DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/22/25 has been entered.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “longitudinal central curve” and “a loop” of claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 6-15 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6-15: in line 1, replace “Claim” with ---claim---.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1: this claim was amended to require “a channel extending axially through the bridge and having a longitudinal central curve extending along a length of the bridge through the channel”; however, there is no written description support for any of this language in applicant’s originally filed disclosure. At the outset, “longitudinal central curve” is unclear and does not appear to make sense. Either the channel extends axially/longitudinally or it extends along a curve, not both because axially/longitudinally means along an axis, which is straight, a curve is a curve and is not straight so the terms together are confusing. This is a new matter rejection.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1: this claim was amended to require “a channel extending axially through the bridge and having a longitudinal central curve extending along a length of the bridge through the channel”; however, there is no written description support for any of this language in applicant’s originally filed disclosure. At the outset, “longitudinal central curve” is unclear and does not appear to make sense. Either the channel extends axially/longitudinally or it extends along a curve, not both because axially/longitudinally means along an axis, which is straight, a curve is a curve and is not straight so the terms together are confusing. It is unclear what applicant is trying to claim with this language and what the “central curve” is supposed to be because the disclosure also lacks antecedent basis for this claim terminology. Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 9-11, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rabe (US 8061367).
Claim 1: Rabe discloses a false eyelash system (1200, see Figs 10 & 12A-B) comprising a false eyelash having an elongate bridge (1204+1262+1260+1206) with a plurality of fibers (1002) extending laterally therefrom (see Figs 10-12), the bridge having a plurality of slots (gaps between ribs 1262 and holes in net 1260, see Figs 11-12) sized to received eyelashes (1290) therethrough (see Figs 11-12), and a channel (gap between closure 1206 and backbone 1204, see Fig 12) extending axially through the bridge (see Figs 10-12). The bridge can be made of the same material as the lash fibers (Col 4, 45-65), including nylon and polyester (Col 3, 35-60), which are known flexible materials. The bridge has a central curve (see slight curvature of 1204, Fig 12A) extending along its length with the channel. Rabe explicitly states the structure of Figures 10-12 can be an additional positioning mechanism combined with the preceding embodiments (Col 10, 1-10). In the directly preceding embodiment of Fig 9, Rabe teaches a portion of the flexible elongate bridge (904) carrying a series of clips in the form of loops or rings (950; Col 9, 55-67) extending along the length of the bridge and in combination with the additional positioning means of Figure 10-12 as disclosed by Rabe, this would result in the loops extending around the central curve since the bridge is curved when attached to the wearer because the base follows the natural curve of a user’s eyelid when worn thereby forming a “central curve”.
Claim 6: Rabe discloses each slot of the plurality of slots (940) extending laterally through a portion of the bridge (see Figs 10-12).
Claim 9: Rabe discloses that at least a portion of the bridge can be formed by a “thin strip, fiber etc.” (Col 4, 45-65), which the office interprets as “an elongate strip extending around the central curve”.
Claim 10: the language “integral” is defined as “essential to completion”; and the fibers (1002) are essential to completion. So Rabe discloses the plurality of fibers integrally formed with the elongate strip (See Figs 10-12).
Claim 11: Rabe indicates the bridge/strip can be made of a synthetic material (Col 4, 45-65) including nylon (Col 3, 35-60) or plastic (Col 6, 60-65), each a polymer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 6-15, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winn (US 20130098383) in view of Rabe (US 8061367).
Claims 1 and 12-14: Winn discloses a hair extension system comprising a false hair extension having an elongate bridge (see annotations) including thread and rubberized elastomer [0033], which are both flexible, and with a plurality of fibers (25) extending laterally from this bridge (see annotations). The bridge has a plurality of slots (gaps between the rings 100) sized and capable of receiving hair therethrough, a channel (see annotations) extends axially through the bridge and has a circular cross sectional shape including at least one central curve. The elongate bridge is formed as an elongate base with a plurality of rings/loops attached thereto (see annotations) and the plurality of rings are aligned along the elongate base to define the channel, with the spaces between adjacent rings forming the plurality of slots (see annotations). Winn discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the hair extension system forming a false eyelash.
Rabe, however, teaches a hair extension system comprising a false eyelash system comprising a false eyelash having an elongate bridge (1204+1262+1260+1206) with a plurality of fibers (1002) extending laterally therefrom (see Figs 10-12), the bridge having a plurality of slots (gaps between ribs 1262, see Figs 11-12) sized to received keratinous fibers (eyelashes 1290) therethrough (see Figs 11-12), and a channel (gap between closure 1206 and backbone 1204, see Fig 12) extending axially through the bridge (see Figs 10-12) in order to allow a user to install lengthening artificial eyelashes on their natural lashes by securing the natural lashes to the elongate bridge via the slots on the bridge. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the apparatus of Winn by providing it in a smaller version for extending eyelashes in view of Rabe who teaches providing hair extensions in tiny versions for extending a person’s eyelashes if desired in order to allow someone to extend their eyelashes and their hair on their head. The proposed modification is to make the hair extension of Winn small enough to be an eyelash extension, which would result in elongate bridge of Winn still having a plurality of laterally extending slots and a channel extending axially through the bridge as claimed, as well as the hairs extending laterally from the bridge.
PNG
media_image1.png
433
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 6-8: Modified Winn discloses the false eyelash of claim 1; Winn discloses the channel being formed by the visible holes in the rings (130, see Fig 1) and therefore extending through a central portion of the bridge (see Figs 1 & 8 & annotations), as well as, the plurality of slots extending laterally into, or through, this channel (see Figs 1 & 8 & annotations).
Claims 9-11: Modified Winn discloses the false eyelash of claim 1; Winn discloses the bridge being formed at least in part by a series of elongate strips (100, see Fig 1) extending about a centerline with the plurality of fibers (25) integrally joined (note that integral is defined as essential to completion and without the fibers it is not a hair extension, so the fibers are integral) with the elongate strip. The elongate strip extends around the central curve because it forms the central curve that is the channel (see annotations). The elongate strip can comprise an elastomer [0033].
Claim 15: Modified Winn discloses the false eyelash of claim 13; Winn discloses the plurality of fibers (25) integrally formed (note that integral is defined as essential to completion and without the fibers it is not a hair extension, so the fibers are integral) with the elongate base (see Fig 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/30/25 have been fully considered but they are moot because they are all drawn to the newly amended claim limitations presented, which have been addressed with a modified ground of rejection above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Gill whose telephone number is (571)270-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 10:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, can be reached on 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER GILL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772