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 § 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 1-18 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.
Claim 1 requires the second ends of the hair strands be parallel to a horizontal plane, but fails to explain where this horizontal plane exists. It is unclear where the horizontal plane extends. Additionally, different and multiple horizontal planes are also recited in the claim (“different horizonal planes” and “multiple horizontal planes”), where it is unclear if the horizontal plane mentioned is also one of these other “different” or “multiple” horizontal planes and if the different horizontal planes are the same or different from the multiple horizontal planes.
Claims 3-7 and 12-16 recite “the horizonal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands has not been previously recited; instead, claims 1 and 10 recite “the second ends of the hair strands are parallel to a horizontal plane”; thus, the horizontal plane is not defined by the second ends of the hair strands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zreik et al. (US 20230276886).
Regarding claim 1, Zreik et al. disclose a hair extension (Refer to Figures 1-13B and annotated Figure below) comprising: a plurality of hair strands (26,28); and an angled flexible hair extension strip (20) that holds the plurality of hair strands, the angled flexible hair extension strip having a first side end (Refer to annotated Figure below) and an opposing second side end (Refer to annotated Figure below), where the first side end and the second side end are located in different horizontal planes (Refer to annotated Figure below where horizonal planes illustrated as dashed lines extend through the first and second side ends); and wherein each of the hair strands comprises a first end (26a, 28a) that is held, by the angled flexible hair extension strip, and a second end (26b, 28b) that is unattached, wherein the first ends of the hair strands are arranged in a layer; wherein the second ends of the hair strands are parallel to a horizontal plane (Refer to annotated Figure below); and wherein the first ends of the hair strands are located in multiple horizontal planes plane (Refer to annotated Figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
369
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Zreik et al. discloses the angled flexible hair extension strip has a flat, elongated configuration (Refer to annotated Figure above).
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richwine (US 20210204628).
Regarding claim 1, Richwine discloses a hair extension (Refer to Figure 4) comprising: a plurality of hair strands (408,410); and an angled flexible hair extension strip (402, 404, 406) that holds the plurality of hair strands, the angled flexible hair extension strip having a first side end (end at fold of 402) and an opposing second side end (end created by overlapping ends of 404,406 opposite 402), where the first side end and the second side end are located in different horizontal planes; and wherein each of the hair strands comprises a first end (ends of 408,410 attached to 404,402,406) that is held, by the angled flexible hair extension strip, and a second end that is unattached, wherein the first ends of the hair strands are arranged in a layer; wherein the second ends of the hair strands are parallel to a horizontal plane; and wherein the first ends of the hair strands are located in multiple horizontal planes (Refer to Figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Richwine discloses the angled flexible hair extension strip has a flat, elongated configuration (the strip is folded such that 402 is at one end and 404 and 406 are joined together, whereby the strip provides an elongated and flat configuration).
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kenna (US 20150296912).
Regarding claim 1, Kenna discloses a hair extension (Refer to Figures 1-29) comprising: a plurality of hair strands (18); and an angled flexible hair extension strip (20,22,55) that holds the plurality of hair strands, the angled flexible hair extension strip having a first side end (one of left and right side ends) and an opposing second side end (other of left and right side ends), where the first side end and the second side end are located in different horizontal planes (best shown in Figure 1, the strip extends in a sloped configuration such that the first and second side ends are vertically offset and are located in different horizontal planes); and wherein each of the hair strands comprises a first end (end embedded/attached to 20,22) that is held, by the angled flexible hair extension strip, and a second end (free ends of 18) that is unattached, wherein the first ends of the hair strands are arranged in a layer; wherein the second ends of the hair strands are parallel to a horizontal plane (second/free ends of the strand 18 hand freely at a desired length or are cut to a desired length, Refer to paragraph 0046 where a conventional configuration is to provide aligned ends so that the ends form a straight line); and wherein the first ends of the hair strands are located in multiple horizontal planes (Refer to Figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Kenna discloses the angled flexible hair extension strip comprises a strip glue layer (the inner adhesive layer on 20 or 22 in contact with the hair 18 Refer to paragraph 0050 or adhesive of 20 attached to 55 which also supports the hair) on one side of the angled flexible hair extension strip, wherein the strip glue layer holds the layer of hair strands.
Regarding claim 9, Kenna discloses the angled flexible hair extension strip has a flat, elongated configuration (Refer to Figures 1, 7, 16 and 18).
Regarding claim 10, Kenna discloses a method for attaching hair extensions to natural hair of a user, the method comprising:
parting natural hair of the user to form a part (the user makes a part line in the natural hair 13 and secures the natural hair 13 with a clip 11, Refer to Figures 1, 21 and 22, Abstract and paragraphs 0056 and 0104);
attaching a first angled hair extension to natural hair of the user below the part (Refer to Figure 1 and paragraph 0104, the angled hair extension is secured to the user’s hair adjacent the part), wherein the first angled hair extension comprises: a plurality of hair strands (strands 18); and an angled flexible hair extension strip (22, or 55) that holds the plurality of hair strands, the angled flexible hair extension strip having a first side end (one of right and left ends) and an opposing second side end (other of right and left ends), where the first side end and the second side end are located in different horizontal planes (Refer to Figure 1, the sloped configuration of the strip provides the first and second ends at different horizontal planes); and wherein each of the hair strands comprises a first end that is held, by the angled hair extension strip and a second end that is free, wherein the first ends of the hair strands are arranged in a layer; wherein the second end of the hair strands are parallel to a horizontal plane (second/free ends of the strand 18 hand freely at a desired length or are cut to a desired length, Refer to paragraph 0046 where a conventional configuration is to provide aligned ends so that the ends form a straight line); wherein the first end of the hair strands is located in multiple horizontal planes; a first adhesive tape (20 per figures 3-5, 10, 11, 17, and 23; 40 and/or 20 per Figure 8) having a first side (side of 20 contacting 22; side of 40 contacting 20) attached to the angled flexible hair extension strip (22) and a second side (side of 20,40 opposite first side and contacting hair) for attaching the first angled hair extension to natural hair of the user;
lifting the first hair extension after attachment of the first hair extension to natural hair of the user (Refer to paragraph 0079 and 0082, and Figures 21 and 22); and
attaching a second hair extension to natural hair of the user (Refer to paragraphs 0079 and 0082 and Figures 22, 23, 28A-28C).
Regarding claim 11, Kenna discloses the angled flexible hair extension strip comprises a strip glue layer (adhesive layer of 20 and/or 22) on one side of the angled flexible hair extension strip, wherein the strip glue layer holds the layer of hair strands.
Regarding claim 18, Kenna discloses the angled flexible hair extension strip has a flat, elongated configuration (Refer to Figures 1, 7, 16 and 18).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 3-8 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable by Kenna.
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Kenna discloses the hair extension of claims 1 and 10 above; however, Kenna does not explicitly disclose the angled flexible hair extension strip has an angle of 45 degrees relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands. Kenna depicts the strip disposed at a angle (Refer to Figure 1) and teaches the hair is parted at an angle relative to the horizontal as desired by the user or installer (Refer to paragraph 0104), where the hair extension follows the angle of the part. Kenna also explains that the second ends of the hair “can be cut or styled if a shorter length is desired” (Refer to paragraph 0046), where the length can be “cut depending upon the user’s preference” (Refer to paragraph 0048) but is silent regarding the angle of the strip being relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hairs. It is conventional for hair extensions to provide a straight edge (horizontal plane) along the second ends of the hair to mimic a one-length hair cut (hair style where the free ends of hairs align).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair extension of Kenna such that the angle of the strip be 45 degrees relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values/ranges involves only routine skill in the art, where Kenna provides the general conditions of an angled strip and cutting the second ends as desired, where it is conventional for hair extensions to be configured such that the second ends of hair strands be at the same horizontal plane to result in a straight edge of aligned hairs when installed as this is a typical hairstyle; additionally, Kenna provides motivation for providing various angles as desired, as Kenna teaches the hair is parted at a desired angle and the extension follows the part, thereby providing the strip at the desired angle.
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Kenna discloses the hair extension of claims 1 and 10 above; however, Kenna does not explicitly disclose the angled flexible hair extension strip has an angle between 10 and 45 degrees relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands. Kenna depicts the strip disposed at an angle (Refer to Figure 1) and teaches the hair is parted at an angle relative to the horizontal as desired by the user or installer (Refer to paragraph 0104), where the hair extension follows the angle of the part. Kenna also explains that the second ends of the hair “can be cut or styled if a shorter length is desired” (Refer to paragraph 0046), where the length can be “cut depending upon the user’s preference” (Refer to paragraph 0048) but is silent regarding the angle of the strip being relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hairs. It is conventional for hair extensions to provide a straight edge (horizontal plane) along the second ends of the hair to mimic a one-length hair cut (hair style where the free ends of hairs align).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair extension of Kenna such that the angle be between 10 and 45 degrees relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values/ranges involves only routine skill in the art, where Kenna provides the general conditions of an angled strip and cutting the second ends as desired, where it is conventional for hair extensions to be configured such that the second ends of hair strands be at the same horizontal plane to result in a straight edge of aligned hairs when installed as this is a typical hairstyle; additionally, Kenna provides motivation for providing various angles as desired, as Kenna teaches the hair is parted at a desired angle and the extension follows the part, thereby providing the strip at the desired angle.
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Kenna discloses the hair extension of claims 1 and 10 above; however, Kenna does not explicitly disclose the angled flexible hair extension strip has an angle between 10 and 70 degrees relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands. Kenna discloses the general conditions of the claim, as the strip is disposed at an angle. Kenna also explains that the second ends of the hair “can be cut or styled if a shorter length is desired” (Refer to paragraph 0046), where the length can be “cut depending upon the user’s preference” (Refer to paragraph 0048) but is silent regarding the angle of the strip being relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hairs. It is conventional for hair extensions to provide a straight edge (horizontal plane) along the second ends of the hair to mimic a one-length hair cut (hair style where the free ends of hairs align).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair extension of Kenna such that the angle be between 10 and 70 degrees relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values/ranges involves only routine skill in the art where Kenna provides the general conditions of an angled strip and cutting the second ends as desired, where it is conventional for hair extensions to be configured such that the second ends of hair strands be at the same horizontal plane to result in a straight edge of aligned hairs when installed as this is a typical hairstyle; additionally, Kenna provides motivation for providing various angles as desired, as Kenna teaches the hair is parted at a desired angle and the extension follows the part, thereby providing the strip at the desired angle.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, Kenna discloses the hair extension of claims 1 and 10 above; however, Kenna does not explicitly disclose the angled flexible hair extension strip has an angle between 20 and 45 degrees relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands. Kenna depicts the strip disposed at an angle (Refer to Figure 1) and teaches the hair is parted at an angle relative to the horizontal as desired by the user or installer (Refer to paragraph 0104), where the hair extension follows the angle of the part. Kenna also explains that the second ends of the hair “can be cut or styled if a shorter length is desired” (Refer to paragraph 0046), where the length can be “cut depending upon the user’s preference” (Refer to paragraph 0048) but is silent regarding the angle of the strip being relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hairs. It is conventional for hair extensions to provide a straight edge (horizontal plane) along the second ends of the hair to mimic a one-length hair cut (hair style where the free ends of hairs align).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair extension of Kenna such that the angle be between 20 and 45 degrees relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values/ranges involves only routine skill in the art; additionally, Kenna provides motivation for providing various angles as desired as Kenna teaches the hair is parted at a desired angle and the extension follows the part, thereby providing the strip at the desired angle.
Regarding claims 7-8 and 16-17, Kenna discloses the hair extension of claims 1 and 10 above; however, Kenna does not explicitly disclose the angled flexible hair extension strip has an angle between 45 and 70 degrees relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands. Kenna depicts the strip disposed at an angle (Refer to Figure 1) and teaches the hair is parted at an angle relative to the horizontal as desired by the user or installer (Refer to paragraph 0104), where the hair extension follows the angle of the part. Kenna also explains that the second ends of the hair “can be cut or styled if a shorter length is desired” (Refer to paragraph 0046), where the length can be “cut depending upon the user’s preference” (Refer to paragraph 0048) but is silent regarding the angle of the strip being relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hairs. It is conventional for hair extensions to provide a straight edge (horizontal plane) along the second ends of the hair to mimic a one-length hair cut (hair style where the free ends of hairs align).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair extension of Kenna such that the angle be between 45 and 70 degrees relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable values/ranges involves only routine skill in the art where Kenna provides the general conditions of an angled strip and cutting the second ends as desired, where it is conventional for hair extensions to be configured such that the second ends of hair strands be at the same horizontal plane to result in a straight edge of aligned hairs when installed as this is a typical hairstyle; additionally, Kenna provides motivation for providing various angles as desired, as Kenna teaches the hair is parted at a desired angle and the extension follows the part, thereby providing the strip at the desired angle.
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 3-8 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenna and Takechi et al. (US 20210227907).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Kenna discloses the hair extension of claims 1 and 10 above; however, Kenna does not explicitly disclose the angled flexible hair extension strip has an angle of 45 degrees relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands. Kenna depicts the strip disposed at an angle (Refer to Figure 1) and teaches the hair is parted at an angle relative to the horizontal as desired by the user or installer (Refer to paragraph 0104), where the hair extension follows the angle of the part. Kenna also explains that the second ends of the hair “can be cut or styled if a shorter length is desired” (Refer to paragraph 0046), where the length can be “cut depending upon the user’s preference” (Refer to paragraph 0048) but is silent regarding the angle of the strip being relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hairs. It is conventional for hair extensions to provide a straight edge (horizontal plane) along the second ends of the hair to mimic a one-length hair cut (hair style where the free ends of hairs align). Takechi et al. demonstrates the claimed angles are well-known and conventional. Takechi et al. discloses a similar hair extension having an angled hair extension strip (11) with hair strands (10a, 10b, 10c) extending from the strip (11), where the strips have an inclination angle of 5 degrees or more and 60 degrees or less (Refer to paragraph 0011 and 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair extension of Kenna such that the angle of the strip be 45 degrees relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands, as Kenna discloses the general conditions of a claim (angled strip and cutting the second ends as desired, where it is conventional for hair extensions to be configured such that the second ends of hair strands be at the same horizontal plane to result in a straight edge of aligned hairs when installed as this is a typical hairstyle) and Takechi et al. demonstrates the claimed value is well-known and conventional. Additionally, Kenna provides motivation for providing various angles as desired, as Kenna teaches the hair is parted at a desired angle and the extension follows the part, thereby providing the strip at the desired angle.
Regarding claims 4-7 and 13-16, Kenna discloses the hair extension of claims 1 and 10 above; however, Kenna does not explicitly disclose the angled flexible hair extension strip has an angle of 10-45 degrees, 10-70 degrees, 20-45 degrees or 45-70 degrees relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands. Kenna depicts the strip disposed at an angle (Refer to Figure 1) and teaches the hair is parted at an angle relative to the horizontal as desired by the user or installer (Refer to paragraph 0104), where the hair extension follows the angle of the part. Kenna also explains that the second ends of the hair “can be cut or styled if a shorter length is desired” (Refer to paragraph 0046), where the length can be “cut depending upon the user’s preference” (Refer to paragraph 0048) but is silent regarding the angle of the strip being relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hairs. It is conventional for hair extensions to provide a straight edge (horizontal plane) along the second ends of the hair to mimic a one-length hair cut (hair style where the free ends of hairs align). Takechi et al. demonstrates the claimed angles are well-known and conventional. Takechi et al. discloses a similar hair extension having an angled hair extension strip (11) with hair strands (10a, 10b, 10c) extending from the strip (11), where the strips have an inclination angle of 5 degrees or more and 60 degrees or less (Refer to paragraph 0011 and 0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair extension of Kenna such that the angle of the strip be within the claimed ranges relative to a horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands, as Kenna discloses the general conditions of a claim (angled strip and cutting the second ends as desired, where it is conventional for hair extensions to be configured such that the second ends of hair strands be at the same horizontal plane to result in a straight edge of aligned hairs when installed as this is a typical hairstyle) and Takechi et al. demonstrates the values within the claimed ranges are well-known and conventional. Additionally, Kenna provides motivation for providing various angles as desired, as Kenna teaches the hair is parted at a desired angle and the extension follows the part, thereby providing the strip at the desired angle.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument: Zreik is non-analogous art as Zriek is directed to an artificial eyelash extension which is a different field of endeavor from hair extensions.
