶ 0027 teaches applying the adhesive to the lash fusion such that it can be applied to the underside of the user’s eyelashes, therefore the adhesive would be applied to the upward-facing surface of the lash fusion that contacts the underside or downward-facing surface of the user’s eyelashes) and having an upward-facing surface (the side of the applied adhesive that contacts the user’s eyelashes) and a downward-facing surface (the side of the applied adhesive in ¶ 0027 and 0044), the adhesive element extending across at least a portion of the width of the artificial eyelash segment (if the adhesive is applied to the lash fusion at all, then it extends across the portion of the width of the artificial eyelash segment where it is applied),
wherein the adhesive element is configured to attach the artificial eyelash segment to the user's natural eyelashes without application of additional adhesive (¶ 0027 and 0044 teach the adhesive being pre-applied during the manufacturing for easy application directly to the eyelashes); and
wherein the adhesive element is attached to each of the plurality of artificial eyelash segments before the artificial eyelash extension system is packaged for sale to the user (¶ 0027 and 0044 teach the adhesive being applied during manufacturing).
Lotti does not explicitly detail where the adhesive is applied beyond stating it is applied to “the top of each lash fusion” (¶ 0027 and 0044), therefore does not explicitly teach the adhesive element extending from the bases towards the tips of the plurality of eyelash filaments or being secured to at least one of the eyelash filaments.
However, Rabe, in the same field of endeavor of artificial eyelash extensions (abstract) applied to the eyelashes (col 3 lines 23-27), teaches wherein the adhesive element is secured to at least one of the plurality of eyelash filaments as it teaches that the adhesive can be applied on the filaments (extensions 102), the backbone (104) where the filaments are connected together (Figure 1), or both (col 5 lines 38-52).
Therefore 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 artificial eyelash extension system as taught by Lotti to apply the adhesive element to the eyelash filaments and the backbone connecting the filaments as taught by Rabe. Such an application of the adhesive element would be obvious to try since it is known that the adhesive element can be on the filaments, the backbone, or both (Rabe: col 5 lines 38-52). By having the adhesive on both the backbone connecting the filaments and the eyelash extension filaments, the overall adhesive, which is the adhesive element, extends from the bases of the eyelash filaments where they are connected via the backbone towards the tips since there is some adhesive on the filaments away from the backbone.
Regarding Claim 21, Lotti and Rabe teach the system of claim 1 (as presented above). Lotti further teaches wherein each of the plurality of artificial eyelash segments further includes a support strip (rectangular part shown at the top of each cluster style in Figure 3A) attached to the bases of each of the plurality of eyelash filaments (Figure 3A).
Rabe also teaches the segments further including a support strip (backbone 104) attached to the bases of each of the plurality of eyelash filaments (Figure 1).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotti (US 2018/0242672) and Rabe (US 8,061,367) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Woods (US 2015/0250243).
Regarding Claim 2, Lotti and Rabe teach the system of claim 1 (as presented above). Lotti teaches the adhesive could be a glue or a mascara (¶ 0027) and Rabe teaches the adhesive could be a variety of formulations but does not explicitly teach their structure. Neither explicitly teaches the adhesive element being a double-sided tape.
However Woods, in the same field of endeavor of artificial eyelashes (abstract), teaches that the adhesive applied to artificial eyelashes can be a liquid or a strip, which is the same as a double-sided tape (¶ 0017; see Figures 3 and 5).
Therefore 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 system as taught by Lotti and Rabe to have the adhesive be a double-sided tape, as taught by Woods. This modification would have been obvious to try because Woods teaches liquid and tape adhesives as known alternatives.
Regarding Claim 6, Lotti, Rabe, and Woods teach the system of claim 2 (as presented above). Such a system further teaches wherein the adhesive element comprises:
a head extended across at least a portion of the width of the plurality of eyelash filaments at the bases of the plurality of eyelash filaments (the edge of the double-sided tape taught by Woods that is closest to or overlapping what Rabe calls the backbone and is illustrated as a rectangle in Figure 3A of Lotti; see annotated Figure 3A from Lotti below); and
one spear extended from the head toward the tips of the plurality of eyelash filaments (the rest of the double-sided tape Woods teaches that extends from the head, defined as the edge of the double-sided tape nearest the backbone).
PNG
media_image1.png
321
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3A from Lotti to show double-sided tape taught by Woods situated as taught by Rabe
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotti (US 2018/0242672) and Rabe (US 8,061,367) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Lee (US 2016/0037848).
Regarding Claim 3, Lotti and Rabe teach the system of claim 1 (as presented above). Neither explicitly teaches the adhesive element having different adhesive properties on the two sides.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor of artificial eyelashes (abstract), teaches wherein strength of the adhesive property of the first surface between the first surface and the user is weaker than the strength of the adhesive property of the second surface between the second surface and at least one of the plurality of eyelash filaments or the support strip (¶ 0070; Claim 10). Lee teaches the first surface, or the surface that comes in contact with skin, having a weaker adhesive strength in order to protect the skin of the user (¶ 0070).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the artificial eyelash system as taught by Lotti and Rabe to include the adhesive element with different strengths adhering to the artificial eyelashes than to the natural eyelashes of the user as taught by Lee (¶ [0070]) in order to protect the user.
Regarding Claim 4, Lotti, Rabe, and Lee teach the system of claim 3 (as presented above). Lee further teaches wherein a strength of the first adhesive property is weaker than a strength of the second adhesive property (¶ 0070).
Regarding Claim 10, Lotti and Rabe teach the system of claim 1 (as presented above). Neither explicitly teaches a plurality of adhesive elements or the adhesive elements having an angled-C shape.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor of artificial eyelashes (abstract), teaches the adhesive elements have an angled-C shape (Figure 1e shows an adhesive with an angled-C shape profile and Figure 2 shows additional possible profiles for the adhesive). Lee teaches such a shape for the adhesive to have small areas of initial contact with the skin to allow for easier correction of placement if necessary (¶ [0089]). Lee also teaches providing the adhesive element in plural (Figures 4a and 4b shows that the adhesive elements can be provided as single rods (c) or in pluralities (a, b, d)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the artificial eyelash extension system of Lotti and Rabe to include the adhesive elements having an angled-C shape as taught by Lee in order to make it easier to correct placement. It also would have been obvious to have provided a plurality of adhesive elements rather than a single adhesive element as it would have been obvious to try from among the adhesive configurations taught by Lee, which include a single adhesive element or multiple segments or dots.
Regarding Claim 11, Lotti and Rabe teach the system of claim 1 (as presented above). Neither explicitly teaches the adhesive element having a rectangular shape with an empty center.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor of artificial eyelashes (abstract), teaches the adhesive elements having a rectangular shape with an empty center (Figure 1d shows an adhesive with a rectangular profile shape and an empty center and Figure 2 shows additional possible profiles for the adhesive). Lee teaches such a shape in order to increase the area of the side of the adhesive that comes in contact with the skin (the side with the empty center) in order to ensure a more stable adhesion to the skin (¶ [0087-0088]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the artificial eyelash extension system of Lotti and Rabe to include the adhesive elements having a rectangular shape with an empty center as taught by Lee in order to increase the stability of the adhesion to the skin.
Regarding Claim 13, Lotti and Rabe teach the system of claim 1 (as presented above). Neither explicitly teaches a shape of the adhesive element.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor of artificial eyelashes (abstract), teaches an adhesive element having a rectangular shape (Figure 1f shows a rectangular).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the adhesive element of the system taught by Lotti and Rabe have a first adhesive element with a rectangular shape as taught by Lee. Lotti and Rabe do not explicitly teach a shape for the adhesive, and the rectangular shape is a known shape for adhesives for artificial eyelashes as shown by Lee.
Regarding Claim 14, Lotti and Rabe teach the system of claim 1 (as presented above). Rabe further teaches the adhesive element is disposed along and on at least some of the plurality of eyelash filaments (col 5 lines 38-52 teaches the adhesive can be on the backbone, the filaments, or both). Neither Lotti nor Rabe explicitly teach a plurality of adhesive elements.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor of artificial eyelashes (abstract), teaches providing the adhesive element in plural (Figures 4a and 4b shows that the adhesive elements can be provided as single rods (c) or in pluralities (a, b, d)). .
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the artificial eyelash extension system of Lotti and Rabe to a plurality of adhesive elements as taught by Lee. It would have been obvious to try from among the adhesive configurations taught by Lee, which include a single adhesive element or multiple segments or dots.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotti (US 2018/0242672), Rabe (US 8,061,367), and Lee (US 2016/0037848) as applied to claim 4, and in further view of Woods (US 2015/0250243).
Regarding Claim 5, Lotti, Rabe, and Lee teach the system of claim 4 (as presented above). They do not explicitly teach a protective film is disposed on the upward-facing surface (the side not contacting the artificial eyelashes; the side to be applied to the natural eyelashes) of the adhesive element.
However, Woods, in the same field of endeavor of artificial eyelashes (abstract), teaches that adhesives on artificial eyelashes applied during manufacturing can be covered with a removable film to protect the adhesive until the user removes the film to utilize the artificial eyelash (¶ 0017).
Therefore 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 artificial eyelash system as taught by Lotti, Rabe, and Lee to further include a protective film on the exposed side of the adhesive element as taught by Woods in order to protect the adhesive element until the time of use.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotti (US 2018/0242672), Rabe (US 8,061,367), and Lee (US 2016/0037848) as applied to claim 13, and in further view of Merszei (US 2007/0227550).
Regarding Claim 15, Lotti, Rabe, and Lee teach the system of claim 13 (as presented above). Lee teaches the rectangular shape of claim 13, but does not explicitly teach the adhesive being perforated with a plurality of holes. Neither Lotti nor Rabe teach the adhesive element being perforated.
However, Merszei, in the same field of endeavor of artificial eyelashes (abstract), teaches an adhesive element (film or layer 40 of adhesive 42) that is perforated with a plurality of holes (Figure 4 and ¶ 0018 teach adhesive 42 being distributed intermittently with non-adhesive spaces 46 which are holes in the adhesive layer). Merszei teaches the adhesive being perforated with a plurality of non-adhesive holes so that not the entire surface is covered with adhesive such that the adhering characteristics of the artificial eyelash segment can be controlled (¶ 0018).
Therefore 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 adhesive element of the system taught by Lotti, Rabe, and Lee to be perforated with a plurality of holes as taught by Merszei such that the adhering characteristics of the segment can be controlled by controlling the amount of surface with adhesive (Merszei ¶ 0018).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotti (US 2018/0242672) and Rabe (US 8,061,367) as applied to claim 1, and in further view of Aylott (US 4,018,336).
Regarding Claim 22, Lotti and Rabe teach the system of claim 1 (as presented above). Lotti teaches artificial eyelash segments arranged for use or packaging (Figure 2), but does not provide further detail on such. Neither explicitly teaches an additional adhesive element configured to attach the plurality of artificial eyelash segments to packaging.
However Aylott, in the same field of endeavor of artificial eyelashes (all Figures; col 1 lines 10-15), teaches the artificial eyelash system further comprising an additional adhesive element (two-way adhesive strip 4, specifically embodiment in Figures 1 and 2) configured to attach the plurality of artificial eyelash segments to packaging in which the artificial eyelash extension system is packaged for sale to the user (col 2 lines 16-21; col 2 lines 39-58). Aylott teaches this additional adhesive element in order to mount artificial eyelashes in packaging and allow the artificial eyelashes to returned to the package between uses (col 2 lines 39-58).
Therefore 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 system as taught by Lotti and Rabe to include an additional adhesive element to attach the artificial eyelash segments to packaging as taught by Aylott so the segments can be retained in the packaging before and between uses (Aylott col 2 lines 39-58).
Regarding Claim 23, Lotti, Rabe, and Aylott teach the system of claim 22 (as presented above). Aylott further teaches wherein the additional adhesive element is a double-sided tape (two-way adhesive strip 4; col 2 lines 16-21; col 2 lines 39-58).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Rabe teaches that an artificial eyelash system may have an adhesive element applied to both the backbone where the filaments are connected together and the filaments that extend from the backbone (col 5 lines 38-52). While Rabe does not teach the adhesive being a double-sided tape, as required in claim 2 on which claim 6 and subsequently claims 7-9 and 12 are dependent, such adhesives for artificial eyelashes are known, as presented above.
However, an adhesive element specifically in the form of a double-sided tape with a head extending across at least a portion of the width of the plurality of eyelash filaments and multiple spears extending from this portion is not taught or suggested in the prior art. Claims 7-9 require multiple spears as each requires at least one long and one short spear. Claim 12 requires at least two spears. The double-sided tapes that are taught in the prior art are fully capable of connecting to both the backbone and filaments as taught by Rabe, but there is not a teaching or suggestion to have multiple spears extending from a head of the double-sided tape rather than having a head portion of double-sided tape extending across at least a portion of the width of the eyelash segments with a single spear in the form of the width of the tape extending towards the tips of the plurality of eyelash filaments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer P. Connell whose telephone number is (703)756-1169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:30 am - 3:30 pm ET.
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.
/JENNIFER P CONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799