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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 January 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 3-11, 21, 24-26, 28-30, 32-33, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrne (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0272264 A1) in view of iENVYbyKISS (How to apply iENVY Quattro collection eyelashes, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW-ovlGoCmc, see attached PDF).
PNG
media_image1.png
436
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
427
473
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
488
806
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Byrne discloses an artificial lash extension system (Abstract) comprising:
a plurality of lash extensions (2, 3, 4 in Fig. 1, para. 0060), each comprising:
a plurality of clusters of two or more artificial hairs (clusters in annotated Fig. 1); and a knotless base (base in annotated Fig. 1, para. 0072) from which the plurality of clusters protrude (Fig. 1).
Byrne does not disclose wherein each of the knotless bases of the plurality of lash extensions comprises a surface designed to affix directly to an underside of upper natural eyelashes of an eye using an adhesive previously applied to the underside of the upper natural eyelashes.
iENVYbyKISS teaches a similar apparatus (Figure 1, p. 1 of PDF) comprising a plurality of lash extensions (lash extensions in annotated Fig. 1), each comprising a plurality of clusters of two or more hairs (clusters in annotated Fig. 1), wherein each of the bases (base in annotated Fig. 2) of the plurality of lash extensions comprises a surface (surface in annotated Fig. 2) designed to affix directly to an underside of upper natural eyelashes of an eye (p. 7, apply each pre-cut lash underneath your natural lashes) using an adhesive previously applied to the underside of the upper natural eyelashes (p. 3-8; although method is not exactly the same, the device taught is of a structure that could be used as calimed).
With regard to the statement of intended use and other functional statements (e.g. “previously applied to the underside of the upper natural eyelashes” as in claim 1), they do not impose any structural limitations on the claims distinguishable over the prior art which is capable of being used as claimed if one so desires to do so. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lash extension systems. 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 knotless bases of Byrne by specifying each of the bases of the plurality of lash extensions comprises a surface designed to affix directly to an underside of upper natural eyelashes of an eye using an adhesive previously applied to the underside of the upper natural eyelashes as taught by iENVYbyKISS in order to aid application of the plurality of lash extension to curly eyelashes, make the lashes look more natural, and avoid making the false lashes lift up especially in the inner corner (iENVYbyKISS p. 8-11).
In regard to claim 3, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne further discloses wherein at least some of the artificial hairs in each cluster protrude from the knotless base in different directions (Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 4, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne further discloses wherein at least some of the artificial hairs in each cluster protrude from the knotless base at an angle (Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 5, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne further discloses wherein substantially all of the artificial hairs in each cluster protrude from the knotless base at an angle (Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 6, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne further discloses wherein the plurality of clusters protrude from the knotless base in a pattern along the knotless base (Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 7, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 6. Byrne further discloses wherein the pattern is uniform along the knotless base (Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 8, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne further discloses wherein a length of the knotless base of each of the plurality of lash extensions is in a range between about 4 millimeters and about 8 millimeters (para. 0069, 5-7 mm).
In regard to claim 9, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne further discloses wherein a length of the knotless base of each of the plurality of lash extensions is in a range between about 5 millimeters and about 6 millimeters (204, 203’, 203 in Fig. 20, paras. 0434-0436).
In regard to claim 10, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne further discloses the knotless base, but does not expressly teach its thickness is less than or equal to 0.15mm. However, Applicant discloses that such dimension is critical in so far as it is only possible in knotless systems (para. 0043 of Specification as originally filed). That is, as the prior art demonstrates a knotless base, the dimensions of such base lack criticality. Therefore, 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 base of Byrne in view of Rabe, to be less than or equal to 0.15 mm, as a matter of user preference for providing desired coverage.
In regard to claim 11, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne further discloses the knotless base, but does not expressly teach its thickness is less than 0.3mm. However, Applicant discloses that such dimension is critical in so far as it is only possible in knotless systems (para. 0043 of Specification as originally filed). That is, as the prior art demonstrates a knotless base, the dimensions of such base lack criticality. Therefore, 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 base of Byrne in view of Rabe, to be less than 0.3 mm, as a matter of user preference for providing desired coverage.
In regard to claim 21, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne further discloses wherein the two or more artificial hairs comprise a synthetic material (para. 0073).
In regard to claim 24, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne further discloses wherein one or more of the two or more artificial hairs of a first cluster of the plurality of clusters crisscrosses one or more of the two or more artificial hairs of a second cluster of the plurality of clusters (Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 25, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne further discloses wherein an artificial hair of a first cluster of the plurality of clusters crisscrosses another artificial hair of the first cluster (Fig. 14).
In regard to claim 32, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne further discloses wherein the two or more artificial hairs comprise a natural material (Fig. 0073).
In regard to claim 33, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne further discloses wherein the two or more artificial hairs comprise a natural material other than human hair (para. 0073, feathers).
In regard to claim 26, Byrne discloses an artificial lash extension system (Abstract) comprising:
a plurality of lash extensions (2, 3, 4 in Fig. 1, para. 0060), each comprising:
a plurality of groupings of two or more artificial hairs (clusters in annotated Fig. 1); and a knotless base (base in annotated Fig. 1, para. 0072) from which the plurality of groupings protrude (Fig. 1).
Byrne does not disclose wherein each of the knotless bases of the plurality of lash extensions comprises a surface designed to affix directly to an underside of upper natural eyelashes of an eye using an adhesive previously applied to the underside of the upper natural eyelashes.
iENVYbyKISS teaches a similar apparatus (Figure 1, p. 1 of PDF) comprising a plurality of lash extensions (lash extensions in annotated Fig. 1), each comprising a plurality of groupings of two or more hairs (clusters in annotated Fig. 1), wherein each of the bases (base in annotated Fig. 2) of the plurality of lash extensions comprises a surface (surface in annotated Fig. 2) designed to affix directly to an underside of upper natural eyelashes of an eye (p. 7, apply each pre-cut lash underneath your natural lashes) using an adhesive previously applied to the underside of the upper natural eyelashes (p. 3-8).
With regard to the statement of intended use and other functional statements (e.g. “previously applied to the underside of the upper natural eyelashes” as in claim 26, they do not impose any structural limitations on the claims distinguishable over the prior art which is capable of being used as claimed if one so desires to do so. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of lash extension systems. 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 knotless bases of Byrne by specifying each of the bases of the plurality of lash extensions comprises a surface designed to affix directly to an underside of upper natural eyelashes of an eye using an adhesive previously applied to the underside of the upper natural eyelashes as taught by iENVYbyKISS in order to aid application of the plurality of lash extension to curly eyelashes, make the lashes look more natural, and avoid making the false lashes lift up especially in the inner corner (iENVYbyKISS p. 8-11).
In regard to claim 28, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 26. Byrne further discloses wherein at least some of the artificial hairs in each grouping protrude from the knotless base in different directions (Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 29, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 26. Byrne further discloses wherein at least some of the artificial hairs in each grouping protrude from the knotless base at an angle (Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 30, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 26. Byrne further discloses wherein the plurality of groupings protrude from the knotless base in a pattern along the knotless base (Fig. 6).
In regard to claim 36, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 26. Byrne further discloses wherein the two or more artificial hairs comprise a natural material (para. 0073).
In regard to claim 37, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 26. Byrne further discloses wherein the two or more artificial hairs comprise a natural material other than human hair (para. 0073, feathers).
Claims 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS in view of Osher (U.S. Patent No. 3,447,540 A).
In regard to claim 13, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne does not disclose wherein at least some of the artificial hairs are connected to the knotless base by heating.
Osher teaches artificial lashes comprising a plurality of artificial lash hairs (52 in Fig. 11) wherein at least some of the artificial hairs are connected to the knotless base (53 in Fig. 11) by heating (col. 2 line 54-col. 3 line 20).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial lashes. 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 knotless bases of Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS by specifying at least some of the artificial hairs are connected to the knotless base by heating as taught by Osher in order to allow for manufacturing of the eyelashes in a precise, rapid, and inexpensive manner (Osher col. 1 lines 38-41).
In regard to claim 14, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne does not disclose wherein the knotless base of each of the plurality of lash extensions is formed by at least an application of heat.
Osher teaches artificial lashes comprising a plurality of artificial lash hairs (52 in Fig. 11) wherein a knotless base (53 in Fig. 11) of each of the plurality of lash extensions is formed by at least an application of heat (col. 2 line 54-col. 3 line 20).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial lashes. 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 knotless bases of Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS by specifying the knotless base of each of the plurality of lash extensions is formed by at least an application of heat as taught by Osher in order to allow for manufacturing of the eyelashes in a precise, rapid, and inexpensive manner (Osher col. 1 lines 38-41).
In regard to claim 15, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 1. Byrne does not disclose wherein the plurality of clusters are connected to the knotless base by at least an application of heat.
Osher teaches artificial lashes wherein a plurality of clusters (Fig. 11) are connected to a knotless base (53 in Fig. 11) by at least an application of heat (col. 2 line 54-col. 3 line 20).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial lashes. 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 knotless bases of Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS by specifying the plurality of clusters are connected to the knotless base by at least an application of heat as taught by Osher in order to allow for manufacturing of the eyelashes in a precise, rapid, and inexpensive manner (Osher col. 1 lines 38-41).
In regard to claim 16, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS in view of Osher discloses the invention of claim 15. Byrne does not disclose wherein the heating facilitates at least a partial melting of the at least some of the artificial hairs that are connected at a respective part of the knotless base.
Osher teaches artificial lashes comprising a plurality of artificial lash hairs (52 in Fig. 11) wherein the heating facilitates at least a partial melting of the at least some of the artificial hairs that are connected at a respective part of the knotless base (53 in Fig. 11, col. 2 line 54-col. 3 line 20),
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial lashes. 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 knotless bases of Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS in view of Osher by specifying the heating facilitates at least a partial melting of the at least some of the artificial hairs that are connected at a respective part of the knotless base as taught by Osher in order to allow for manufacturing of the eyelashes in a precise, rapid, and inexpensive manner (Osher col. 1 lines 38-41).
In regard to claim 17, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS in view of Osher discloses the invention of claim 15. Byrne does not disclose wherein the heating comprises heat sealing.
Osher teaches wherein the heating comprises heat sealing (col. 2 line 54-col. 3 line 20).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial lashes. 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 system of Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS in view of Osher by specifying the heating comprises heat sealing as taught by Osher in order to allow for manufacturing of the eyelashes in a precise, rapid, and inexpensive manner (Osher col. 1 lines 38-41).
In regard to claim 18, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS in view of Osher discloses the invention of claim 15. Byrne does not disclose wherein the heating comprises heat fusing.
Osher teaches wherein the heating comprises heat fusing (col. 2 line 54-col. 3 line 20).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial lashes. 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 system of Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS in view of Osher by specifying the heating comprises heat fusing as taught by Osher in order to allow for manufacturing of the eyelashes in a precise, rapid, and inexpensive manner (Osher col. 1 lines 38-41).
In regard to claim 19, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS in view of Osher discloses the invention of claim 15. Byrne does not disclose wherein each of the plurality of lash extensions is further formed with another adhesive.
Osher teaches wherein each of the plurality of lash extensions is further formed with another adhesive (col. 2 line 54-col. 3 line 20, tape).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial lashes. 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 plurality of lash extensions of Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS in view of Osher by specifying each of the plurality of lash extensions is further formed with another adhesive as taught by Osher in order to allow for manufacturing of the eyelashes in a precise, rapid, and inexpensive manner and possess increased wearability (Osher col. 1 lines 30-41).
In regard to claim 20, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS in view of Osher discloses the invention of claim 18. Byrne does not disclose wherein the plurality of clusters are connected by at least another adhesive.
Osher teaches artificial lashes comprising a plurality of clusters (Fig. 11) wherein the plurality of clusters are connected by at least another adhesive (col. 2 line 54-col. 3 line 20, strip of adhesive material).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial lashes. 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 plurality of clusters of Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS in view of Osher by specifying the plurality of clusters are connected by at least another adhesive as taught by Osher in order to allow for manufacturing of the eyelashes in a precise, rapid, and inexpensive manner and possess increased wearability (Osher col. 1 lines 30-41).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS in view of Sanbonmatsu (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0055499 A1).
In regard to claim 22, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 21. Byrne does not disclose wherein the two or more artificial hairs comprise polybutylene terephthalate (PBT).
Sanbonmatsu teaches that artificial lashes can be made of PBT (para. 0089).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial lashes. 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 artificial hairs of Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS by specifying they comprise PBT as taught by Sanbonmatsu as a matter of non-critical design choice for providing a specific synthetic material.
In regard to claim 23, Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS discloses the invention of claim 21. Byrne does not disclose wherein the two or more artificial hairs comprise polyester.
Sanbonmatsu teaches that artificial lashes can be made of polyester (para. 0089).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of artificial lashes. 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 artificial hairs of Byrne in view of iENVYbyKISS by specifying they comprise polyester as taught by Sanbonmatsu as a matter of non-critical design choice for providing a specific synthetic material.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 27 January 2026 with respect to the rejections of the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
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