Response: Artificial eyelash extensions are a type of hair extension and are in fact, in the same field of endeavor. Artificial eyelashes are classified in A41G5/02 which falls under A41G5/00 Hair pieces, inserts, rolls, pads or the like; Toupees. Hair extensions also fall under A41G5/00. Similarly in the US classification system, wig, hair extensions and eyelash extensions are classified together (See USPC 132/53).
Argument: Zreik does not disclose the claimed angled strip configuration, where the first side end and the second side end are located in different horizontal planes.
Response: The annotated Figure provided in the rejection shows the different horizontal planes, where the first side end is located in one horizontal plane (shown with dashed line) and the second side end is located in a different horizontal plane (shown with dashed line). The annotated Figure is provided below for convenience. Applicant will note that the first side end is shown with a horizontal dashed line extending therethrough and this horizontal dashed line represents a horizontal plane. Similarly, the second side end is shown with a different horizontal dashed line extending therethrough and this horizontal dashed line represents a different horizontal plane from the horizontal plane of the first side end.
PNG
media_image1.png
369
699
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Argument: Regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 9 under Richwine, Applicant argues Richwine employs a fundamentally different attachment mechanism.
Response: With regard to claims 1 and 9, the attachment mechanism is irrelevant as claim 1 does not recite an attachment mechanism.
Argument: Richwire’s different horizontal planes arise from magnetic folding.
Response: Figure 4 of Richwire depicts the invention where different planes exist. Claim 1 is anticipated by Richwire. In order to overcome the rejection, amendments must be made which recite features that are not provided by Richwire.
Argument: Regarding claims 3-7, Richwire specific angles are not taught.
Response: The claims were amended to require the angle be relative to the horizontal plane defined by the second ends of the hair strands, which changes the scope of the claim.
Argument: Kenna teaches angled parting, not an angled strip structure.
Response: The hair extension of Kenna is capable of being oriented such that the strip be at an angle, meeting the requirements of the claim. Figure 1 of Kenna shows the hair extension where the strip is at an angle.
Argument: Kenna’s extension strips are flat. There is no disclosure that the strip should be configured with side ends at different horizontal planes.
Response: Whether the strip is flat or not is irrelevant. The claim does not recite a contradictory requirement and Applicant’s strip is also flat (Refer to claim 9 requiring the strip be flat). The disclosure does not need to use the same terms to anticipate the claim. The drawings show the strip has two side ends and the side ends are in different planes. As best shown in Figure 1, the strip extends in a sloped configuration such that the first and second side ends are vertically offset and are located in different horizontal planes.
Argument: Kenna does not teach the angle values. Routine optimization involves a starting point, a parameter recognized as result-effective.
Response: It is noted that result-effective variable rational was not relied upon in the rejection of record. Instead, the rejection states that Kenna discloses the general conditions of the claims, which is that the strip be provided at an angle. Kenna also recognizes that the strip is arranged at the same angle as the part, where the angle is selected by the user and customizable based on needs/wants. Therefore, Kenna provides a starting point by depicting the strip as angled and recognizing that the strip follows the hair part where the hair part is angled and the angle is selected as a matter of choice, thereby making the strip angled as well.
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 TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights