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Claims 20 and 21 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/28/2025.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11/28/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because with respect to Groups I and II, Applicant argues that the claims are commensurate in scope because both are directed to hair pieces and fall under related CPC subclasses. However, restriction is not based solely on CPC placement, but on whether the claimed inventions are independent or distinct and whether examination would impose a serious search and examination burden. While both groups may relate generally to hair pieces, the claims of Group I are directed to a hair extension, whereas the claims of Group II recite additional method steps including moving and bending each hair piece, which introduces materially different features and modes of use. These differences reasonably require distinct searches in different technological areas relating to fastening mechanisms versus standalone hair extensions. Applicant’s reliance on the fact that subclasses A41G5/004 and A41G5/0053 are related or indented does not negate the Examiner’s determination that the claimed subject matter requires separate searches.
Applicant’s argument that the claims exclude doll-related applications is likewise unpersuasive. The Examiner’s rationale does not rely on classification in A63H3/44 or on an assertion that the claims are directed to dolls, but rather on the fact that the claimed processes and structures are broad enough to encompass materially different implementations, which supports the conclusion that the groups are distinct for restriction purposes.
With respect to Groups I and III, Applicant argues that the Examiner’s reliance on a materially different manufacturing process (e.g., sewing) is unsupported. This argument is not persuasive. The restriction requirement does not depend on whether a particular process is explicitly described in the specification, but on whether the claimed apparatus can reasonably be made by materially different processes. Group III is directed to claims emphasizing manufacturing or assembly features that differ from the apparatus-focused claims of Group I. These differences require searching different bodies of prior art, including art related to manufacturing techniques, thereby creating a serious search burden. The presence of some overlapping limitations between claims does not render the groups commensurate in scope.
Finally, for Groups II and III, Applicant’s arguments rely primarily on the same reasoning addressed above. For the same reasons, these arguments are not persuasive. The claims of Groups II and III recite distinct combinations of structural and manufacturing limitations that necessitate separate searches and examinations.
Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that the claimed inventions are independent and distinct, and that examination of all groups together would impose a serious search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “10, 12” has been used to designate both hair weft, hair piece, weft, and fixture see paragraphs 44 and 46 of specification. 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. 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.
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, a headband which extends ear to ear (claim 6) 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 § 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 7 and 16 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.
Regarding claim 7, the phrase "rubber-like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 16, states “each comprise a metal piece with teeth that encloses around a hair piece and a filament”; applicant’s drawings fail to show a metal piece with teeth. It is unclear if this element is not shown or an additional clip/comb element. Clarification is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 2, does not add any structural limitation further defining the hair extension accessory. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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(s) 1-17, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz (DE 20 2016002 942 U1) in view of Durand (US 2020/0245706).
Lorenz discloses a hair extension accessory for a user comprising at least one filament (7) in the form of a loop or in the form of a portion of a circular shape; two or more hair pieces (2.1; 2.2) in the form of hair locks, hair twists, hair wefts and/or dreadlocks; and wherein each hair piece can be moved on at least one filament and bent into a position that is desired for purposes of providing more hair coverage, better undetectability, fuller coverage, longer coverage, and/or more color, the position comprising a position on the top of the head from ear to ear, the sides of the head from ear to ear, the front of the head from ear to ear, and/or the lower back of the head (see Figure 1). Lorenz does not disclose the hair pieces comprising two or more attachment fixtures; wherein each attachment fixture attaches in a moveable and bendable manner a hair piece to at least one filament without the use of glue, clipping onto existing hair, or sewing onto existing hair. Durand teaches a hair piece (20) having the hair (21) attached with two or more attachment fixtures (23) (Fig. 2) to allow for sliding of the hair extension along the track to provide coverage as desired by the user (paragraph 8-9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the hair piece of Lorenz be made with attachment fixtures as taught by Durand to allow the hair piece to move along the track to provide the desired coverage by the user.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Lorenz and Durand disclose the use of the hair extension accessory does not cause hair thinning and/or baldness. For example, Lorenz sits on top of the user’s head, therefore, not interfering with the user’s natural hair growth.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lorenz and Durand disclose wherein the hair extension accessory can be used to match a color, style, or type of hair, including fine hair, dreadlocks, afro hair styles, and/or short or long curly hair styles (see Fig. 1 of Lorenz).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lorenz and Durand disclose the at least one filament is clear, transparent, skin-toned, and/or the color of the user’s hair (Lorenz translation paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lorenz and Durand disclose the at least one filament is made of plastic, cloth, metal and/or natural material or fiber, and is in the form of a line, thread or a headband (see Lorenz Fig. 1; translation paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Lorenz and Durand disclose the at least one filament (7) in the form of a portion of a circle is in the shape of a headband which extends from ear to ear and does not encircle the entire user’s head (see Lorenz Fig. 1)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lorenz and Durand disclose the at least one filament (7) in the form of a portion of a circle comprises semi-bendable material such as rubber, rubber-like material, and/or plastic (see Lorenz Fig. 1; translation paragraph 15).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lorenz and Durand disclose the at least one filament comprises two or more filaments (2.1, 2.2, 2.3) (Lorenz Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lorenz and Durand disclose the at least one filament comprises two to four filaments (2.1, 2.2, 2.3) (Lorenz Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lorenz and Durand disclose the two or more filaments are bonded together to position each band in a different location of the user’s head to provide desired coverage (Lorenz Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lorenz and Durand disclose the at least one filament is in the form of a loop that has two ends that are connected to one another with a hook and eye, a snap closure, or the ends are bonded or otherwise joined together to close the loop (see Figure 1; Lorenz).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lorenz and Durand disclose wherein the at least one filament in the form of a loop is stretchable and it provides a snug and secure fit on the user’s head (Fig. 1; Lorenz)
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lorenz and Durand disclose wherein the attachment fixtures each comprise threads, rings, and/or bendable wires (23) (Durand; paragraph 27).
Regarding claims 14-16, the combination of Lorenz and Durand disclose the attachment fixture is made from threads and not bendable wires. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the strings of the combination of Lorenz and Durand be made from bendable wire, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. Regarding claim 16, Lorenz discloses a clip member (5); one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize a hair clip made with teeth to engage and lock the user’s hair for attachment purposes.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Lorenz and Durand disclose the claimed invention except for each hair piece is a hair weft that is from about 1 to about 6 inches wide and is of any length needed by the user. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the parameters of the hair weft to be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. In this instance case, Lorenz teaches a hair piece that fits on the user’s head so known head weft widths would be within the skill of one of ordinary in the art.
Regarding claim 22, Lorenz discloses at least one filament (7) in the shape of a loop or in the shape of a portion of a circle, wherein the at least one filament is clear, transparent, skin-toned, and/or the color of the user’s hair, (translation paragraph 15) and wherein the at least one filament is made of plastic, cloth, metal and/or natural material or fiber, and is in the form of a line, thread or a headband (translation paragraph 15);
two or more hair pieces in the form of hair locks, hair twists, hair wefts and/or dreadlocks (2.1, 2.2, 2.3);
wherein the use of the hair attachment accessory does not cause hair thinning and/or baldness (i.e. Lorenz sits on top of the user’s head not interfering with the user’s hair);
wherein the hair attachment accessory can be used to match a color, style, or type of hair, including fine hair, dreadlocks, afro hair styles, and/or short or long curly hair styles (see Fig. 1); and
wherein each hair piece is bendable by the user to provide coverage over a selected area of the head (Fig. 1).
Lorenz does not disclose two or more attachment fixtures, wherein each attachment fixture attaches a hair piece to at least one filament without the use of glue, clipping onto existing hair, or sewing onto existing hair; wherein each hair piece can be moved on at least one filament to a position that is desired for purposes of providing more hair coverage, fuller coverage, longer coverage, and/or more color, the position including a position on the top of the head from ear to ear, the sides of the head from ear to ear, the front of the head from ear to ear, and the lower back of the head. Durand teaches a hair piece (20) having the hair (21) attached with two or more attachment fixtures (23) (Fig. 2) to allow for sliding of the hair extension along the track to provide coverage as desired by the user (paragraph 8-9). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the hair piece of Lorenz be made with attachment fixtures as taught by Durand to allow the hair piece to move along the track to provide the desired coverage by the user.
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lorenz (DE 20 2016002 942 U1) in view of Durand (US 2020/0245706) as applied to claims 1-17 above, and further in view of Oppenheim (US 1,638,016).
Lorenz and Durand disclose the claimed invention except for at least one hair piece is attached to more than one filament and at least one hair piece is a hair weft construed with wire that holds the natural hair together in the hair weft. Oppenheim teaches at least one hair piece that is attached to more than one filament (Fig. 3; multiple cross bands to create fullness) and at least one hair piece is a hair weft construed with wire (10) that holds the natural hair together in the hair weft (see Figures 1-3; col. 2, lines 85-90). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the hair piece of Lorenz and Durand contain hair pieces attached to multiple filaments as taught by Oppenheim to allow for more fullness and it further would have been obvious to have the hair weft be constructed with wire as taught by Oppenheim to allow for the wire to hold and attach to the user’s hair.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL RUNNING STEITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm EST.
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.
/RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772