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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 15 requires the fixing element fasten natural hair which is threaded through at least one of the two or more openings and wherein the natural hair is not clamped between the snap buttons, which results in a positive recitation of the human hair, which is part of the human organism.
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 1-7 and 15-20 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 a step of threading portions of natural hair through a first mesh and the portions of natural hair are threaded through the two or mor openings in the first grid-based mesh. It is unclear if these are the same step or different steps.
Claim 15 is directed to a hair extensions system which includes an anchor and a fixing element. The fixing element is claimed as being in contact with the mesh of the anchor and fastens natural hair threaded through one or more of the openings and fixing element to the anchor. Claim 15 also require the hair not be clamped between snap buttons. The claim is requiring the installed configuration of the hair extension which is improper as the system (product) cannot be claimed as installed in the user’s hair (See 35 USC 101 rejection above). Additionally, it is unclear if the claim is attempting to claim method steps and therefore claiming more than one statutory category (device and method) in a single claim which is improper. The claim must be amended to recite the system as it would be sold or provided to a user in an uninstalled state and any recitations to how the components are used or placed in the hair must be provided for in intended use clauses (e.g. for fastening hair or during use, the fixing element….).
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, 3-6, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 4254784) and Misselhorn (DE 202020102478U1).
Regarding claim 1, Nelson discloses a method for attaching a hair extension to natural hair of an individual, the method comprising: threading portions of natural hair through a first material (76) (Refer to Figures 3-5 and 12); the first mesh comprising: two or more openings (78), the openings configured for the threading of natural hair of an individual through said openings; two or more first portions of snap buttons (80, Refer to Figure 19) fixed to the first material; and wherein the portions of natural hair are threaded through the two or more openings in the first material (Refer to Figure 3); positioning the first material against a scalp of an individual; fastening, with the snap buttons, a second mesh (82,84) to the first mesh; the second mesh comprising: a second grid-based mesh (82); hair extensions fixed to the second grid-based mesh (hair is provided on the exterior side of 82); two or more second portions of the snap buttons (84) fixed to the second grid-based mesh; and wherein the first portions of the snap buttons align with the second portions of the snap buttons (Refer to Figures 1-5 and 19). However, Nelson does not disclose the first material being a first mesh comprising a first grid-based mesh, the threading step including threading through a fixing element, positioning the fixing element against the first mesh; fixing the first mesh to the portions of natural hair, and to the scalp of the individual, by compressing the fixing element such that it flattens and becomes fastened to the natural hair, wherein the flattened fixing element is larger than, and cannot pass through, the openings.
Nelson teaches the first material is a synthetic resin material; however, Nelson acknowledges a mesh material (open-netting) and synthetic resin material can be used interchangeably (Refer to col. 1 lines 65-68, col. 2 lines 1-2 and col. 3 lines 30-33). Misselhorn also demonstrates it is well-known and conventional to construct such first/base materials of mesh (Refer to page 2 paragraph 12, page 4 paragraph 6, claims 2, 6 and 7). 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 method of Nelson such that the first material be a mesh material as Nelson acknowledges a mesh as a functionally equivalent alternative material and Misselhorn demonstrates it is well-known and conventional to use mesh materials to construct such base portions of hair extensions; furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Nelson teaches a step of fixing the hair threaded through the openings through the use of a fixing element in order to secure the first material to a user’s head, where the fixing element is described as a locking means such as adhesive or a locking member (26, 46) (Refer to col. 3 lines 42-47). Misselhorn disclose a similar method of attaching a hair extension where a first/base material (3; 14,16) having a plurality of openings (openings of 18, 9,11,16a) is positioned against the scalp and the user’s hair is threaded through the openings and fixed by inserting the threaded hair through locking tubes (12) and crimping the tube such that the crimped tube cannot be pulled through the opening (Refer to Abstract, Figures 1-5). Refer to A second mesh is then secured in place over the first/base material concealing the tubes (Refer to paragraph 0034). The use of locking tubes facilitates repositioning of the hair extension as hair grows (Refer to paragraph 0035). 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 method of Nelson such that the hair threaded through the openings be threaded through a fixing element in the form of a tube and the fixing element compressed such that it flattens and cannot pass through the opening in the flattened state as Misselhorn demonstrates it is known and conventional to use such means to secure a base material in place on the user’s head and this means of fixing allows the hair extension to be easily repositioned when hair has grown.
Regarding claims 3-6, the combination of Nelson and Misselhorn disclose the method of claim 1 above. It has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961). The first mesh comprising interwoven strands of inert material, regular spaces in between the strands of inert material, the two or more openings are larger than the regular spaces and the second mesh comprises interwoven strands of inert material, does not affect the method in a manipulative sense and amounts to mere claiming of a particular use of a structure; therefore, it is not entitled to weight.
Regarding claim 15, Nelson discloses a hair extension system (Refer to Figures 1- 17), the hair extension system comprising: an anchor (76) that is fixable to the scalp of an individual, the anchor comprising: a first base material (76); two or more openings (78, unlabeled apertures in Figures 11-13, apertures labeled as 24a in Figures 3-7) in the first base material, each of the openings having a perimeter edge and configured for the threading of natural hair of an individual through said openings; two or more first portions of snap buttons (80, Refer to Figure 19 and col. 5 lines 56-62) fixed to the first base material; wherein the anchor has no hair extensions attached thereto; however, Nelson does not disclose the first base material being a grid-based mesh formed by interwoven strands of inert material and a fixing element in contact with the grid-based mesh and that fastens natural hair threaded through that at least one of the two or more openings and the fixing element to the anchor where the natural hair is not clamped between the snap buttons and the fixing element is larger than and cannot pass through the openings.
Nelson teaches the first base material is a synthetic resin material; however, Nelson acknowledges a mesh material (open-netting) of interwoven strands and synthetic resin material can be used interchangeably (Refer to col. 1 lines 65-68, col. 2 lines 1-2 and col. 3 lines 30-33). It is also well-known and conventional to construct such first/base materials of mesh materials and for such meshes to be made of inert materials such as nylon. 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 method of Nelson such that the first material be a mesh material of interwoven nylon strands as Nelson acknowledges a mesh as a functionally equivalent alternative material and it is well-known and conventional to use nylon mesh materials to construct such base portions of hair extensions; furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Nelson teaches fixing the hair threaded through the openings through the use of a fixing element in order to secure the first material to a user’s head, where the fixing element is described as a locking means such as adhesive or a locking member (26, 46) (Refer to col. 3 lines 42-47). Misselhorn disclose a hair extension where a first/base material (3; 14,16) having a plurality of openings (openings of 18, 9,11,16a) is provided and during use it is positioned against the scalp, the user’s hair is threaded through the openings and fixed by inserting the threaded hair through locking tubes (12) and crimping the tube such that the crimped tube cannot be pulled through the opening (Refer to Abstract, Figures 1-5). A second mesh is then secured in place over the first/base material concealing the tubes (Refer to paragraph 0034) and the use of locking tubes facilitates repositioning of the hair extension as hair grows (Refer to paragraph 0035). 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 hair extension system of Nelson to include a fixing element (crimping tubes) which are larger than and cannot pass though the openings as Misselhorn demonstrates it is known and conventional to use such means to secure a base material in place on the user’s head and this means of fixing allows the hair extension to be easily repositioned when hair has grown.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Nelson and Misselhorn disclose the hair extension system of claim 15 above, Nelson further discloses a first hair extension (hair unit) comprising: hair (hair of hair unit, Refer to col. 3 lines 30-34) attached to a strip of material (base 82); two or more second portions of the snap buttons (84) fixed to the second grid-based mesh; and wherein the first portions of the snap button with the second portions of the snap buttons.
Regarding claims 19 and 20, the combination of Nelson and Misselhorn disclose the hair extension system of claim 15 above, wherein the grid-based mesh comprises regular spaces in between the strands of inert material (all meshes and nets provide recurring, normal or fixed (i.e. regular) spaces between the strands of material forming the net. It is noted that the term regular does not require the spaces be equal in size.) and the two or more openings are larger than the regular spaces (The apertures are larger in order to accommodate the user’s natural hair which is threaded therethrough while the space between mesh strands is much smaller).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nelson and Misselhorn as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Dimitriou (US 20130199554).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Nelson and Misselhorn disclose the hair extension system of claim 16 above; however, the combination does not disclose an additional/second hair extension comprising hair attached to a strip of material, two or more second portions of snap buttons fixed to the strip of material which align with the first portions of the snap buttons for attachment to the anchor. Dimitriou discloses a similar hair extension which provides an anchor (2) having a plurality of first portions of snap buttons (3) provided in parallel rows, where the anchor attaches to the user and a plurality of hair extensions (1) each having hair attached to a strip of material and a corresponding plurality of second portions of snap buttons such that the plurality of hair extensions are selectively engaged with the first mesh via the snap buttons. Similar to Nelson, Dimitriou explains the snap fastening between the first mesh and second mesh provide quick and easy removal of the second mesh. Dimitriou further teaches it is beneficial to provide a plurality of hair extensions to permit immediate adjustments/changes in order to create different looks (e.g. volume, color, etc.). 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 hair extension disclosed by the combination of Nelson and Misselhorn to include at least one additional hair extension (a second hair extension with hair attached to a strip and second portions of nap buttons fixed to the strip) for selective engagement with the anchor as taught by Dimitriou in order to achieve various styles/looks in a quick and easy manner. The combination of Nelson, Misselhorn and Dimitriou provide a hair extension system where the first and second hair extensions are interchangeably attachable to the anchor while the anchor is fixed to the scalp.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nelson and Misselhorn as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Dimitriou (US 20130199554) and Sim (US 20170215506).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Nelson and Misselhorn disclose the hair extension system of claim 15, where Nelson discloses the first portion of snap buttons are arranged in a first row; however, Nelson does not provide a second row of first portions of snap buttons arranged parallel to and vertically staggered relative to the first row.
Dimitriou discloses a similar hair extension which provides an anchor (2) having a plurality of first portions of snap buttons (3) provided in parallel rows, where the anchor attaches to the user and a plurality of hair extensions (1) having a corresponding plurality of second portions of snap buttons are selectively engaged with the anchor via the snap buttons. Similar to Nelson, Dimitriou explains the snap fastening between the first mesh and second mesh provide quick and easy removal of the second mesh. Dimitriou further teaches it is beneficial to provide more than one row of fasteners on the anchor to allow multiple hair extensions be attached and/or extensions in different positions allowing a user to create different looks (e.g. volume, color, etc.). 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 hair extension disclosed by the combination of Nelson and Misselhorn to include an additional (second) parallel row of snap buttons as taught by Dimitriou in order to allow more than one hair extension to be attached to the anchor and/or for the hair extension(s) to be positioned in different positions/rows to achieve various styles/looks in a quick and easy manner.
Dimitriou was relied upon for the teaching of providing a second row of snap buttons; although Dimitriou depicts the rows in alignment rather than staggered, it is well-known that such elements can be provided in aligned or staggered arrangements as demonstrated by Sim (Refer to Abstract and Figures 1A and 1H). Sim provides a hair extension system having a first mesh (1) is provided with a plurality of rows of fasteners (2) and a plurality of hair extensions (5A) having corresponding fasteners which engage with the rows of fasteners on the first mesh (Refer to Figures 1A-2B and paragraph 0067). Sim teaches the rows of fasteners of the first mesh may be distributed in such that the fasteners of different rows align with one another as best shown in Figure 1A, which is similar to the configuration depicted in Dimitriou, or the fasteners of adjacent rows may be arranged in a staggered manner as shown in Figure 1H (Refer to Abstract and paragraph 0066). Thus, Sim demonstrates both fastener configurations (aligned and staggered) are art-recognized obvious variants and as a result it would have been obvious to modify the hair extension of the combination of Nelson, Misselhorn and Dimitriou such that the first row of fasteners be vertically staggered relative to the second row of fasteners.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nelson and Misselhorn as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Ourique (US 20120260933).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Nelson and Misselhorn disclose the hair extension system of claim 15 above. Although the combination does not explicitly state regarding the two or more openings being larger than the regular spaces, one of ordinary skill in the art understands this to be the case as the mesh material provides the two or more openings therein and the openings in such meshes are very small compared to the opening through which hair is threaded. Ourique demonstrates this is the case, as Ourique discloses a similar hair extension where a first mesh material (4, Refer to paragraph 0026) is provided with a plurality of apertures (18) through which the user’s natural hair is threaded to secure the base material to the user (Refer to Figures 1-5) and the openings are larger than the regular spaces of the mesh (Refer to Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 0032 which discloses the size of the apertures being 1-10 mm which is larger than the spacing between threads in mesh/net materials of hair extensions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Nelson and Misselhorn such that the the openings be larger than the regular spaces of the mesh as Ourique demonstrates it is well-known and conventional for such bases to be constructed in the claimed manner.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nelson (US 4254784) and Dimitriou (US 20130199554).
Regarding claim 8, Nelson discloses a hair extension system (Refer to Figures 1- 17), the hair extension system comprising: a first substrate (45, 74) comprising: a first base material (44,76) having no hair extensions attached thereto; two or more openings (unlabeled apertures in Figures 11-13 and 19, apertures labeled as 24a in Figures 3-7) in the first base material, each of the openings configured for the threading of natural hair of an individual through said openings; two or more first portions of snap buttons (80, Refer to Figure 19 and col. 5 lines 56-62) fixed to the first base material wherein the openings and the first portions of the snap buttons are positioned on the first base material in an alternating pattern, wherein the first portions of snap buttons are arranged in a first row; a second mesh (hair unit) comprising: a second grid-based mesh (base 82) formed by interwoven strands, the strands having regular spaces between them (82 is made of “open netting”, Refer to col 5 lines 62-64 and Figure 19); hair extensions (hair of hair unit, Refer to col. 3 lines 30-34) fixed to the second grid-based mesh; two or more second portions of the snap buttons (84) fixed to the second grid-based mesh; and wherein the first portions of the snap button with the second portions of the snap buttons, the second mesh is attachable to the first mesh via mating of the first and second portions of the snap buttons, and wherein the natural hair is not clamped between the snap buttons (Refer to col. 5 lines 64-68); however, Nelson does not disclose the first base material being a first mesh, a second row of first portions of the snap buttons that are parallel to the first row and an additional/third mesh interchangeable with the second mesh such that the third mesh is constructed as a mesh formed of interwoven inert strands having two or more second portions of snap buttons which align with the first portions of the snap buttons for attachment to the first mesh.
Nelson teaches the first material is a synthetic resin material; however, Nelson acknowledges a mesh material (open-netting) and synthetic resin material can be used interchangeably (Refer to col. 1 lines 65-68, col. 2 lines 1-2 and col. 3 lines 30-33). It is also well-known and conventional to construct such first/base materials of mesh. 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 method of Nelson such that the first material be a mesh material as Nelson acknowledges a mesh as a functionally equivalent alternative material and it is well-known and conventional to use mesh materials to construct such base portions of hair extensions; furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Nelson, as modified, teaches the snap fastening mechanism between the second mesh and the first mesh permits quick and easy removal of the second mesh; however, Nelson does not provide an additional/third mesh which is interchangable with the second mesh and an additional row of snap buttons on the first mesh. Dimitriou discloses a similar hair extension which provides a first base material (2) having a plurality of first portions of snap buttons (3) provided in parallel rows, where the base material attaches to the user and second and/or third meshes (1) having a corresponding plurality of second portions of snap buttons and hair extensions are selectively engaged with the first mesh via the snap buttons. Similar to Nelson, Dimitriou explains the snap fastening between the first mesh and second mesh provide quick and easy removal of the second mesh. Dimitriou further teaches it is beneficial to provide additional meshes having the second portions of snap buttons and hair extensions so as to permit immediate adjustments/changes in order to create different looks (e.g. volume, color, etc.). 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 hair extension disclosed by Nelson to include an additional (second) parallel row of snap buttons and a third mesh having a third grid-based mesh with hair extensions and two or more second portions of snap buttons fixed thereto such that the second portions of snap buttons align with the second row of first portions of snap buttons on the first mesh as taught by Dimitriou in order to achieve various styles/looks in a quick and easy manner.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nelson and Dimitriou disclose the hair extension system of claim 8 above, Nelson further discloses a fixing element (26, 46, Refer to col. 3 lines 42-48, col. 4 lines 59-67) that fastens natural hair, which is threaded through at least one of the two or more openings, to the first mesh.
Claims 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nelson and Dimitriou as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Ourique (US 20120260933).
Regarding claims 10-13, the combination of Nelson and Dimitriou disclose the hair extension system of claim 9 above, where the first and second meshes comprise regular spaces in between the strands; however, the combination is silent regarding the first and second meshes comprising interwoven strands of inert material and the two or more openings being larger than the regular spaces. Ourique discloses a similar hair extension where a first base material (4) is provided with a plurality of apertures (18) through which the user’s natural hair is threaded to secure the base material to the user (Refer to Figures 1-5). Ourique teaches the first base material is a mesh made of nylon (Refer to paragraphs 0026,0028), where nylon is an inert material and the openings are larger than the regular spaces (Refer to Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 0032 which discloses the size of the apertures being 1-10 mm which is larger than the spacing between threads in mesh/net materials of hair extensions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Nelson and Dimitriou such that the first and second meshes be constructed of interwoven strands of inert material and the openings be larger than the regular spaces of the mesh as Ourique demonstrates it is well-known and conventional for such bases to be constructed in the claimed manner.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Nelson and Dimitriou as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Sim (US 20170215506).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Nelson and Dimitriou disclose the hair extension system of claim 8; however, the combination does not disclose the first row of the first portions of snap buttons are vertically staggered relative to the second row of the first portions of the snap buttons. Dimitriou was relied upon for the teaching of providing a second row of snap buttons; although Dimitriou depicts the rows in alignment rather than staggered, it is well-known that such elements can be provided in aligned or staggered arrangements as demonstrated by Sim (Refer to Abstract and Figures 1A and 1H). Sim provides a hair extension system having a first mesh (1) is provided with a plurality of rows of fasteners (2) and a plurality of hair extensions (5A) having corresponding fasteners which engage with the rows of fasteners on the first mesh (Refer to Figures 1A-2B and paragraph 0067). Sim teaches the rows of fasteners of the first mesh may be distributed in such that the fasteners of different rows align with one another as best shown in Figure 1A, which is similar to the configuration depicted in Dimitriou, or the fasteners of adjacent rows may be arranged in a staggered manner as shown in Figure 1H (Refer to Abstract and paragraph 0066). Thus, Sim demonstrates both fastener configurations (aligned and staggered) are art-recognized obvious variants and as a result it would have been obvious to modify the hair extension of the combination of Nelson and Dimitriou such that the first row of fasteners be vertically staggered relative to the second row of fasteners.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ourique (US 20120260933), Misselhorn (DE 202020102478 U1) and Dimitriou (US 20130199554).
Regarding claim 1, Ourique a method for attaching a hair extension to natural hair of an individual, the method comprising: threading portions of natural hair through a first mesh (4); the first mesh comprising: a first grid-based mesh (4) formed by interwoven strands of inert material (Refer to paragraphs 0026, 0028 and claim 8); two or more openings (18) in the first grid-based mesh, each of the openings having a perimeter edge formed by the material and configured for the threading of natural hair of an individual through said openings; wherein the portions of natural hair is threaded through the two or more openings in the first grid-based mesh; positioning the first mesh against a scalp of an individual; fixing the first mesh to the portions of natural hair of the individual, and to the scalp of the individual, by compressing the fixing element such that it flattens and becomes fastened to the natural hair (Refer to paragraphs 0039, 0041, 0046-0047, 0063 and Figures 1-5, use of mico-rings or micro-links means the hair is threaded through the links/rings and clamped therein). Ourique provides wefts (6 and base portion to which 6 attach) having hair extensions (6) fixed thereto, where the wefts are attached to the first mesh, but Ourique does not disclose the wefts are attached via snap fasteners provided on the first mesh and the wefts and is silent regarding the wefts having a grid-based mesh and the flattened fixing element being larger than and cannot pass through the openings.
It has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961). The second mesh providing a second grid-based mesh does not affect the method in a manipulate sense and amounts to mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Alternatively, although Ourique is silent regarding the wefts providing a grid-based mesh, it is well-known and conventional for hair wefts to provide a grid-based mesh material as base for securing the individual hair strands. 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 wefts of Ourique to provide a grid-based mesh material/base as this is a conventional configuration of hair wefts.
Ourique does not explicitly state the flattened fixing element is larger than and cannot pass through the openings; however, this is well-known and conventional as demonstrated by Misselhorn (Refer to Abstract). Misselhorn discloses a similar method of attaching a hair extension where a user’s hair is threaded through openings (9,11) and rings/fixing elements (12), the rings/fixing elements are positioned adjacent the scalp and crimped such that the crimped ring cannot be pilled through the opening. It is necessary for this configuration to be provided because if the ring could fit through the opening in its crimped state, it would not serve the intended purpose of fixing the first mesh to the user. 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 method of Ourique such that the flattened fixing element be larger than and as a result, not pass through the openings as taught by Miselhorn in order to properly secure the first weft to the user’s hair and scalp and prevent slipping or falling off of the hair extension.
Dimitriou discloses a similar hair extension having a fabric material with hair attached thereto. Dimitriou teaches it is beneficial to provide a plurality of extensions which are detachably coupled to a base/first extension to permit quick adjustments to length, volume, color, etc. by adding and/or removing different hair extensions where this is achieved by snap connection therebetween (Refer to paragraphs 0011, 0016, 0018). The system disclosed by Dimitriou includes a first weft formed of a base material (2 and fabric portion of 1), a plurality of first snap buttons (3) and extension hair, where the additional wefts include a base material (fabric portions thereof), a plurality of second portions of snap buttons and extension hair, such that during use, a user may couple one of the additional wefts to the first weft by engaging the snap fasteners and when a change in look is desired (e.g. change in volume, color, length, etc.), the additional weft may be removed and replaced with another weft providing the different configuration/look. 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 method disclosed by the combination of Ourique and Misselhorn such that the first mesh include a plurality of first portions of snap fasteners and second and other additional meshes/wefts be provided with corresponding second portions of snap fasteners, such that the second and additional meshes may be removably coupled to the first mesh via engagement of the snap fastener portions as taught by Dimitriou in order to achieve various styles/looks in a quick and easy manner with one hair extension system.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ourique, Misselhorn and Dimitriou disclose the method of claim 1 above, further comprising adjusting a position of the first mesh after the natural hair of the individual has grown out, the adjusting comprising: unfixing the first mesh from the portions of natural hair of the individual; positioning the first mesh against the scalp of the individual by pulling the portion of natural hair through the two or more openings in the first mesh; and fixing the first mesh to the portions of natural hair of the individual (Refer to paragraphs 0011-0013, 0048 and 0049 of Ourique).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ourique, Misselhorn and Dimitriou disclose the method of claim 1 above, wherein the first mesh comprises interwoven strands of inert material (Refer to paragraph 0028 of Ourique).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ourique, Misselhorn and Dimitriou disclose the method of claim 3 above, wherein the first mesh further comprises regular spaces in between the strands of inert material. Ourique teaches the first mesh is made of a mesh or netting where all meshes and nets provide recurring, normal or fixed (i.e. regular) spaces between the strands of material forming the net. It is noted that the term regular does not require the spaces be equal in size.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ourique, Misselhorn and Dimitriou disclose the method of claim 4 above, wherein the two or more openings are larger than the regular spaces (Refer to Figures 1, 2, 4 and 5 and paragraph 0032 which discloses the size of the apertures being 1-10 mm which is larger than the spacing between threads in mesh/net materials of hair extensions).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ourique, Misselhorn and Dimitriou disclose the method of claim 5 above. It has been held that to be entitled to weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not to amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 1962 C.D. 408 (1961). The second mesh comprising interwoven strands of inert material does not affect the method in a manipulative sense and amounts to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure; as a result, it is not entitled to weight. Alternatively, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, it is well known and conventional for wefts to provide a grid-based mesh base. Ourique demonstrates it is well-known to use inert materials such as nylon (Refer to paragraph 0028) for such meshes/netting. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the second mesh of the combination of Ourique, Misselhorn and Dimitriou of interwoven strands of inert material, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice and Ourique demonstrates such material (interwoven strands of nylon/inert material) is well-known and conventional in the art.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ourique, Misselhorn and Dimitriou disclose the method of claim 1 above, further comprising unfastening the second mesh from the first mesh; and fastening, with the snap buttons, a third mesh to the first mesh; the third mesh comprising: a third grid-based mesh; hair extensions fixed to the third grid-based mesh; two or more second portions of the snap buttons fixed to the third grid-based mesh; and wherein the first portions of the snap buttons align with the second portions of the snap buttons. As explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, the meshes (first/base mesh and wefts, i.e. second and additional/third meshes) of Ourique were modified per the teachings of Dimitriou to provide corresponding snap fastening portions to allow the second and third meshes to be selectively coupled to the first mesh in order to permit the different meshes to be attached to the first mesh to create various looks/styles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, James Kish can be reached on 571-272-5554. 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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights