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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on September 24, 2025 is acknowledged. Claims 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fischer (US 2014109925).
Regarding claim 1, Fisher discloses a detachable wig headgear (Refer to Figures 1-9) comprising a rear end part (120,520), a front end part (110,510) being connected to the rear end part and a zipper (130,530) being provided between the rear end part and the front end part.
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 2-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher as evidenced by Nakajima et al. (US 20160227863).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Fisher discloses the detachable wig headgear according to claim 1, wherein the front end part (110, 510) comprises a mesh surface (112, 512), and the mesh surface is connected to the rear end part (120, 520) by the zipper (130, 530) and the front end part (110, 510) further comprises a front mesh surface (114, 514) located between the mesh surface (112, 512) and the zipper (130, 530) (Refer to Figures 1A-2B, 5A-5C and 9). However, Fisher does not disclose that the mesh surface and front mesh surface are woven. Fisher explains that the various surfaces of the front and rear end parts are made of netted material which allows the scalp and hair to breathe there-under, where “many combinations, shapes, fabric types and weights of these portions are deemed to be within the scope of the present invention” (Refer to paragraphs 0099 and 0100). It is well-known and conventional in the art for such netted materials to be woven, as demonstrated by Nakajima et al. (Refer to paragraph 0002 “Such wig base is generally made of cloth in which a synthetic fiber is woven into a mesh”). 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 wig headgear of Fisher such that the mesh surface, front mesh surface and rear mesh surface be woven as Nakajima et al. demonstrate it is well-known and conventional for such net/mesh materials in wigs to be woven.
The claimed phrase “hand-woven” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is the weaving process is performed by hand rather than by a machine. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 USC 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. MPEP 2113. The combination of Fisher and Nakajima et al. provide the woven structure, which is the same or similar whether performed by hand or by a machine; thus, there is no structural difference.
Regarding claim 4, Fisher as evidenced by Nakajima disclose the wig headgear of claim 3 above, Fisher further discloses the zipper passes through a joint (connection portion Refer to Figures 1A-9) of the front end part and the rear end part, and the front end part and the rear end part are detachably connected by the zipper (Refer to Figures 1A-9).
Regarding claim 5, Fisher as evidenced by Nakajima disclose the wig headgear of claim 4 above, Fisher further discloses two sides (132,134, 532,534) of the zipper are fastened to the front end part and the rear end part, respectively (Refer to Figures 1A-1C and 5A-5C).
Regarding claim 6, Fisher as evidenced by Nakajima disclose the wig headgear of claim 5 above, wherein the rear end part comprises a rear woven mesh surface (122,522, per rejection of claims 2 and 3, the rear mesh surface was also modified to be woven); the hand-woven mesh surface, the front woven mesh surface, and the rear woven mesh surface all adopt a soft mesh structure.
Regarding claim 7, Fisher as evidenced by Nakajima disclose the wig headgear of claim 6 above, wherein a bottom end of the hand-woven mesh surface extends out of two ends of the zipper. As best shown in Figures 1A-1C and 5A-5C, the woven mesh surface 112, 512 extends beyond the ends of the zipper.
Regarding claim 8, Fisher as evidenced by Nakajima disclose the wig headgear of claim 6 above, wherein the two ends of the zipper are aligned with a bottom edge of the rear woven mesh surface (Refer to Figures 5A-5C).
Conclusion
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, 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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799