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 .
Effective Date of the Claims
Parent application 14/962,076 does not teach the currently claimed limitations of:
i. Application 14/962,076 does not teach the elastic band has a length of 65-205 mm.
ii. Application 14/962,076 does not teach the elastic band has a width or diameter of 0.8-10 mm.
iii. Application 14/962,076 does not teach the thickness of the second connector is 1-4 mm, or that the connection region overall width is increased by the second connector by 2-8 mm.
iv. Application 14/962,076 does not teach the length of the second connector is 0.58-1.72 cm.
v. Application 14/962,076 does not recite due to dimensional properties and physical properties of the combination of the materials of the elastic band, the fabric cover and the second connector, the connecting together of the second connector, the fabric cover and the elastic band at the opposite ends is enhanced and the pull strength is increased, the dimensional properties referring to the length and width or diameter of the elastic band, the first connector of the elastic band, and the second connector of the elastic band, and the physical properties referring to connecting properties of free ends of the material of the fabric layer by the second connector during the overmolding, the adhesive properties of the first connector, the connecting properties of the second connector and an elasticity of the elastic band. While the ‘076 application clearly indicates enhanced pull strength, there is no clear indication it is due to the claimed dimensional properties and physical properties of the combination of the materials.
vi. Application 14/962,076 does not teach the length of claim 5 or any of the recited ratios of claim 6.
There may be additional claimed limitations which are not supported by the parent application.
In view of the above, claims 1-10 have an effective date no earlier than 21 May 2019.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding claim 1, line 10, the examiner suggests --the opposite ends of the elastic band--. While there is no issue of clarity because at line 10 only the opposite ends of the elastic band have been recited, further down in claim 1 opposite ends of the layer of fabric are recited. The suggestion improves the readability of the claims by clearly identifying which opposite ends are being referenced.
Regarding claim 10, “fixled” should be corrected to --fixedly--.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, line 20, it is unclear if “the opposite ends” refers to the previously recited opposite ends of the elastic band, opposite ends of the layer of fabric, or both.
Regarding claim 1, line 31, it is unclear if “the opposite ends” refers to the previously recited opposite ends of the elastic band, opposite ends of the layer of fabric, or both.
Regarding claim 5, this limitation is already in parent claim 1. It is unclear why it is repeated in claim 5.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Regarding claim 5, this limitation is already in parent claim 1. Accordingly claim 5 fails to further limit claim 1.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sze’120 (US 2016/0213120 A1) in view of Ootani (WO 2018/110698 A1, referencing US 2019/0111631 A1 as an English language equivalent).
In view of the above noted effective date of the claims, Sze’120 is prior art against the current claims.
Regarding claim 1, Sze’120 teaches a method of manufacture of a hair fastener with an improved pull strength (paragraphs 37, 41 and 44) comprising the steps of providing an elastic band with a length and a width or diameter (Figures 4-7; paragraphs 39-40), wherein the elastic band defines end surfaces at opposite ends thereof and is made of a material selected from the group consisting of silicone, thermoplastic elastomer (TPE) and polyester-polyurethane copolymer elastane (Figures 4-7; paragraph 39), knitting a layer of fabric over and along the length of the elastic band, wherein the fabric is made of a material selected from the group consisting of nylon and polypropylene (paragraph 40), connecting the opposite ends by a first connector thus effecting the elastic band taking the form of a loop, wherein the first connector is an adhesive (Figures 4-7; paragraph 41), and wherein the connecting of the opposite ends of the elastic band by the first connector does not increase the width or diameter of the elastic band at the first connector (paragraph 5; Figures 8-9); connecting the opposite ends of the elastic band together by a second connecter and connecting opposite ends of the layer of fabric together by the second connector (Figures 8-10; paragraph 42), wherein the second connector is formed by enveloping and fixedly molding over the first connector at the opposite ends of the elastic band and fixedly molding over the opposite ends of the layer of fabric so as to enhance gripping of the layer of fabric to the elastic band and connecting the second connector, the layer of fabric and the elastic band at the opposite ends together (Figures 8-10; paragraphs 5, 42 and 44), wherein: the second connector envelops the first connector (Figures 8-10), the second connector is made from a material of thermoplastic elastomer, wherein the thermoplastic elastomer of the second connector is free of silicone rubber, natural rubber or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) (paragraphs 11, 22 and 26).
Sze’120 differs from the claims in that:
i. Sze’120 does not teach the elastic band has a length of 65-205 mm and a width or diameter of 0.8-10 mm.
ii. Sze’120 does not teach a thickness of the second connector is from 1-4 mm such that an overall width of the closed loop hair fastener at a connection region is increased by the second connector by 2-8 mm.
iii. Sze’120 does not teach a length of the second connector is 0.58-1.72 cm
iv. Sze’120 does not explicitly recite due to dimensional properties and physical properties of the combination of the materials of the elastic band, the fabric cover and the second connector, the connecting together of the second connector, the fabric cover and the elastic band at the opposite ends is enhanced and the pull strength is increased, the dimensional properties referring to the length and width or diameter of the elastic band, the first connector of the elastic band, and the second connector of the elastic band, and the physical properties referring to connecting properties of free ends of the material of the fabric layer by the second connector during the overmolding, the adhesive properties of the first connector, the connecting properties of the second connector and an elasticity of the elastic band.
(i) Sze’120 is silent as to the specific length and width or diameter of the elastic band. In a related elastic band hair fastener, Ootani teaches a length of 160 mm and a width of 2 mm (paragraph 41). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Sze’120 because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a known suitable length and width for the elastic band, as suggested by the teachings of Ootani.
(ii) It is clear from Sze’120 that the second connector enhances connection of the opposite ends and provides significantly improved tension (paragraphs 42 and 44). Figure 9 of Sze’120 suggests the second connector thickness is roughly the same as the elastic band width. As suggested by Ootani above, this would be about 2 mm, thereby increasing the overall width of the connection region by 4 mm since the second connector thickness surrounds the elastic band at the connection region. See Sze’120 (Figure 9). Moreover, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Here, the general conditions of providing the claimed second connector to enhance connection of the opposite ends is known. It would have been readily apparent to the person of ordinary skill in the art that the second connector must have a suitable thickness to provide this benefit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Sze’120 because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such dimensions as suggested by Sze’120 and Ootani for the reasons provided above, or because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such dimensions as a matter of routine experimentation to provide the enhanced connection taught by Sze’120.
(iii) As noted above, it is clear from Sze’120 that the second connector enhances connection of the opposite ends and provides significantly improved tension (paragraphs 42 and 44). Figures 8-10 of Sze’120 suggests the second connector length is roughly 10% of the elastic band length. As suggested by Ootani above, this would be about 1.6 cm. See Sze’120 (Figure 9). Moreover, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05. Here, the general conditions of providing the claimed second connector to enhance connection of the opposite ends is known. It would have been readily apparent to the person of ordinary skill in the art that the second connector must have a suitable length to provide this benefit. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide these limitations in Sze’120 because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such dimensions as suggested by Sze’120 and Ootani for the reasons provided above, or because one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use such dimensions as a matter of routine experimentation to provide the enhanced connection taught by Sze’120.
(iv) The modified method of Sze’120 is essentially the same as the claimed method. Accordingly, it is reasonable to expect that these limitations naturally flow from the modified method of Sze’120, i.e. due to dimensional properties and physical properties of the combination of the materials of the elastic band, the fabric cover and the second connector, the connecting together of the second connector, the fabric cover and the elastic band at the opposite ends is enhanced and the pull strength is increased, the dimensional properties referring to the length and width or diameter of the elastic band, the first connector of the elastic band, and the second connector of the elastic band, and the physical properties referring to connecting properties of free ends of the material of the fabric layer by the second connector during the overmolding, the adhesive properties of the first connector, the connecting properties of the second connector and an elasticity of the elastic band.
Regarding claims 2-4, Sze’120 clearly teaches these additional limitations.
Claim 5 is satisfied for the reasons provided above.
Regarding claim 6, these ratios are satisfied by the length and width of the elastic band, and the second connector length and thickness as set forth above in the modified method of Sze’120.
Regarding claims 7-9, Sze’120 teaches at least 4 kg, 4-15 kg and 0-15 kg (paragraph 27). It is noted that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when a claimed range overlaps, falls within or is near a prior art range. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 10, Sze’120 clearly teaches these additional limitations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The examiner agrees that the current claims appear to be supported by parent application 16/417,686, filed 21 May 2019. However, for the reasons detailed above under the “Effective Date” heading, the claims are not supported by parent application 14/962,076.
The arguments directed to typos in some of the dimensions in the ‘686 application were persuasive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL A TOLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8633. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 am - 6 pm.
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, Phillip C. Tucker can be reached at (571) 272-1095. 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.
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745