DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 downward-facing surface of the adhesive element is attached to at least one 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; the downward-facing surface could be any surface depending on how the segment is held, but Lotti does specifically teach applying the segment to the underside of the user’s eyelash therefore the downward-facing surface is facing towards the eyelash segment and away the underside of the natural eyelashes when the eyelash segments are applied);
wherein the upward-facing surface of the adhesive element is configured to attach the artificial eyelash segment to the user's natural eyelashes (¶ 0027 and 0044 teach the adhesive being pre-applied during the manufacturing for easy application directly to the underside of the user’s eyelashes; the upward-facing surface could be any surface depending on how the segment is held, but Lotti does specifically teach applying the segment to the underside of the user’s eyelash therefore the upward-facing surface is facing away from the eyelash segment and towards the underside of the natural eyelashes) without application of additional adhesive to the user’s natural eyelashes or the adhesive element (¶ 0027 teaches the pre-applied adhesive enabling the users to easily and directly apply the artificial lash fusions, additional adhesives are taught as optional or alternatives).
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, the lash fusions are made up of the eyelash filaments therefore the adhesive is applied at least somewhere to the eyelash filaments.
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). Additionally, Rabe teaches the artificial eyelash filaments being significantly longer than the natural eyelashes (Figure 4 with natural eyelashes 490 and extensions 402) and teaches other attachment mechanisms that are only applied between the based of the eyelash filaments and less than half the average length of the plurality of eyelash filaments, with no attachment mechanism on either the upward-facing surface or the down-ward facing surface of the plurality of eyelash filaments between half the average length and the tips of the plurality of eyelash filaments (Figures 5-7B with attachment mechanisms in the form of protrusions 532; col 7 line 56 to col 8 line 14).
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 length of the eyelash filaments as well as the backbone where they are fused or connected together 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.
Additionally, it would be obvious to apply the adhesive element from the base to only halfway or less towards the tips of the artificial eyelash filaments as that is where the artificial eyelashes are most likely to interact with the natural eyelashes. For example, if the artificial eyelashes are longer than the natural eyelashes then the tips of the artificial eyelashes would be obvious to leave free of adhesive as they would not interact with the natural eyelashes so adhesion would not be necessary. Such an arrangement of attachment mechanisms is known and taught by Rabe for attachment mechanisms other than adhesives, and would therefore be obvious to all apply to adhesives.
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.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor of artificial eyelashes (abstract), teaches the adhesive elements having a rectangular shape (Figure 1f shows a rectangular). 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 element having 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 13, Lotti and Rabe teach the system of claim 1 (as presented above). Neither explicitly teaches a shape of the adhesive element or the substrate the makes up 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 the substrate that forms the adhesive element has a rectangular shape.
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 substrate 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 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter, as presented in the previous office action: 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments were all directed to the combination of Lotti and Rabe in the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant argues “Lotti applies adhesive only to the “top of each lash fusion” which is a strip-like support structure.” However, Lotti defines the lash fusion as the collection of lash clusters that are fused together (¶ 0034, Figures 3A and 3B), not specifically a strip-like portion of this overall structure. This argument relies on a narrower reading of what a lash fusion is defined as than how Lotti actually presents and defines a lash fusion. The lash fusions as taught by Lotti can be formed by gluing together multiple lash clusters (¶ 0036) or melting together multiple lash clusters (¶ 0035), and the individual hairs within a lash cluster that then form the lash fusions are even taught as potentially being connected via a support thread (¶ 0033). Lotti actually teaches the lash clusters being connected 1-5 millimeters above the base via crisscrossing hairs (¶ 0022, and using an adhesive in ¶ 0036), which further supports that Lotti does not require all adhesive or connection between the individual lash filaments to be only at the very end of the filaments. Lotti does not teach away from applying an adhesive on the filaments since it specifically teaches an adhesive can be used where filaments are crossed to form the lash fusion. Application of an adhesive to the top of the lash fusion, such as taught by Lotti in ¶ 0027 and elsewhere, requires placing adhesive onto the individual hairs that make up the lash fusions as the individual hairs are melted or glued together to form the lash fusions, including the base of the fusion, and there is no teaching in Lotti to suggest or require that such application of an adhesive to the top of the lash fusion could not extend towards the tips of the lash filaments some amount.
Applicant also argues that Lotti teaches away from any additional adhesive as Lotti teaches minimizing weight relative to conventional clusters. While Lotti does teach that using heat to melt lash fusions together can minimize weight, it does also teach the inclusion of supporting threads or the use of adhesives when forming lash clusters or lash fusions. Therefore while Lotti teaches the benefits of one method, it does not explicitly teach away from other methods that may add more weight.
Applicant also argues, as best understood by the examiner, that Rabe’s adhesive placement is for eyelid adhesion rather than eyelash adhesion and therefore combining with Lotti is impermissible hindsight reconstruction. However Rabe specifically states the eyelash extension system is attached to “a set of eyelashes belonging to the user” (col 3 lines 10-27). Therefore it would be obvious that teachings of Rabe can be applied to Lotti as both attach eyelash extension systems to the natural eyelashes.
Applicant further argues that while Rabe teaches applying adhesive on the extensions (see col 5 lines 38-42 of Rabe), it does not further teach where specifically on the extensions the adhesive is applied. However, Rabe does teach the extensions being more than twice as long as the natural eyelashes (see Figure 4 where 490 are the natural eyelashes and 402 are the extension filaments) and teaches other attachment mechanisms only on the extension filaments less than halfway towards the tips (see Figures 5-7B with attachment mechanisms in the form of protrusions 532). Therefore it would be obvious to apply the adhesive only halfway or less towards the tips of the artificial eyelash filaments as that is where the artificial eyelashes are most likely to interact with the natural eyelashes if the artificial eyelashes are longer than the natural eyelashes and such an arrangement of attachment mechanisms is known. This explanation has been added to the rejection above in light of the new amendment.
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 Jennifer P. Connell whose telephone number is (703)756-1169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 3 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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571)270-5614. 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
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights