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 § 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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 recites “configured like a hook or in the nature of a snap fastener” where this language is indefinite. It is unclear what is intended by “like a hook” and “in the nature of a snap fastener”. The meets and bounds of the claim are not clearly defined. The claim requires amending to recite “the closure formations include a hook or a snap fastener”.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scheanblum (US 1357349).
Regarding claim 1, Scheanblum discloses a ponytail holder (Refer to Figures 1-5) which in the closed state has an annular shape and is formed from an outer and an inner holding strip (outer holding strip 1,2,3,8 and inner holding strip 6,7), between which the hair forming the ponytail can be received, wherein the outer holding strip (1,2,3,8) is made to be continuous and is provided with a respective closure formation (2,3,8) at each of its end portions so that the end portions can be fixed to each other in the closed state (Refer to Figures 4 and 5), and wherein the inner holding strip (6,7) is connected to the outer holding strip inwardly of the closure formations, wherein the outer holding strip has a curved shape in the open state of the ponytail holder and the inner holding strip extends in the nature of a secant at least in sections (Refer to Figures 3 and 4, a secant is a line that intersects a curve at a minimum of two distant points, the linear sections of 7 and 6 “extend in the nature of a secant” as each linear section intersects the curve and if extended further, would intersect at another distant point), and wherein the inner holding strip (6,7) and the outer holding strip (1,2,3,8) are formed as one piece.
Regarding claim 4, Scheanblum discloses the two holding strips are connected to each other by a material bridge (4, Refer to Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 6, Scheanblum discloses the closure formed by the closure formations (2,3,8) is configured like a hook (Refer to Figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 7, Scheanblum discloses the closure is formed from the material of the holding strips (Refer to Figures 3-5).
Regarding claim 9, Scheanblum discloses the inner holding strip is provided with an insert (fabric covering 6,7, Refer to page 1 lines 80-81).
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 1, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonstegard et al. (US 20150096586).
Regarding claim 1, Sonstegard et al. disclose a ponytail holder (Refer to Figures 1, 2, 11 and 12) which in the closed state has an annular shape and is formed from an outer and an inner holding strip (12,14), between which the hair forming the ponytail can be received, wherein the outer holding strip (12) is made to be continuous and is provided with a respective closure formation (22,24) at each of its end portions so that the end portions can be fixed to each other in the closed state, and wherein the inner holding strip (14) is connected to the outer holding strip (12) inwardly of the closure formations (22,24) (the inner holding strip is connected at a radially inward location relative to the closure formations, Refer to Figures 1, 2, 11 and 12), wherein the outer holding strip (12) has a curved shape in the open state of the ponytail holder and the inner holding strip (14) extends in the nature of a secant at least in sections (end portions of 14 extend in the nature of a secant, Refer to Figures 1 and 11); however, Sonstegard et al. do not disclose the two holding strips are made in one piece. Sonstegard et al. explain that the holding strips are attached to each other at their ends (Refer to paragraph 0032). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ponytail holder of Sonstegard et al. such that the two holding strips be made in one piece, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 3, Sonstegard et al. disclose the inner holding strip (14) is configured to have a straight middle portion (central/middle portion of 14, Refer to Figures 1 and 11) and two end portions (end portions of 14) that are angled in relation to the middle portion and are connected to the outer holding strip.
Regarding claim 4, Sonstegard et al. disclose the two holding strips are connected to each other by a material bridge (material between/interfacing 14,12 as formed in one piece per claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Sonstegard et al. disclose the closure formed by the closure formations (22,24) is configured like a hook (Refer to Figures 1, 2, 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 8, Sonstegard et al. disclose the holding strips consist of a flexible plastic material (Refer to paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 9, Sonstegard et al. disclose the inner holding strip (14) is provided with an insert (cloth or fabric covering, Refer to paragraph 0032).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonstegard et al. as evidenced by Solomon (US 2805673).
Regarding claim 7, Sonstegard et al. disclose the ponytail holder of claim 1 or 3 above; however, Sonstegard et al. do not provide the closure formed from the material of the holding strips. It is well-known and conventional in the art to provide the closure formed of the same material as the strip forming the ponytail holder as evidenced by Solomon (published in 1957). The ponytail holder of Solomon provides a holding strip with a protruding/male closure element at one end and a corresponding female closure element(s) where the closure and strip are made of the same flexible material (Refer to Figures 1-4). 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 ponytail holder of Sonstegard et al. such that the closure be formed from the material of the holding strips as Solomon demonstrates such a configuration is well-known and conventional in the art; furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claims 9-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonstegard et al. and Sonstegard (US 6401726).
Regarding claims 9-11, Sonstegard et al. the ponytail holder of claim 1 or 3; however, Sonstegard et al. do not disclose the inner holding strip is provide with an insert that is non-detachably connected thereto, where the insert consists of a material having a compressibility that is higher than that of the material of the first and second holding strips. Sonstegard et al. disclose the inner and outer holding strips made of closed cell foam (Refer to paragraph 0033) or “rubber-like material such as a thermoplastic elastomer” (Refer to paragraph 0051). Sonstegard discloses a similar ponytail holder providing holding strips (upper and lower portions of 14) made of flexible material, where a compressible open cell foam insert (38) is adhesively bonded to the holding strips to provide a desired coefficient of friction with respect to the hair (Refer to Abstract). The compressible open cell foam material has a compressibility which is higher than that of the material used to construct the holding strips. 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 ponytail holder of Sonstegard et al. such that the inner holding strip have an insert non-detachably connected thereto (by adhesive bonding), where the material of the insert is more compressible than the material of the strips as taught by Sonstegard in order to provided a desired coefficient of friction so as to ensure appropriate gripping of the hair.
The claimed phrase “by adhesive bonding or owing to its manufacture by means of a two-component injection molding process” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, the insert is non-detachably connected to the inner holding strip via an adhesive bonding process or a two-component injection molding process. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113. It is noted that the combination of Sonstegard et al. and Sonstegard provide the insert adhesively bonded to the strip.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sonstegard et al. and Hurwitz (US 20100277944).
Regarding claim 12, Sonstegard et al. disclose the ponytail holder of claim 9 above; however, Sonstegard et al. are silent regarding the insert being connected to the inner holding strip by means of a releasable fastening formation having projections that are clipped into associated openings. Sonstegard et al. teach the insert is cloth or fabric which may be plain or decorative (Refer to paragraph 0033) but does not specify how the insert is connected (e.g. releasably or permanently). Hurwitz discloses various hair fasteners where a layer (21) is removably coupled to the fasteners, via hook and loop fastening, snap fasteners, buttons or other mechanical devices for fasteners, in order to allow a user to change the look of the design, pattern, material, texture, etc. (Refer to paragraphs 0051 and 0057). Per their construction, snap fasteners provide a male element (projection) that in clipped/snapped into a female element (opening) and hook and loop fasteners similarly provide a projection (hook) that clip/fasten into associated openings (loops and spaces therebetween). 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 ponytail holder of Sonstegard et al. such that the insert be releasably fastened via a snap fastener or hook and loop fastener, which provide projections that clip/fasten into associated openings, as taught by Hurwitz in order to allow the user to customize the holder based on the desired characteristics and/or look they wish to achieve.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Scheanblum does not disclose the inner holding strip extend in the nature of a secant at least in sections. Support 6 protrudes at an angle from the plane of the outer ring 1 and thus does not comprise any sections extending in the manner of a secant.
Response: A secant is a line that intersects a curve at a minimum of two distant points. The linear sections of 7 and 6 “extend in the nature of a secant” as each linear section intersects the curve and if extended further would intersect at another distant point. This configuration is similar to Applicant’s configuration. If Applicant does not wish for such interpretation to be applicable then the claim must be amended to recite specific structures and/or structural arrangements which are not covered by the disclosure of Scheanblum.
Argument: Sonstegard does not provide the inner holding strip connected to the outer holding strip inwardly of the closure formations.
Response: The inner holding strip is connected at a radially inward location relative to the closure formations, Refer to Figures 1, 2, 11 and 12.
Argument: Sonstegard does not disclose the inner and outer holding strips are formed in one piece.
Response: The rejection acknowledges Sonstegard does not disclose the inner and outer holding strips are formed in one piece. However, it is well-known and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that two pieces that are connected to one another can alternatively be formed as one piece. Refer to MPEP 2144.04 B.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights