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 § 102
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) 1-4 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayes (US 10,575,576).
Hayes disclose a dreadlock apparatus comprises at least one track (24), wherein one track comprises at least one longitudinally placed flexible ribbon (col. 15, lines 25-35), and at least two or more discrete hair locks, wherein the lock is affixed to the ribbon and is perpendicular to the longitudinal ribbon, and wherein the two or more locks are affixed parallel to each other on the ribbon (see Figure 1C; col. 15, lines 25-50 and col. 52, lines 1-5). Claim 2, the apparatus is wrappable around a human head or part thereof and wherein the ribbon is continuous (see Figure 1C; col. 24, lines 30-36). Claim 3, the discrete locks are selected from a group consisting of free forms, finger coiled, three-strand braids, three-strand twist, wool rubbed, and any combination thereof (see Figure 1c; col. 52, lines 1-5). Claim 4, the locks are permanently affixed to the ribbon by crocheted interlocking fibers configured to be tight and solid, the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Claim 9, the dreadlocks are configured for attachment to a human’s head by a group consisting of sewing, braiding and any combination; it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 10, the apparatus is one size that fits all head sizes (see Figure 1C). Claim 11, the apparatus is configured to be attached to a linear head covering clothing (see Figure 1C. Claim 12, wherein the apparatus is configured to be attached to fitted head covering clothing (see Figure 1C).
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curbeon (US 2020/0178629).
Curbeon disclose a dreadlock apparatus comprises at least one track (210), wherein one track comprises at least one longitudinally placed flexible ribbon (paragraph 50), and at least two or more discrete hair locks, wherein the lock is affixed to the ribbon and is perpendicular to the longitudinal ribbon, and wherein the two or more locks are affixed parallel to each other on the ribbon (see Figures 6 and 14). Claim 2, the apparatus is wrappable around a human head or part thereof and wherein the ribbon is continuous (see Figures 6 and 14). Claim 3, the discrete locks are selected from a group consisting of free forms, finger coiled, three-strand braids, three-strand twist, wool rubbed, and any combination thereof (see Figures 6 and 14). Claim 4, the locks are permanently affixed to the ribbon by crocheted interlocking fibers configured to be tight and solid (Figure 14), the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Claim 9, the dreadlocks are configured for attachment to a human’s head by a group consisting of sewing, braiding and any combination; it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Claim 10, the apparatus is one size that fits all head sizes (see Figures 6 and 14). Claim 11, the apparatus is configured to be attached to a linear head covering clothing (Figures 6 and 14. Claim 12, wherein the apparatus is configured to be attached to fitted head covering clothing (see Figure 6 and 14).
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.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayes (US 10,575,576).
Hayes discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the ribbon is 8 cm wide, wherein locks are from 6 to 40 inches long, the locks are from 0.2 to 0.8 mm wide, and one cm of ribbon has 1.47 locks affixed. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the parameters of the ribbon being 8 cm wide, locks being from 6 to 40 inches long, the locks being from 0.2 to 0.8 mm wide, and one cm of ribbon having 1.47 locks affixed to be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. In this instance case, the ribbon and locks would be sized to reasonable resemble a hair extension apparatus.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curbeon (US 2020/0178629).
Curbeon discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the ribbon is 8 cm wide, wherein locks are from 6 to 40 inches long, the locks are from 0.2 to 0.8 mm wide, and one cm of ribbon has 1.47 locks affixed. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the parameters of the ribbon being 8 cm wide, locks being from 6 to 40 inches long, the locks being from 0.2 to 0.8 mm wide, and one cm of ribbon having 1.47 locks affixed to be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. In this instance case, the ribbon and locks would be sized to reasonable resemble a hair extension apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/5/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments traversing the rejection of claims 1-4 and 9-12 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) are not persuasive. Examiner notes that claim terms must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. Under this standard, the limitations emphasized by Applicant are interpreted more broadly than asserted in the response, and the cited reference, Hayes (U.S. Patent No. 10,575,576), discloses each limitation properly.
In response to applicant’s arguments that Hays does not disclose a discrete cylindrical lock, and a three-dimensional volumetric arrangement of locks, the arguments improperly import narrow structural requirements from preferred embodiments into the claims. While the specification may describe particular examples involving crocheting, cylindrical locks, or volumetric arrangements, the claims do not require the degree of specificity argued by Applicant. The Examiner is not persuaded that the claims are limited to rope-like, self-supporting, or rigidly cylindrical structures, absent from the claim language. With respect to the alleged requirement for “discrete hair locks,” Hayes discloses distinct groupings of hair fibers attached to a backing structure. A “lock” encompasses any grouped hair segment intended to function as a unit, and does not require the fibers to be pre-coiled, braided, curled or independently self-supporting; however, Hayes teaches (col.17, lines 35-40 “straight, wavy, relaxed straight, kinky straight, curly, kinky curly etc….col. 52, lines 1-5 “braids, jewelry, hair wraps, dreadlocks, ribbons”. Applicant’s attempt to redefine “lock” as necessarily rope-like or cylindrical is unsupported by the claim language and therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant’s argument that Hayes lacks a “continuous and flexible ribbon” is unpersuasive. Hayes discloses an elongated backing strip that supports multiple hair groupings along its length. The presence of clips or reinforcement elements does not negate flexibility of the backing as a whole, nor does it preclude the structure from being considered continuous under a broad and reasonable interpretation. The claims do not exclude clip-supported or reinforced structures. Furthermore, Hayes col. 15, lines 30-35 state “The material of weft 10 may be flexible to typically enable weft 10 to conform to the users’ head shape”.
