DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/11/25 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 12/11/25 was/were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) has/have been considered by the examiner.
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 2/23/26 was lined through because it is a duplicate of the IDS submitted on 12/11/25.
Specification
The replacement paragraphs [0017-0021] of the specification filed on 12/11/25 are improper because the substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
The amendments filed 12/11/25 is/are objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because still retains the new matter introduced into the disclosure in the amendment filed 5/7/24. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
In [0021] submitted on 12/11/25, applicant attempts to describe the hair opening/gap as “circular” in Figure 3B; however, this directly contradicts the originally filed disclosure. The original specification states that “Figure 3B is a perspective view…of…the claw clip shown in Figure 3A” [0008] and the gap of Figure 3A is not circular. The changes are improper for being improperly presented as no marked up copy is provided as required, and are also improper for again attempting to introduce new matter into the disclosure.
Furthermore, the proposed changes submitted on 12/11/25 create new issues at least because applicant is still attempting to add new reference character “225” and names this feature both a “midportion” and “inner edges” which creates new issues and is improper as only one term should be used consistently throughout the disclosure to refer to a single feature. The new paragraphs also state that the “inner edges may be any arbitrary shape”, but no inner edges are discussed in the original disclosure, so this is new matter, especially the “any arbitrary shape” language. Applicant appears to assert that Figure 2 provides drawing support for this language, but “any arbitrary shape” is not illustrated in Figure 2, so there is not support for this language.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
It appears applicant forgot to number claim 12, as another claim is presented between claims 11 and 13 without a number. This claim has been numbered “claim 12”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 10, 12-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 19: each of these claims was amended to require “said inner edge formed at the intersection of said handle and said teeth”; however, there is no illustrated or disclosed “intersection” between the handle and the teeth of the clip. There is no drawing support for this language either because the handle and teeth of the clip are not illustrated to “intersect” at any point on the hairclip. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 10: this claim was also amended to require “in the close position the arrays of teeth of the two clip members interwoven…and in said closed position said clip members spaced apart”; however, in the closed position the clip members are not spaced apart, they are closed together to hold the hair. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 24: the new language in this claim requiring “said inner edges of said clip members are spaced apart between said two pivoting joints less than said handles are spaced apart at any point between said two pivoting joints”; however, there is no support in the figures or original disclosure for this language. Rather, it appears that handles are explicitly illustrated and disclosed as being disposed this same distance because the handles are part of these inner edges. This is a new matter rejection.
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(s) 23-24 is/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.
Claims 23-24: each of these claims recites “further comprising”, but then each claim does not recite any additional structure making the claim language confusing. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “wherein”. Clarification or correction is requested.
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 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.
Claim(s) 10, 12-14, 16-24, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shyu (US D473015).
Claim 10: Shyu discloses a hair clip (see Fig 1) comprising: two clip members, each having a handle (see annotations), an array of teeth, and an inner edge formed at an intersection of the handle and sides of the clip members carrying the teeth (see annotations). Two pivot joints are directly connected to each of the two clip members (see annotations); each of the two pivot joints includes a pivot axis, the pivot axes of the two pivot joints are axially aligned (see annotations) and spaced apart (see annotations). The two pivot joints are disposed between the inner edges of the two clip members (see annotations). The two pivot joints each includes a resilient torsion coil spring component (see Fig 1). The handle of each of the two clip members extends from the inner edge of the clip member between the two pivot joints and the arrays of teeth of each of the clip members extends parallel to the pivot axis (see annotations). The handle inner edge and array of teeth of each clip member is integrally formed (see Figs 1-7). Each array of teeth has opposite end portions and a midportion between the opposite end portions (see Figs 1-7) with the two pivot joints disposed closer to the end portions than the midportion (see Fig 1). The inner edges of the two clip members and the two pivot joints collectively a hair receiving gap (see annotations) that is circular in shape (see annotations). The resilient components are not disposed in the hair receiving gap (see Fig 1). The two clip members are pivotable between an open position where the arrays of teeth are spaced apart and a closed position where the arrays of teeth are interwoven (see Fig 1) by manipulating the handles because that is how these squeeze clips are known to work. In the closed position, when holding hair, the clip members are spaced apart by the amount of hair held therebetween.
PNG
media_image1.png
596
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 12-13: the resilient coil torsion springs urge the two clip members toward the closed position (see Fig 1).
Claim 14: the two pivot joints are each connected to the handle of each of the two clip members (see annotations).
Claim 16: the two pivot joints and the inner edges bound the hair receiving gap(s) (see annotations).
Claims 17-18: the two pivot joints include a first pair of inwardly extending arms attached to one of the two clip members and a second pair of inwardly extending arms attached to the other of the two clip members with each arm having an aperture that receives a pivot pin (see Figs 1-7 & annotations) for forming the pivot axis (see annotations).
Claim 19: Shyu discloses a hair clip (see Fig 1) comprising: two clip members each having a handle and an inner edge (see annotations), the clip members spaced apart; two pivot joints, each pivot joint connected to each of the two clip members and the two pivot joints are axially spaced apart (see annotations). The two pivot joints have a first pair of inwardly extending arms attached to one of the two clip members (see annotations) that fit with a second pair of inwardly extending arms attached to the other of the two clip members (see annotations). Each arm of the first and second pairs of arms has an aperture that receives a pivot pin (see Fig 1 & annotations) for interconnecting the two clip members and forming a common pivot axis about which the clip members rotate into the open position (see annotations). The two clip members each carry an array of teeth with the array extending parallel to the common pivot axis (see annotations). The arrays of teeth have end portions and a midportion between the end portions with the two pivot joints being disposed closer to the end portions than to the midportion. A pair of springs are attached to the two pivot pins and urge the two clip members into a closed position (see annotations). The inner edge of each of the two clip members is disposed between the handle and the array of teeth of the respective clip member (see annotations). The handle of each of the two clip members extends from the inner edge between the two pivot joints, the clip members and the two pivot joints bound a circular hair receiving gap. In the closed position (see Figs 1-7) the arrays of teeth are interwoven and in the open position the teeth are spaced apart because that is how these clips work. The inner edge is formed at an intersection of the handle and the side of the clip member carrying the array of teeth. In the closed position, when holding hair, the clip members are spaced apart by the amount of hair held therebetween.
Claim 20: the inner edges of the two clip members extend between the pivot joints and the inner edges and the pivot joints bound the hair receiving gap (see annotations).
Claim 21: the pivoting joints are disposed adjacent to each one of the opposite ends of the arrays of teeth (see annotations).
Claim 22: each inner edge forms a middle section between the two pivot joints and each handle is integrally connected to and extends from the middle section (see annotations).
Claim 23: the middle section, handle, and array of teeth of each clip member is formed “contiguously” or in one piece between the two pivot joints (see Figs 1-7).
Claim 24: the inner edges of the clip members carry the handles and are spaced apart between the two pivot joints less than the handles are spaced apart because the handles extend outward from this gap/space (see Figs 1-7).
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 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.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shyu (US D473015).
Claim 15: Shyu discloses the clip members having opposite clip ends and the inner edges extending continuously between the clip ends at a non-uniform clip member separation distance to form the circular shaped hair receiving gap. Shyu discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the hair receiving gap being rectangular, which would result in the clip member separation distance being uniform. However, since it has been held by the courts that a change in shape or configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous shapes that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well shaped as disclosed by Shyu. The office also notes that applicant’s own specification indicates the shape of the opening is not critical to the invention and can be “any arbitrary shape” see [0018-0021] lending further support to the shape being an obvious matter of design choice.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/3/26 have been considered, but the arguments regarding the prior art rejections as applied to the claims are moot because they are all drawn to the new claim limitations presented, which have been addressed above with modified grounds of rejection.
Applicant argues the objection to the specification and there appears to be a misunderstanding. The new specification language was not objected to for the term “inner edges” it was objected to because of trying to recite that these edges can have “any arbitrary shape” because that is not support by the disclosure. The gap being any arbitrary shape may find support; however, the edges having any shape does not and this is the reason for the new matter rejection of this language.
Applicant argues that Shyu fails to teach the inner edges being at an intersection of the teeth; however, as discussed above, this has no support in applicant’s disclosure (see annotations) because the teeth and handles do not intersect in applicant’s figures.
PNG
media_image2.png
485
477
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Gill whose telephone number is (571)270-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER GILL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights