DETAILED ACTION
Priority
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17406856, filed 8/19/21, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it properly constitutes a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Applicant’s claim to the benefit of the filing date of the prior application under 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. is acknowledged.
It is noted, however, that applicant’s originally filed disclosure does not provide support for a: “flatlock stitched seam and stretchable thread” nor “a center back panel and a center front panel” as required by claim 1 (the only independent claim), “a front panel in combination with a center back panel and center front panel” as required by claims 2-5, “a nape panel in combination with a center back panel and center front panel” as required by claims 6-9, so the current pending claims have an effective filing date of 1/16/24.
Drawings
The replacement drawings were received on 12/29/25. The drawings overcome some of the previous objections, but not all, and they present new issues that are objected to below.
Replacement figure 17A is objected to for adding “224” and “226” when they were not previously present nor clearly illustrated in original Figure 17A.
Replacement figure 17C is objected to for adding “222” when not previously present nor clearly illustrated in original Figure 17C.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “lace edging” in combination with the features of claim 1 presented by claim 4 (currently only the embodiment of Figure 1 has “lace edging”, there is no “lace edging” in the embodiment that has the “generally rectangular center back panel” – it appears applicant is attempting to combine embodiments without drawing support, which is improper), the “headband” of claim 11 in combination with the panels of claim 1 (while the embodiment of Figure 1 has a headband, it does not have the panels set forth in claim 1, again it appears applicant is attempting to combine embodiments without drawing support, which is improper) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
102(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.
103: 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) 1-2, 6, and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Esashika (WO 2016021497) as evidenced by Grzych (“Overlocker for Beginners-The Flatlock Stitch”, https://weallsew.com/overlocker-for-beginners-the-flatlock-stitch/, published June 15, 2020, accessed 1/14/26).
Regarding the language “a flatlock stitched seam”, in the claims, the applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In this case, the cited limitations failed to distinguish the claimed structure from the patented device of Esashika because they both have seams which require stitches and formed from thread. See MPEP § 2113.
Claim 1: Esashika discloses a wig cap (1) for use with hair fibers to form a wig (see abstract), comprising: a “generally rectangular” center back panel (10+12) of stretchable material (Page 8, 3-8; note that applicant’s own “generally rectangular” shape has curved edges, so Esashika teaches a “generally rectangular” center back panel (10+12) in as much as applicant does) and the center back panel is configured to extend from a wearer’s nape to the wearer’s crown; a right side panel (14) of stretchable material (Page 8, 3-8) having a left curved edge that is joined to a first side of the center back panel by a seam (Page 4, 10-15) formed with elastic thread (Page 8, 3-8); a left side panel (14) of stretchable material (Page 8, 3-8) having a right curved top edge that is joined to a second side opposite the first side of the center back panel (12) by a seam (Page 4, 10-15) formed with elastic thread (Page 8, 3-8); and a center front panel (11) that is joined to the right side panel, left side panel and center back panel using elastic thread (Page 4, 10-15 & Page 8, 3-8) forming seams and the wig cap is stretchable so it is interpreted to be “tailored to planes and curves of a human skull”. Esashika also discloses that the panel (10) can be in the shape of a star (see Fig 2b) which would result in the center front panel being a “generally triangular”. The office also notes that applicant’s own “generally triangular” shape is illustrated as a rounded half-moon type shape (see Figs 16-17) and that is what is illustrated as the shape of the center front panel of Esashika in Figure 1. So Esashika is interpreted to teach this shape in as much as applicant does. Seams of stretchable thread are used to secure the panels together as outlined above.
PNG
media_image1.png
308
516
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Alternatively, or additionally, if applicant feels that “flatlock stitches” or “flatlock seams” are some sort of definite structure beyond simply a stitched seam; the office asserts that it is old and well known to specifically use flatlock stitches in sewing items that are supposed to be tightly fitted, which wigs are known to be in order to look natural. This is evidenced at least by Grzych, who explicitly states that flatlock stitches are known and known to be used on “super-fitted items like active wear”. So alternately, as evidenced by Grzych, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the wig cap of Esashika to specifically use flatlock stitches for the already disclosed stitches and seams since these are old and well-known to be used in tight fitting items, which wigs are known to be.
Claim 2: Esashika discloses the wig cap further comprising a front panel (see annotations) joined to the center front panel, the right side panel, and the left side panel using a stitched seam (Page 4, 10-15) and elastic thread (Page 8, 3-8).
Claim 6: Esashika discloses the wig cap further comprising a nape panel (see annotations) joined to the center back panel, the right side panel and the left side panel using a stitched seam (Page 4, 10-15) and elastic thread (Page 8, 3-8).
Claim 10: Esashika discloses the stretchable material being a spandex mesh (Page 5, 8-15).
Claim 11: Esashika discloses the wig cap of claim 1 further comprising a headband (see annotations) of stretchable material (Page 8, 3-8) attached around a circumference of the cap with a stitched seam (Page 4, 10-15) of elastic thread (Page 8, 3-8) and a circumference of the cap is also defined by edges of all the panels (see figure below).
PNG
media_image2.png
149
302
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esashika (WO 2016021497) in view of Newman (US 20110120485).
Claims 5 and 9: Esashika discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for bendable stays in the front panel and the nape panel. Newman, however, teaches a wig cap (90) comprising: a center back panel (22) of stretchable material [0028 & 0032], a right side panel (76) of stretchable material [0028 & 0032] stitched [0031] to a first side of the center back panel; a left side panel (66) of stretchable material [0028 & 0032] stitched [0031] to a second side opposite the first side of the center back panel; and a center front panel (44) of stretchable material [0028 & 0032] stitched [0031] to the right side panel, left side panel, and center back panel (see Figs 2-6). The wig cap is stretchable [0028 & 0032] and Newman further discloses the cap including a nape panel (54) carrying a series of bendable metal stays [0037], as well as the right and left side panels including these stays [0037] in order to allow for a more customized fit in use [0037]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the wig cap of Esashika by providing it with stays in the various panels in view of Newman in order to allow for a more customized fit during use.
Modified Esashika discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for additional stays in the front panel. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the cap of modified Esashika by providing additional stays in the front panel, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 3 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esashika (WO 2016021497) in view of Paris (US 20090199861).
Claims 3 and 7: Esashika discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the cap including silicone on the front panel and the nape panel. Paris, however, teaches a wig cap (10) made of lace and the lace is coated in silicone on a front and a nape of the cap [0011 & 0054 & 0057] in order to provide a smooth and comfortable fit [0055]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the cap of Esashika by providing the front panel and nape panel with silicone in view of Paris in order to provide a smooth and comfortable fit.
Claim 8: Esashika discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for elastic tape on an edge of the center back panel. Paris, however, teaches attaching double sided tape [0054], which is known to be elastic to some degree, to the silicone surfaces [0011 & 0054 & 0057] which include surfaces on the center back panel (see Figs 2-12) in order to help hold the cap in place during use. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the cap of Esashika by providing it with elastic adhesive tape on edges of the cap in view of Paris in order to secure the cap to a user’s head.
Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Esashika (WO 2016021497) in view of Twersky (US 20110186066).
Claim 4: Esashika discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the cap including lace edging on an edge of the center front panel. Twersky, however, teaches providing wig caps with welded lace edges (12) [0014], which the office interprets as “lace edging” on an edge of the center front panel in order to provide a more comfortable fit. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the cap of Esashika by providing it with lace edging in view of Twersky in order to provide a more comfortable fit during use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first attempts to argue that Esashika does not teach “stretchable” regions outside of the region (10); this is not persuasive because Esashika explicitly states each part can have “stretchability” meaning it is “stretchable” as claimed by applicant. Applicant’s claims do not require any particular material and simply requires “stretch-able”, which Esashika teaches. The argument that portions or some panels of Esashika are “more stretchable” than others has no bearing on whether they meet the claim. So this argument is not persuasive.
PNG
media_image3.png
179
728
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that “flatlocking stitching” is not a product by process, this is not persuasive because “flatlock” is just a type of stitch, which by definition is a process of stitching. So the term “flatlock stitching” appears to be no more than applicant attempting to limit the device claims by their method of manufacturing, which is improper and does not hold bearing on patentability of a device claim unless it results in a materially different product, which in the instant case, it does not. Flatlock stitches are old and well-known, as is sewing panels together; and the prior art teaches both sewing panels together and doing it with elastic thread, which is the structure claimed by applicant. Furthermore, Grzych is also used to show that this type of stitch is old and well known to be used in these exact types of applications. So it would be obvious to choose a known type of sewing stitch for its known application as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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