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
Claims 2-3 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 09/20/25.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II in the reply filed on 09/20/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the inventions are related and not patentably distinct. Further, the Applicant argues that the apparatus has been designed to enable the method. This is not found persuasive because, as noted in the restriction mailed 8/19/26, the method could be practice with another device not using a cord lock.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
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 “a button and suction cup with hook glued to the adjacent end of the length of lacing" in line 4 of claim 1 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the beads” in line 6 should read “the plurality of beads”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a long-term locking mechanism” and “a short-term locking mechanism” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 is 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 recites the limitation "a button and suction cup with hook glued to the adjacent end of the length of lacing" in line 4 which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the hook is glued to the suction cup and intending to say a button; suction cup; the button and the suction cup have a hook glued on, the hook being attached to the end of the length of lacing or if the hook is just glued to the lacing. The Examiner notes that the claim limitation is being interpreted as a button; suction cup; the button and the suction cup have a hook glued on, the hook being attached to the end of the length of lacing.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the adjacent end" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the braid" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "within easy reach" in line 6 renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what the parameter of an easy reach is since it is subjective to the user.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Villani et al. (US 5967151, hereinafter Villani) in view of Warren (US 20180295970) and Rosenwinkel et al. (US 5558105, hereinafter Rosen Winkel).
Regarding claim 1, Villani discloses a portable locking styling and designing hair beading apparatus (10; figures 1-3) comprising: a needle (12; figure 1) and loop (15; figure 1) formed at one end (figure 1) of a length of lacing (17; figures 1-3) that holds a plurality of beads (18; figures 2-3) while resisting knotting or tangling allowing for pre-design of beaded patterns (17 is disclosed to be plastic and inflexible in column 3, line 60- column 4, line 10); a base (23; figure 1); a cord lock (27; figures 2-3) that slides up and down the length of lacing when engaged (figure 2-3) controls the position of the beads keeping them within easy reach to transfer to the braid (column 4, lines 10-55); a long-term locking mechanism for portability (figures 8-9; column 4, lines 10-55 discloses that the lock may be engaged; The Examiner notes it may be long term when the user decides to stop using the device); a short-term locking mechanism (figures 8-9); for intermittent breaks (figures 8-9; column 5, lines 30-60; The Examiner notes that 47 is an elastic spring that can be compressed or relaxed along the length and the loop, and would functional similar to that in figures 8-9 and the compression around the hair would be the same on the length; the Examiner notes it may be short term when the user decides to continue to use the device and disengaged 41)
Villani does not disclose a button and suction cup with hook glued to the adjacent end of the length of lacing.
Warren discloses a portable styling and designing hair apparatus (figures 1-10) comprising: a loop (3; figure 1); an adjacent lacing (5; figure 1); a button (see illustrated figure 10) and suction cup (see illustrated figure 10; paragraph [0041]) with a hook (11; figure 1 depicts the hook is attached to the suction cup) secured to the adjacent end of the length of lacing (figures 1-10; paragraph [0041]).
PNG
media_image1.png
770
610
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device of Villani to have a button and a suction cup with a hook to allow the device to be attached to a vertical surface.
Rosenwinkel discloses a portable locking styling and designing hair beading apparatus (10; figures 1-4) comprising: a tip (42; figure 1) and loop (40; figure 2), a length of lacing (40; figures 1-4) that holds a plurality of beads (54; figures 2-4), an end (12; figure 1) with hook (50; figure 1) glued to the adjacent end of the length of lacing (column 2, lines 10-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the connection between the hook and the suction cup/button of Villani/Warren to be glued as taught by Rosenwinkel in order to ensure that the suction cup/button are secured to the hook. Additionally, it is known in the art to secure a device by either sewing or gluing, as they are known functionally equivalents.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sydney J Pulvidente whose telephone number is (571)272-8066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m..
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.
/SYDNEY J PULVIDENTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772