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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9, “multi-stage” should be amended as “multistage”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10, “multi-stage” should be amended as “multistage”.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
It’s noted that the MPEP states that claim numbering needs to preserved throughout prosecution but the originally filed claim set skips number 11 and in this instance, applicant should renumber claim 12 as 11 and so on, including fixing dependencies.
Applicant is advised that:
Should claim 6 be found allowable, claims 7 and 15-16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
Should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof.
When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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, and 12-17 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, lines 8-9 recite “following a multi-stage braiding with a multi-stage twisting, and following a multi-stage twisting with a multi-stage braiding”. It is unclear if “a multi-stage braiding” in line 8 is the same or different from “the multi-stage braiding” previously recited in line 5. It is further unclear if “a multi-stage twisting” recited in lines 8-9 is the same or different from “the…multi-stage twisting” recited previously in lines 5-6. For purposes of substantive examination, “a multi-stage braiding” recited in line 8 is interpreted as being the same as the multi-stage braiding previously recited and “a multi-stage twisting” recited in lines 8-9 is interpreted as being the same as the multi-stage twisting previously recited. Therefore, it is suggested to amend the aforementioned portion of lines 8-9 as follows: “following [[a]] the multistage braiding with a multistage twisting, and following [[a]] the multistage twisting with a multistage braiding”.
Claims 2-8 and 14-16 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, lines 9-10 recite “following a multi-stage braiding with a multi-stage twisting, and following a multi-stage twisting with a multi-stage braiding”. It is unclear if “a multi-stage braiding” of line 9 is the same or different from “the multi-stage braiding” previously recited in line 6. It is further unclear if “a multi-stage twisting” recited in lines 9-10 is the same or different from “the…multi-stage twisting” recited previously in lines 6-7. For purposes of substantive examination, “a multi-stage braiding” recited in line 9 is interpreted as being the same as the multi-stage braiding previously recited and “a multi-stage twisting” is interpreted as being the same as the previously recited multi-stage twisting. Therefore, it is suggested to amend the aforementioned portion of lines 9-10 as follows: “following [[a]] the multistage braiding with a multi-stage twisting, and following [[a]] the multistage twisting with a multi-stage braiding”.
Claims 10, 12, 13, and 17 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 9.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ley (https://youtu.be/1owmPLUKqz8?si=y5VT0wGksu7yOk9w).
Regarding claim 1, Ley discloses a method for creating a hair lock (“Non Slip Micro Twist Loc Extensions Method”, see YouTube video title), the method comprising:
providing a hair group (refer to YouTube video @3:30, wherein the user is creating a plurality of small hair groups);
dividing the hair group into more than one and no more than three subgroups (refer to YouTube video @3:49 wherein the user is shown to have separated the hair group into three subgroups and begins braiding the hair using said three subgroups);
processing the multiple subgroups via multistage braiding (Merriam-Webster defines multistage as “having successive operating stages”, and defines successive as “following each other without interruption” and defines stage as “a period or step in a process”; thus, multistage braiding is interpreted as performing repetitive, successive passes of the three segments of hair, one after another without a break, in order to form a single length of braided hair; refer to the YouTube video @3:49 where the user is shown to be performing a plurality of passes of the three subgroups of hair in order to form a length of braided hair, thereby performing a multistage braiding), if there are three subgroups (there are three subgroups as best shown in the YouTube video @3:49; alternatively, refer to the YouTube video @6:48 wherein the user has three sections of hair formed of the user’s natural hair and extension hair), or multistage twisting, if there are two subgroups (it is noted that the limitation “or multistage twisting, if there are two subgroups” is interpreted as an alternative to the multistage braiding of the three groups; as this limitation is optional, Ley is not being relied upon for this teaching), with the multistage braiding or multistage twisting being interrupted by a regrouping of the existing subgroups into an equivalent number of different subgroups (refer to the YouTube video @11:00, wherein the user is shown to be performing a multistage braiding process comprising three subgroups, but as one of the subgroups becomes thicker than the remaining two subgroups, the user interrupts the braiding in order to regroup the three subgroups into a different three subgroups in order to provide the subgroups with a more uniform thickness, then continues braiding); and
following the multistage braiding with a multistage twisting (refer to the YouTube video @6:47 wherein the user says “braid down about an inch and then twist” and @6:56, the twisting method is shown), and following the multistage twisting with a multistage braiding (the limitation “and following the multistage twisting with a multistage braiding” is interpreted as referring to the previously recited multistage twisting, where the previously recited multistage twisting is cited as an alternative to the multistage braiding, since it uses the term “or”; therefore the limitation “following the multistage twisting with a multistage braiding” is also interpreted as an optional step and Ley is not being relied upon for this teaching), until a desired lock length is attained (refer to YouTube video beginning @7:23 wherein the user states that they are going to “take another small piece of hair and I’m going to braid it into the twist…braid it down about an inch” and beginning @8:00 the user continues to twist a section after the braiding in order to achieve a desired length as the method includes incorporating extension hairs thereto to create said desired length).
Regarding claim 2, Ley discloses the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the number of braids (the limitation “number of braids” is unconventional but is interpreted as meaning a number of passes of hair that form the braided hair) in at least one stage of the multistage braiding varies from the number of braids in at least one other stage of the multistage braiding (it is noted that claim 1 does not positively recite a second stage/section of multistage braiding; rather claim 1 only requires as one option, a first multistage braided section that is followed by a multistage twisted section, and the additional braided and twisted sections are added only as desired to reach a desired length; thus, Ley is not being relied upon for the teaching of an additional multistage braided section).
Regarding claim 3, Ley discloses the method in accordance with claim 1, wherein the number of twists in at least one stage of the multistage twisting varies from the number of twists in at least one other stage of the multistage twisting (claim 1 does not positively recite a second stage/section of multistage twisting; rather claim 1 only requires as one option, a first multistage twisting section that is followed by a multistage braided section. Additional twisted and braided sections are added only as desired to reach a desired length; thus, Ley is not being relied upon for the teaching of an additional multistage twisted section since it is not positively recited).
Regarding claim 4, Ley discloses the method in accordance with claim 1, further comprising adding additional hair to the hair lock during creation of the hair lock (refer to the YouTube video @6:40, wherein the user is crocheting a length of extension hairs at a root of the user’s hair, prior to beginning the multistage braiding of the user’s natural hair along with the extension hairs).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Ley discloses the method in accordance with claim 4, wherein adding additional hair to the hair lock during creation of the hair lock further comprises inserting the additional hair through the lock at some point prior to completion of the lock (refer to the YouTube video @6:40, wherein the user is crocheting a length of extension hairs at a root of the user’s hair, prior to beginning the multistage braiding of the user’s natural hair along with the extension hairs, which is prior to finishing the lock).
Regarding claims 6, 7, 15, and 16, Ley discloses the method in accordance with claims 5 and 14, wherein inserting the additional hair through the lock at some point prior to completion of the lock further comprises inserting the additional hair prior to a stage of the multistage braiding (refer to the YouTube video @6:40, wherein the user is crocheting a length of extension hairs at a root of the user’s hair, prior to beginning the multistage braiding of the user’s natural hair along with the extension hairs).
Regarding claim 8, Ley discloses the method in accordance with claim 1, further comprising completing the hair lock via at least one braid and at least one two-strand twist (refer to the YouTube video @8:29, wherein the hair lock has been finished and it comprises at least one braid and at least one two-strand twist since the finished lock comprises one braided section followed by one twisted section, then another braided section and another twisted section).
Regarding claim 9, Ley discloses affixing multiple locks to a person's head (refer to YouTube video @3:31 wherein a plurality of locks are shown to be affixed to the user’s head; additionally refer to @6:39 wherein extension hairs are being affixing to the user’s hair to form the multiple locks thereon), each hair lock having been made by a process comprising:
providing a hair group (refer to YouTube video @3:30, wherein the user is creating a plurality of hair groups);
dividing the hair group into more than one and no more than three subgroups (refer to the YouTube video beginning @6:47 which involves separating the hair group which is formed of the user’s natural hair and a length of extension hairs, into three subgroups in order to braid down the lock);
processing the multiple subgroups via multistage braiding (Merriam-Webster defines multistage as “having successive operating stages”, and defines successive as “following each other without interruption” and defines stage as “a period or step in a process”; thus, multistage braiding is interpreted as performing repetitive, successive passes of the three segments of hair, one after another without a break, in order to form a length of braided hair; refer to the YouTube video beginning @6:49 where the user is shown to be performing a plurality of passes of the three subgroups of hair in order to form a length of braided hair, thereby performing a multistage braiding), if there are three subgroups, or multi-stage twisting, if there are two subgroups (it is noted that the limitation “or multistage twisting, if there are two subgroups” is interpreted as an alternative to the multistage braiding of the three groups), with the multistage braiding or multistage twisting being interrupted by a regrouping of the existing subgroups into an equivalent number of different subgroups (refer to the YouTube video @11:00, wherein the user is shown to be performing a multistage braiding process comprising three subgroups; as one of the subgroups becomes thicker than the remaining two subgroups, the user interrupts the braiding in order to regroup the three subgroups into a different three subgroups in order to provide each of the three subgroups with a more uniform thickness, then continues braiding); and
following the multistage braiding with a multistage twisting (refer to the YouTube video @6:47 wherein the user says “braid down about an inch and then twist” and @6:56, the twisting method is shown), and following the multistage twisting with a multistage braiding (the limitation “and following the multistage twisting with a multistage braiding” is interpreted as referring to the previously recited multistage twisting, where the previously recited multistage twisting is cited as an alternative to the multistage braiding; therefore the limitation “following the multistage twisting with a multistage braiding” is also interpreted as an optional/alternative step), until a desired lock length is attained (refer to YouTube video beginning @7:23 wherein the user states that they are going to “take another small piece of hair and I’m going to braid it into the twist…braid it down about an inch” and beginning @8:00 the user continues to twist a section after the braiding in order to achieve a desired length as the method includes incorporating extension hairs thereto to create said desired length).
Regarding claim 10, Ley discloses the method in accordance with claim 9, wherein the number of braids (the limitation “number of braids” is unconventional but is interpreted as meaning a number of passes of hair that formed a braided section of hair) in at least one stage of the multistage braiding varies from the number of braids in at least one other stage of the multistage braiding (it is noted that claim 9 does not positively recite a second stage/section of multistage braiding; rather claim 9 only requires as one option, a first multistage braided section that is followed by a multistage twisted section, and additional braided and twisted sections may be added only as desired to reach a desired length; thus, Ley is not being relied upon for the teaching of an additional multistage braided section).
Regarding claim 12, Ley discloses the method in accordance with claim 9, wherein the number of twists in at least one stage of the multistage twisting varies from the number of twists in at least one other stage of the multistage twisting (claim 9 does not positively recite a second stage/section of multistage twisting).
Regarding claim 13, Ley discloses the method in accordance with claim 9, further comprising adding additional hair to the hair lock during creation of the hair lock (refer to the YouTube video @6:40, wherein the user is crocheting a length of extension hairs at a root of the user’s hair, prior to beginning the multistage braiding of the user’s natural hair along with the extension hairs).
Regarding claim 17, Ley discloses the method in accordance with claim 9, further comprising completing the hair lock via at least one braid and at least one two-strand twist (refer to the YouTube video @8:29, wherein the hair lock has been completed since the lock has reached a desired length, and it comprises at least one braid and at least one two-strand twist since the finished lock comprises one braided section followed by one twisted section, then another braided section and another twisted section).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ley (https://youtu.be/1owmPLUKqz8?si=y5VT0wGksu7yOk9w) in view of Tanish (https://youtu.be/61355HrbAvk?si=HXG2KwBwppQiuM1z).
Regarding claim 18, Ley discloses a method for creating a hair lock (“New Non Slip Micro Twist Loc Extensions Method”, refer to video title), the method comprising:
A) providing a hair group (refer to YouTube video @3:30, wherein the entirety of the hairs extending from the user’s scalp define a hair group);
B) dividing the hair group into two subgroups (refer to YouTube video @6:53, wherein the user’s hair is divided into two subgroups, a left and right group of hair);
C) two-strand twisting the two subgroups for a plurality of twists (refer to YouTube video @6:53, wherein the user’s hair is divided into two subgroups, a left and right clump of hair, that are subsequently twisted together), with the two subgroups being regrouped into two alternative subgroups (refer to the YouTube video beginning @9:15 wherein the user regroups the two subgroups in the middle of a twisting operation since one of the subgroups is getting thinner than the other; regrouping provides the two subgroups to be substantially equally sized) sometime prior to a last of the plurality of twists (refer to the YouTube video @9:17 where the user continues twisting after the regrouping);
D) regrouping the two alternative subgroups into three subgroups (refer to the YouTube video beginning @7:41 wherein the user incorporates extension hairs into the twist and then separates the user’s hair and the extension hair into three subgroups to beginning a braided section);
E) three-strand braiding the three subgroups for a plurality of braids (refer to the YouTube video beginning @7:41 wherein the user incorporates extension hairs into the twist and then separates the user’s hair and the extension hair into three subgroups to beginning a braided section, this braided section comprising a plurality of passes of the sections of hair, thereby providing a plurality of braids), with the three subgroups being regrouped into three alternative subgroups sometime prior to a last of the plurality of braids (refer to the YouTube video @11:00, wherein the user is shown to be performing a multistage braiding process comprising three subgroups, but as one of the subgroups becomes thicker than the remaining two subgroups, the user interrupts the braiding in order to regroup the subgroup into a different three subgroups in order to provide the subgroups with a more uniform thickness); and
F) repeating steps (B) through (C) (refer to the YouTube video beginning @10:21, wherein Ley continues to process of steps (B) dividing the hair group into two subgroups and (C) two-strand twisting the two subgroups for a plurality of twists such that the lock comprises a twist/braid/twist configuration; additionally, Ley discloses that locks can be formed by mixing the braiding and the twisting sections of the lock, i.e. if a lock was first twisted, additional extension hairs can be added via braiding in and if a lock was first braided, then additional extension hairs can be twisted in).
Ley does not explicitly disclose that the repeated step (C) includes the two subgroups being regrouped into two alternative subgroups; however, Ley does disclose regrouping a previous twisting section into two alternative subgroups (refer to the YouTube video beginning @9:15 wherein the user regroups the two subgroups in the middle of a twisting operation since one of the subgroups is getting thinner than the other; regrouping provides the two subgroups to be substantially equally sized) as a means for ensuring equal sections of hair being twisted. 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 Ley’s method such that the repeated twisted section/step (C) includes the two subgroups being regrouped into two alternative subgroups, as taught by Ley, in order to ensure each of the size of the two alternative subgroups are substantially equally sized throughout the twisting operation.
While Ley discloses repeating steps (B) and (C), Ley does not disclose repeating steps (D) regrouping the two alternative subgroups into three subgroups; and (E) three-strand braiding the three subgroups for a plurality of braids, with the three subgroups being regrouped into three alternative subgroups sometime prior to a last of the plurality of braids; rather, Ley continues a two-strand twist toward an end of the hair group and the lock ends with a twisted section.
Tanish discloses a similar method of creating a hair lock (“Starter Microlocs”, refer to video title), comprising providing a hair group (refer to YouTube video @5:19, wherein the user is shown grasping a group of hair), dividing the hair into two subgroups (best shown in the YouTube video @5:28 where the user is shown holding two subgroups), continuing a two-strand twist (best shown in YouTube video @5:45), then when there is “about two to three inches of hair left” (refer to the YouTube video beginning @4:07), regrouping the two subgroups into three subgroups and three-strand braiding the subgroups for a plurality of braids to the end (refer to the YouTube video @5:51 where the user discusses separating the end of the two-strand twist into three subgroups in order to braid the remaining length) as a means for preventing unravelling of the two-strand twisted portion (refer to the YouTube video @6:22 which discusses adding the braid to the end of the lock to prevent unravelling of the twist). 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 Ley’s to include an additional braided section, after the twisted section, thereby repeating steps (D) and (E), as taught by Tanish, since such a modification provides the advantage of preventing an unravelling of the two-strand twist.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ley and Tanish discloses the method in accordance with claim 18, as applied above. Ley further discloses wherein the plurality of twists in at least one instance of Step (C) varies from the plurality of twists in at least one other instance of Step (C) (referring to Ley’s YouTube video, a first twisted section begins at the user’s natural hair, then as the process continues, additional extension hairs are added in order to increase the length of the lock; since the user’s natural hair is shorter than an entire length of the lock (refer to Ley’s YouTube video @5:49 wherein the user is stretching the natural hair and the natural hair extends approximately four finger widths long; comparing this to the finished lock in Ley’s YouTube video @10:24, the finished locks are depicted as being longer than the user’s natural hair), such that the first twisted portion comprises a mix of the user’s natural hair and extension hair, whereas a terminal portion of the second twisted portion comprises primarily extension hairs. Thus, the plurality of twists of the second twisted portion/one other instance of Step (C) varies from the plurality of twists in the first twisted portion in its composition since the type of hair used to form the two twisted portions are different).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ley and Tanish discloses the method in accordance with claim 18, as applied above. Ley does not disclose wherein the plurality of braids in at least one instance of Step (E) varies from the plurality of braids in at least one other instance of Step (E).
However, Ley teaches one instance of step (E) wherein the braided section is about one inch long (refer to Ley’s YouTube video @7:26).
Tanish discloses the length of the braided section is about two to three inches (refer to Tanish’s YouTube video @4:10), this braid being at the end of the lock after the two-strand twist and having the length of about two to three inches to ensure there is enough hair left at the end of the lock to perform the braid and to serve as a fixing means for the twisted portion, thereby preventing unravelling of the twisted portion. 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 method of the combination of Ley and Tanish such that the last braided section is greater in length than another braided section, since Tanish discloses that a final braided section having a length of about two to three inches is suitable for ensuring there is enough hair left at the end of the lock.
Providing the final braided section of the hair to be two to three inches long while the previous braided section is about one inch provides the plurality of braids in at least one instance of Step (E) to vary from the plurality of braids in at least one other instance of Step (E), since the braids have different lengths, they are varied from one another.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nashae (https://youtu.be/T5avqlqvbak?si=CuJ3Ntvyqv2nHMuJ) teaches a method for creating a hair lock. Nashae’s method includes braiding then twisting and includes the use of adding extension hairs added (this one talks about the braiding portion having “6 or 7 times” braids; see @5:20): at the end, this one also talks about regrouping hairs in order to get the groups to have equal lengths of hair so that the twist can go the full length.
Refer additionally to the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH WOODHOUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-5635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm.
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, EDELMIRA BOSQUES can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/SARAH WOODHOUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772