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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, Species I (Fig 1-5G) invention without traverse drawn to claims 1-19 in the reply filed on March 26, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I invention, there being no allowable generic March 26, 2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (g) because Fig. 1-5D and 5F-6B contain frames around the sight. The sheets must not contain frames around the sight (i.e., the usable surface), but should have scan target points (i.e., cross-hairs) printed on two cater-corner margin corners.
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 Objections
Claim 1 line 21 should read “such that [[the]] a supported hair weft creates a refreshable edge capable of position adjustments”. Clarification or correction is required.
Claim 7 should read “wherein securing the N anchor drop beads and securing the M foundation beads comprises: selecting a bead based on whether it is an anchor drop bead of the N anchor drop beads or a foundation bead of the M foundation beads wherein [[the]] a selected bead is smaller in size for the N anchor drop beads than the M foundation beads; inserting [[a]] the user’s hair through the selected bead; grabbing the selected bead using a plier; and, rotating the plier to secure the selected bead on the user’s hair, wherein: if the selected bead is one of the N anchor drop beads, the plier is rotated by a first predetermined degree, and, if the selected bead is one of the M foundation beads, the plier is rotated by a second predetermined degree, wherein the first predetermined degree is larger than the second predetermined degree, wherein the first and the second predetermined degree is directly proportional to the predetermined distances x1 and x2, respectively.” . Clarification or correction is required.
Claim 9 should read “further comprises, after securing the hair weft to the bead placement at the each side of the user’s head, separating the hair weft attached on top of the N anchor drop beads from the N anchor drop beads, and adjusting [[the]] positions of the N anchor drop beads upwards.”. Clarification or correction is required.
Claim 10 line 16 should read “such that [[the]] a supported hair weft creates a refreshable edge capable of position adjustments”. Clarification or correction is required.
Claim 12 line 1 should read “wherein securing [[a]] the hair weft to the bead”. Clarification or correction is required.
Claim 14 line 5-6 should read “wherein [[the]] a pocket of the user’s hair of a corresponding anchor drop bead comprises”. Clarification or correction is required.
Claim 17 should read “wherein securing the N anchor drop beads and securing the M foundation beads comprises: selecting a bead based on whether it is an anchor drop bead of the N anchor drop beads or a foundation bead of the M foundation beads wherein [[the]] a selected bead is smaller in size for the N anchor drop beads than the M foundation beads; inserting the user’s hair through the selected bead; grabbing the selected bead using a plier; and, rotating the plier to secure the selected bead on the user’s hair, wherein: if the selected bead is one of the N anchor drop beads, the plier is rotated by a first predetermined degree, and, if the selected bead is one of the M foundation beads, the plier is rotated by a second predetermined degree, wherein the first predetermined degree is larger than the second predetermined degree, wherein the first and the second predetermined degree is directly proportional to the predetermined distances x1 and x2, respectively.”. Clarification or correction is required.
Claim 19 should read “further comprises, after securing the hair weft to the bead placement at the each side of the user’s head, separating the hair weft attached on top of the N anchor drop beads from the N anchor drop beads, and adjusting [[the]] positions of the N anchor drop beads upwards.”. Clarification or correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-19 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 11-13, the term “wherein M > 1 and the M foundation beads are placed along a second latitudinal contour at a distance x2 below the hair parting line, wherein (x2 – x1) > a predetermined distance delta_x” render the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the distance difference between the distance x2 and distance x1 can be greater than a distance value delta_x when the distance X2 is smaller than distance X1.
Referring to Fig 4 which shows the distance X2 is smaller than the distance X1 relative to the parting line 220, the difference distance (x2 – x1) between the two distances can’t be a negative value. Therefore, it is unclear if the distance between the parting line 220 and first latitudinal axis 415 is smaller than the distance between the parting line 220 and the second latitudinal axis 425, which can’t be a negative value; OR if the Applicant meant to claim (x1-x2) > a predetermined distance delta_x; Or if the Applicant meant claim to (x1-x2) > a predetermined distance delta_x ≥ a predetermined distance delta_x. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as requiring “wherein M > 1 and the M foundation beads are placed along a second latitudinal contour at a distance x2 below the hair parting line, wherein (x1 – x2) > a predetermined distance delta_x”. Applicant is recommended to clarify to overcome this issue.
Regarding claim 3, line 6, the term “or hair” render the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the term “hair” here is refereeing to the user’s hair or the hair weft. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as requiring “further comprises, after the extended portion is folded over at the 1st anchor drop bead, at a second predetermined distance from the anchor point, creating a surface stitch comprising a knot coupling a top layer of the hair weft on top of the at least the 1st anchor drop bead and a bottom layer of the hair weft behind the at least the 1st anchor drop bead without looping any of the N anchor drop beads or the user’s hair.”. Applicant is recommended to clarify to overcome this issue.
Regarding claim 10, lines 11-13, the term “wherein M > 1 and the M foundation beads are placed along a second latitudinal contour at a distance x2 below the hair parting line, wherein (x2 – x1) > a predetermined distance delta_x” render the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the distance difference between the distance x2 and distance x1 can be greater than a distance value delta_x when the distance X2 is smaller than distance X1.
Referring to Fig 4 which Fig 4 shows the distance X2 is smaller than the distance X1 relative to the parting line 220, the difference distance (x2 – x1) between the two distances can’t be a negative value. Therefore, it is unclear if the distance between the parting line 220 and first latitudinal axis 415 is smaller than the distance between the parting line 220 and the second latitudinal axis 425, which can’t be a negative value; OR if the Applicant meant to claim (x1-x2) > a predetermined distance delta_x; Or if the Applicant meant claim to (x1-x2) > a predetermined distance delta_x ≥ a predetermined distance delta_x. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as requiring “wherein M > 1 and the M foundation beads are placed along a second latitudinal contour at a distance x2 below the hair parting line, wherein (x1 – x2) > a predetermined distance delta_x”. Applicant is recommended to clarify to overcome this issue.
Regarding claim 13, line 6, the term “or hair” render the claim indefinite. It is unclear if the term “hair” here is refereeing to the user’s hair or the hair weft. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as requiring “further comprises, after the extended portion is folded over at the 1st anchor drop bead, at a second predetermined distance from the anchor point, creating a surface stitch comprising a knot coupling a top layer of the hair weft on top of the at least the 1st anchor drop bead and a bottom layer of the hair weft behind the at least the 1st anchor drop bead without looping any of the N anchor drop beads or the user’s hair.”. Applicant is recommended to clarify to overcome this issue.
Claims 2-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for their dependence on one or more rejected base claims.
Conclusion
Additional references were also reviewed during the examination of this application and listed for your reference in the notice of reference cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIM ASQIRIBA whose telephone number is (571)270-3416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 pm.
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 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/KARIM ASQIRIBA/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights