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
Claims 1-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: The preamble states “A device for working with hair extension, including hair extensions” please amend the preamble to accurately state a system or kit. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-5, 8-11, and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohl et al. (US 2,492,226) in view of Roberts (US 2019/0216208).
Kohl et al. discloses a device a main body (11) comprising a flat panel having two accessible sides a first clip side and a second opposing extension side (see Figure 4), further including at least one horizontal entry point adapted for passing a hair extension from the first side to the second side; a plurality of clips (21); and wherein each clip is adjacent to one of the entry points; wherein each clip is adapted for securing and fastening the hair extension to said main body wherein each clips is located on only one side of the flat panel (see Figures 1-4). Kohl et al. discloses the claimed invention except for at least one hair extensions are fastened into the corresponding clips wherein the hair extension can be tape-in, the clip has padding on an inside surface, and each clip comprises a first immobile part which is adhered to the panel and a second part which is movable and lockable. Roberts teaches hair extension storage device that holds hair extensions with slits and clips (see Figure 1). The clips comprise clip has padding on an inside surface (sleeve shown in Figure 4), and each clip comprises a first immobile part which is adhered to the panel and a second part which is movable and lockable (see Figure 4). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill art before the effective filing date to have the holder of Kohl et al. attach hair extensions with the clips as taught by Roberts to help hold hair extensions. It further would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have the hair extensions be tape-in, since applicant has not disclosed that the tape-in hair extensions solve any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with any type of hair extension.
Regarding claim 2, Kohl et al. further discloses each clip (21) is located on the second opposing side of the main body flat panel (11) (see Figure 4). Regarding 5, Kohl et al. further discloses entry points are aligned in rows (see Figure 1). Regarding claim 10, Kohl et al. further discloses the device is adapted for use as a mobile stand- alone workstation (hook 12) (see Figure 2). Regarding claim 11, Kohl et al. further discloses the entry points comprise horizonal cuts (see Figure 1).
Claim(s) 6-7 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kohl et al. (US 2,492,226) in view of Roberts (US 2019/0216208) as applied to claims 1-5, 8-11, and 15-16 above, and further in view of Geib (US 2,077,316).
The combination of Kohl et al. and Roberts disclose the claimed invention except for the panel is bordered by four frame sides and the main body is made from a plastic material, polypropylene. Geib teaches a panel for holding objects where in the panel is bordered by four frame sides and is made from plastic (see Figure 1; col. 1, lines 40-45). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the panel of Kohl et al. and Roberts be made with four frame sides and constructed of plastic as taught by Geib to allow for easy manufacturing. It further would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the panel being made of polypropylene, since 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Kohl fails to disclose a flat panel having two distinct and accessible sides (a “clip side” and an “extension side”) and “horizontal entry points” allowing extensions to pass through the panel from one side to the other, is not persuasive. Kohl expressly discloses a flat panel structure having opposing faces (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 of Kohl), each of which is inherently accessible and capable of functioning as distinct sides. The slits and tongues formed in the panel provide openings extending through the panel, which reasonably correspond to the claimed “entry points” allowing articles (ties in Kohl; hair extensions in the instant claims) to be positioned across or through the panel. Moreover, Kohl’s integral arms and tongues are functional equivalents of the claimed “clips.” The claims do not recite that the clips must be separate or distinct components, only that they are adapted to “removably receive” extensions. Kohl’s arms perform this identical function temporarily securing an elongate article via resilient engagement, thereby meeting the claimed limitation. The terminology differences do not patentably distinguish over Kohl’s teaching. Further, clip is defined in Merriam-Webster as “any of various devices that grip, clasp, or hook”; Kohl arms meet the definition of clip.
In response to applicant’s argument that Roberts, when combined with Kohl, would not result in the presently claimed arrangement and that the references are incompatible. The argument is unpersuasive. Roberts discloses a hair extension storage device including clip elements for selectively retaining and displaying extensions. The combination of Roberts with Kohl would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to adapt Kohl’s support structure for use with hair extensions, as expressly taught by Roberts. Substituting Roberts’ known hair-retention features (clips for extensions) into Kohl’s support panel merely applies a known technique to a similar device for an analogous purpose (displaying or organizing elongated items), yielding a predictable result. Applicant’s assertion that the references are “incompatible” is not supported by evidence. Differences in intended commercial application (display vs. storage) do not negate obviousness where the structural features and functions correspond. Both Kohl and Roberts address securing elongated items to a panel for organized storage or display. The proposed combination is thus reasonable and within the level of ordinary skill.
In response to applicant’s argument that Geib does not disclose two sides or entry points and that the references teach opposing purposes (secure vs. easily removable), is not persuasive. Geib was relied upon to teach a panel made by four frame sides and the main body is made from a plastic material, polypropylene. The design element of Geibs is taught in a necktie display and would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate into the design of Kohl.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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
11/12/2025