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 § 112
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-6 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "wherein a plurality of parts at which the plurality of first fake hair strands are tied to the core wire, the parts surrounding the central through-opening and defining a plurality of sections" in lines 12-14. This limitation is unclear as the limitation appears to be either incomplete or grammatically incorrect. Further, it is unclear what the plurality of sections comprises, as the sections could be sections of fake hair strands, sections of the ring, or other sections. For purposes of examination, Examiner will interpret claim 1 lines 12-14 as “wherein a plurality of parts, at which the plurality of first fake hair strands are tied to the core wire, define a plurality of sections” and suggests amending to clarify.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if “two adjacent section” are referring to ones of the plurality of sections previously set forth or sections of something else.
Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if “with an upper end combined with a ring” is referring to the plurality of second fake hair bundles as a whole or to each of the bundles.
Claims 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for their dependence on one or more rejected base and/or intervening claims.
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 1-2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wozny (GB 2504958 A) in view of Mosser (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0227864 A1) and Ferguson (U.S. Publication No. 2003/0159705 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
607
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
526
620
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Wozny discloses a wig weave bundle (Figs. 1-3), comprising:
a first fake hair bundle (20 and 30 in Fig. 1, p. 6 lines 24-25), having a plurality of bundles of first fake hair strands (groups/bundles of individual hairs 30 in Fig. 1, p. 7 lines 3-4) and a core (50 in Fig. 1, p. 6 lines 30-31), wherein two ends of the core are knotted to each other to form a braid (Fig. 1, p. 3 lines 31-33, “tied at each end”, i.e., indirectly knotted to each other via being tied to the same intermediate structure), and wound into a flat round ring (ring in annotated Figs. 1, see Figs. 2 and 3; designed to lay flat against user’s head; relatively even braid; serves as “flat”) defining a central through-opening (opening in annotated Fig. 1) bounded by an inner circumference of the flat round ring (inner circumference in annotated Fig. 1), and the plurality of bundles of first fake hair strands dangling from the braid (Fig. 1), wherein the central through-opening is used for allowing a single real human hair bundle to pass through (Figs. 2-3), wherein along a circumferential direction of the flat round ring, the plurality of bundles of first fake hair strands are tied to the core against one another (Abstract, Fig. 1), wherein a plurality of parts (portions of 20 to which groups/bundles of individual hairs 30 are tied onto, Fig. 1, Abstract, p. 7 lines 3-4), at which the plurality of first fake hair strands are tied to the core (Abstract), surround the central through-opening (Fig. 1) and define a plurality of sections (sections including both groups/bundles of individual hairs 30 and the portions of 20 that each group/bundle of individual hairs 30 is tied onto), such that the first fake hair strands dangle from the braid altogether (Fig. 1).
Wozny does not disclose a core wire and does not disclose a plurality of second fake hair bundles, each having one or more bundles of second fake hair strands, with an upper end combined with a ring which is coupled to the braid of the first fake hair bundle, such that the second fake hair strands dangle from the braid altogether, wherein a respective one of the second fake hair bundles is disposed between two adjacent sections.
Mosser teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1A-1B and 5) comprising a first fake hair bundle (100 in Fig. 1A) comprising a core wire (103 in Fig. 1B).
Ferguson teaches an apparatus (10 in Figs. 1 and 2) comprising: a first bundle having core threads (para. 0015) which form a braid (14 in Fig. 1, para. 0027), and a plurality of second fake hair bundles (12 in Figs. 1 and 2, para. 0026), each having one or more bundles of second fake hair strands (strands of 12 in Fig. 1, para. 0026), with an upper end combined with a ring (20 in Fig. 2, para. 0026) which is coupled to the braid (Fig. 2, para. 0026), such that the second fake hair strands dangle from the braid altogether (Figs. 1 and 2, para. 0026 and 0028), wherein a respective one of the second fake hair bundles is disposed between two adjacent sections (sections in annotated Fig. 1).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of devices for increasing hair fullness.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the core of Wozny by adding wire to the braid of the core as taught by Mosser in order to allow the device to be bendable and moldable while being a natural looking braid that can easily mold to any head shape (Mosser paras. 0005-0006).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the wig weave bundle of Wozny in view of Mosser by adding a plurality of second fake hair bundles, each having one or more bundles of second fake hair strands, with an upper end combined with a ring which is coupled to the braid of the first fake hair bundle, such that the second fake hair strands dangle from the braid altogether, wherein a respective one of the second fake hair bundles is disposed between two adjacent sections as taught by Ferguson in order to allow for supplementing the hair with bundles of hair that have freely moving support to permit a more natural blending with the wearer’s natural hair and facilitate freer flowing hair (Ferguson, Abstract and para. 0010).
In regard to claim 2, Wozny in view of Mosser and Ferguson discloses the invention of claim 1. Wozny does not disclose wherein the braid of the first fake hair bundle is passed through the rings of the second fake hair bundles or the rings of the second fake hair
Ferguson further teaches wherein the braid (14 in Fig. 1, para. 0027) is passed through the rings (20 in Fig. 2, para. 0026) of the second fake hair bundles (Fig. 2, para. 0026) or the rings of the second fake hair bundles are tied to the braid (para. 0028).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of devices for increasing hair fullness.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the braid and the rings of the second fake hair bundles of Wozny in view of Mosser and Ferguson by passing the braid of the first fake hair bundle through the rings of the second fake hair bundles or by tying the rings of the second fake hair bundles to the braid as taught by Ferguson in order to allow for supplementing the hair with bundles of hair that have freely moving support to permit a more natural blending with the wearer’s natural hair and facilitate freer flowing hair (Ferguson, Abstract and para. 0010).
In regard to claim 4, Wozny in view of Mosser and Ferguson discloses the invention of claim 1. Wozny does not disclose wherein the core wire is one selected from the group consisting of a metal wire, a plastic wire and a braided wire.
Mosser further discloses wherein the core wire (103 in Fig. 1B) is one of a metal wire (para. 0018, steel or aluminum).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of devices for increasing hair fullness. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the core wire of Wozny in view of Mosser and Ferguson by fabricating the core wire of metal wire as taught by Mosser in order to allow the device to be bendable and moldable while easily molding to any head shape (Mosser paras. 0005-0006).
In regard to claim 5, Wozny in view of Mosser and Ferguson discloses the invention of claim 1. Wozny does not disclose wherein the core wire of the first fake hair bundle is passed through the ring of each second fake hair bundle.
Mosser discloses a core wire (103 in Fig. 1B) of the first fake hair bundle (100 in Fig. 1A) can include one or more wire strands in one or more plait sections of a braid (para. 0018).
Ferguson further discloses wherein the braid (14 in Fig. 1, para. 0027) is passed through the ring (20 in Fig. 2, para. 0026) of each second fake hair bundle (Fig. 2, para. 0026).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of devices for increasing hair fullness.
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first fake hair bundle of Wozny in view of Mosser and Ferguson to include a core wire that can include one or more wire strands in one or more sections of a braid as taught by Mosser in order to allow the device to be bendable and moldable while easily molding to any head shape (Mosser paras. 0005-0006).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first fake hair bundle and the rings of the second fake hair bundles of Wozny in view of Mosser and Ferguson by passing the braid of the first fake hair bundle through the ring of each second fake hair bundle as taught by Ferguson in order to allow for supplementing the hair with bundles of hair that have freely moving support to permit a more natural blending with the wearer’s natural hair and facilitate freer flowing hair (Ferguson, Abstract and para. 0010).
In regard to claim 6, Wozny in view of Mosser and Ferguson discloses the invention of claim 5. Wozny does not disclose wherein the rings of the second fake hair bundles are each selected from the group consisting of a soft metal wire, a plastic wire and a braided wire.
Ferguson further teaches wherein the rings (20 in Fig. 2, para. 0026) of the second fake hair bundles are each a soft metal wire (para. 0026, “metal”, the metal is soft enough to be cut and reclosed).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rings of the second fake hair bundles of Wozny in view of Mosser and Ferguson by fabricating each ring of a soft metal wire as taught by Ferguson in order to allow for the device to be assembled (Ferguson para. 0026) and to allow for supplementing the hair with bundles of hair that have freely moving support to permit a more natural blending with the wearer’s natural hair and facilitate freer flowing hair (Ferguson, Abstract and para. 0010).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Ferguson in view of Vahos and Wozny, Applicant argues that Ferguson, Vahos, and Wozny do not disclose the limitations of amended claim 1. Applicant argues that the clamping-comb/strand assembly of Ferguson cannot be re-engineered by simply "joining ends to form a through-opening" without changing the principle of operation and defeating Ferguson's head-mounted area covering design.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Wozny in view of Mosser and Ferguson. In the above rejection, the prior art Ferguson is not modified to join the ends. Instead, the prior art Ferguson is used to teach a plurality of second fake hair bundles (Figs. 1 and 2, para. 0026), each having one or more bundles of second fake hair strands, with an upper end combined with a ring which is coupled to the braid (Fig. 2, para. 0026), such that the second fake hair strands dangle from the braid altogether (Figs. 1 and 2, para. 0026 and 0028), wherein a respective one of the second fake hair bundles is disposed between two adjacent sections (Fig. 1). One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified Wozny in view of Mosser by the teachings of Ferguson in order to allow for supplementing the hair with bundles of hair that have freely moving support to permit a more natural blending with the wearer’s natural hair and facilitate freer flowing hair (Ferguson, Abstract and para. 0010).
Applicant argues that the assembly of Vahos is fundamentally different from the claimed core-wire ends knotted into a flat round ring defining a central through-opening for a single real hair bundle and that Vahos does not teach tying portions that surround a central through-opening and define circumferential sections, with second bundles interposed between adjacent sections. Applicant argues that converting Vahos's multi-wire, area-support assembly into a closed, small ring with the claimed two-tier circumferential layout would change the principle of operation and render Vahos unsuitable for its intended wide-area coverage.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, the prior art Vahos is not used in the rejection of claim 1. Instead, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Wozny in view of Mosser and Ferguson. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that the ring of Wozny is a head-circumference-scale band and not a small braid-formed ring. Applicant argues that amended claim 1 recites a flat round ring made by knotting the ends of a core wire, with a central through-opening bounded by the ring's inner circumference for passing a single real hair bundle-i.e., a bundle-scale through-opening, not a headband. Applicant argues that Wozny therefore neither teaches nor suggests the claimed through-opening nor the claimed circumferential tying sections and interposed second bundles arranged around that opening. Applicant argues that if one were to combine Ferguson, Vahos, and Wozny, there is no teaching or motivation to arrive at the limitations of amended claim 1 as the cited art uniformly teaches area-covering systems (head-mounted bands or multi- wire carriers) that support many hairs at once, which teaches away from a small, bundle-scale ring that facilitates independent movement and reduced bulk at the upper connection, and that the proposed modifications would require substantial redesign and change the principles of operation of the references, not a mere routine substitution.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the limitations of claim 1. The limitations of claim 1 do not include limitations specifying the sizes of the ring or the size of the human hair bundle, and do not include limitations regarding reduced bulk or bundle scale. Wozny discloses the limitations regarding a flat round ring defining a central through-opening used for allowing a single real human hair bundle to pass through (Figs. 1-3) of amended claim 1 as claimed. Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Wozny in view of Mosser and Ferguson. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
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 COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772