In response to applicant further argument that Hayes fails to disclose a “perpendicular” attachment configuration or a “three-dimensional volumetric arrangement.” The claims do not require strict orthogonality or any quantified spatial relationship beyond attachment of hair elements to a support. Hayes discloses hair fibers extending outward from a backing strip, which reasonably satisfies the claimed orientation. Any perceived differences in degree or visual appearance do not amount to structural distinctions sufficient to avoid anticipation.
In response to applicant’s argument of inherency, when grouped hair fibers are attached to a backing and worn on a head, the fibers necessarily project outward and form a three-dimensional hair mass. Applicant’s arguments focus on preferred styling outcomes rather than structural limitations recited in the claims.
In response to applicant’s argument in claims 9-12, the “configured for” limitations do not require that Hayes explicitly disclose crocheting, sewing, or attachment to clothing. Hayes’s backing strip and hair assemblies are capable of being sewn or otherwise affixed to textile substrates, and the claims do not exclude such capability. The presence of clips does not render the structure incapable of textile attachment.
Applicant’s arguments regarding “one size fits all” and attachment to head-covering clothing are similarly unpersuasive. Hayes discloses modular, adaptable hair assemblies that can be positioned as needed on a wearer, which reasonably satisfies the functional scope of the claims under the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In response to applicant’s argument that the Office Action fails to expressly articulate each Graham factor. The Office Action identifies the scope and content of Hayes, the differences between Hayes and the claimed invention (i.e., dimensional parameters), and explains why such differences would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The level of ordinary skill is implicit from the nature of the technology and the prior art applied. No persuasive objective evidence has been shown to outweigh the prima facie case of obviousness.
Applicant’s arguments regarding “design choice” are not persuasive. A claimed difference is properly considered a matter of design choice where the claimed parameter performs the same function as the prior art and the selection of a particular value would have been within the routine skill of the artisan. See MPEP §2144.04(VI). In this instance case, Hayes discloses a backing structure supporting hair fibers for wear on a human head. The claimed ribbon width, lock length, lock thickness, and lock density represent predictable variations in size and arrangement that would have been obvious to optimize appearance, coverage, and styling preferences. Applicant has not demonstrated that the recited numerical values produce a new or unexpected technical function distinct from that of Hayes. While Applicant argues that these dimensions affect volumetric appearance and realism, such aesthetic or stylistic effects are inherent results of scaling and do not rise to the level of patentable distinction.
In response to applicant’s argument that modifying Hayes would change its principle of operation is not persuasive. Hayes’s fundamental operation is the attachment of hair fibers to a backing structure for placement on a wearer’s head. Modifying the dimensions of the backing or fibers does not alter this principle. Increasing ribbon width or fiber length does not render Hayes inoperable; rather, it remains capable of performing its intended function of providing supplemental hair. The Examiner does not propose eliminating clips or concealment features, nor does the rejection require altering Hayes beyond predictable dimensional adjustments. Therefore, the reliance on In re Ratti is misplaced.
In response to applicant argument that no motivation exists to modify Hayes. However, under KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a motivation may be found in common sense and market-driven design incentives. It would have been obvious to modify the dimensions of Hayes’s hair extensions to achieve different aesthetic effects, coverage, or styling preferences, including increased volume or length, as such variations are well within the ordinary skill of artisans in the hair extension field. The proposed modifications are consistent with Hayes’s purpose and do not rely on impermissible hindsight.
In response to applicant’s argument that Hayes teaches-away is not persuasive. Hayes does not criticize, discredit, or discourage larger dimensions, increased volume, or different aesthetic outcomes. The fact that Hayes exemplifies one configuration does not amount to a teaching away from other obvious variations.
Response to Amendment
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 12/5/2025 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 5-8 based upon Hayes as set forth in the last Office action because: It refer(s) only to the system described in the above referenced application and not to the individual claims of the application. Thus, there is no showing that the objective evidence of nonobviousness is commensurate in scope with the claims. See MPEP § 716. The affidavit evidence does not establish a nexus between the alleged copying or unmet need and the specific dimensional limitations recited in claims 5–8. Evidence of experimentation or development time, without more, is insufficient to overcome a prima facie case of obviousness. Additionally, allegations of copying are given little weight absent clear proof that competitors copied the claimed features rather than unclaimed aspects or general concepts disclosed in the application. Furthermore, the affidavit does not demonstrate that the claimed dimensions would have been nonobvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The affidavit reflects subjective beliefs and development history rather than objective technical evidence of unexpected results.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 RACHEL RUNNING STEITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm EST.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
1/26/2026