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 § 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) 1-3 and 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palitti (US 2,663,302) in view of Lessard (US 2017/0042268).
Palitti discloses a device for receiving at least one strand of hair or other keratinous fibers, having at least one strand-receiving surface configured to enable the formation of, from at least one strand of hair or other keratinous fibers, at least two undulations having winding axes that are not collinear with one another and/or of different diameters, the device (2) in the form of an elongate bag (Fig. 1) with a closed proximal end (5) (col. 2, lines 10 “need not be open but may be closed”) and a distal end having an opening (4) constructed and arranged to allow the distal end to be folded back over the remainder of the device (Figs. 3-5); the device further comprises an elongate member (3) provided withing a slide (col. 2, lines 1-5 “secured to band 3 by any suitable means such as stitching or by a hem.”) located at or adjacent to the opening (Fig. 3) of the distal end, the elongate member (3) including a strap (7) at each end thereof extending from withing the slide (see Figures 1-5), the two straps being constructed and arranged to be selectively pullable to selectively constrict the opening of the distal end and permit engagement of the distal end with a relatively proximal portion of the device (see Figures 3-5) (col. 2, lines 40-50). Palitti teaches the device made from a flexible material and any suitable flexible material such as “thin rubber, paper, or cloth fabric” (col. 2, lines 10-15), however, Palittti does not disclose the flexible material is made from at least 60% hemp (claim 1) or at least 90% hemp (claim 2); completely made of hemp (claim 15), more at least 95% hemp (claim 16), and even 100% hemp (claim 17). Lessard shows that hemp is an equivalent material known in the art by teaching a hair wrap device made from a flexible material that includes microfiber fabric, terrycloth, cotton, hemp (paragraph 70). Therefore, because these two flexible materials were art-recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute the cloth fabric of Pallitti for hemp. Regarding the percentages of hemp, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date to have the device be from at least 60% hemp to entirely 100% hemp, since determining where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges the optimum combination of percentages lies is prima facie obvious it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routing experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 3, Palitti further discloses the elongate bag (2) defines a stirp with has a length greater than its greatest width and a thickness smaller than the width (see Figures 1-6).
Regarding claim 14, Palitti discloses the claimed invention as rejected above in claim 1, the limitation “tubular slide” is taught by the hem of Palitti (col. 2, line 5).
Regarding claim 18, Palitti discloses the composition of the device along its entire length is uniform (see Figure 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10, 12, 13, 19, and 20 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/17/2026 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.
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 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, 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.
/RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
3/23/2026