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 Invention I (method of producing a wig), claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 3/16/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention (wig), there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings are of poor quality and fail to clearly depict the structures of the invention.
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 transitional area and “trimming” thereof and the second elastic lace net being “unshaped” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. If the disclosure lacks adequate support for the position/location of the transitional area, it is suggested Applicant remove this limitation from the claims as amending of the drawings will introduce new matter when adequate written support is not provided.
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
Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, “hand-tied” should be replaced with “hand-tying”. In claim 9, there us a space after fiber and before the comma, where this space requires deletion. Appropriate 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 1-10 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.
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). It is unclear what is meant by the term “trimming” in claim 1. The drawings do not depict a trimming step as claimed and the disclosure appears to include steps such as crocheting and combing under “trimming” which goes against the conventional meaning of the term, which means to cut.
Claim 2 states the hair bundles are formed by converging multiple hair strand but also recites a step of passing a root of the hair bundles through the simulated scalp. If the hair bundles include multiple hair strands, each strand would have a root portion; as a result, a hair bundle would not have “a root” (singular). It is unclear what is intended by this language, that is, are individual strands being passed through the simulated scalp or are various hair strands together (a bundle or tuft of hair) being passed through at the same time in one location.
Claim 3 recites “using a wide-toothed comb” where the term “wide-toothed” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wide-toothed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. One person may consider a comb to be wide-toothed while someone else may consider the same comb not to be wide-toothed. There is no standard definition or requirement for wide-toothed.
Claim 4 recites “pruning the roots of the hair bundles again to the predetermined length”, where use of the term “again” implies this step has already occurred and is being repeated; however, a pruning step is not previously recited. Thus, the claim is indefinite.
Regarding claim 6, the term "significantly" renders the claim indefinite because the term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what would constitute a significant difference in thickness.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the mating surface" in lines 4, 5 and 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites a step of “placing it in an oven for baking” followed by a step which recites “after baking, reapplying adhesive”. As the claim does not require a baking step, use of “after baking” renders the claim indefinite. It is suggested Applicant amend the claim to require a baking step (e.g. placing it in an oven and baking it).
Claim 7 recites “a mesh layer” where it is unclear if this layer is the same or different from the elastic mesh recited in claim 2.
Claim 7 recites a step of “allowing the attached mesh layer on the simulated scalp to air dry naturally”, where “allowing” means “to fail to restrain or prevent; to permit”. It is unclear if the claim is requiring air drying occur or if the claim is simply requiring the layer be permitted/allowed to air dry (e.g. ambient conditions may not permit air drying to occur but the user/person is not actively preventing air drying from occurring). It is suggested Applicant amend claim 7 to recite a step of air drying the adhesive applied to the mesh layer.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the frontal part" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 10, it is unclear if the first elastic lace net is the same or different from the first region of the elastic wig cap or the second region of the elastic wig cap, recited in claim 1. It is unclear if the second elastic lace net is the same or different from the first region of the elastic wig cap or the second region of the elastic wig cap, recited in claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear if the recitation of the first elastic lace net and second elastic lace net being stitched together is the same or different from the step of stitching and securing recited in claim 1.
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 1, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 20210177079) and Kim et al. (US 20170079355).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al. disclose a method for producing wig, comprising: preparing a first wig component (weft(s), Refer to paragraphs 0028 and 0037); dividing an elastic wig cap into a first region (105,205) and a second region (110,210); stitching and securing the first wig component to the first region of the elastic wig cap (wefts are sewn or crocheted to the first region, Refer to paragraph 0028); hand-tied a second wig component (individual artificial hairs 115) on the second region of the elastic wig cap (Refer to paragraph 0022). However, Kim is silent regarding the first wig component (wefts) being obtained through a machine hair implantation process and trimming a transitional area between the first region and the second region to generate a wig.
Although Kim does not explicitly state the first wig component (wefts) are obtained through a machine hair implantation process, it is well-known and conventional in the art to create wig components/wefts via a machine hair implantation process (see cited prior art in Conclusion). Given this is standard practice, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to form the first wig component via a machine hair implantation process.
Kim depicts second region (110) extending anteriorly beyond a natural hairline (Refer to Figures 1 and 2) and explains that this region may extend around the entire circumference of the wig cap (Refer to paragraph 0026), where areas of the perimeter defined by the second region that are close to the first region form a transitional area between the first and second regions. It is well-known and conventional in the art to trim such perimeter/transitional regions of wig caps such that the size corresponds to a user’s hairline as demonstrated by Kim et al. (Refer to paragraphs 0020 and 0092). Kim et al. ‘355 explain that wig cap has various regions including a first region (back and/or side regions) and a second region (front region) where a transitional area between the first and second regions are trimmed as need to form an open parting area and/or to follow the hairline of the user (Refer to paragraphs 0020, 0055-0056 and 0092 and Figures 2E-2G and 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio to modify the method of Kim et al. to include the step of trimming a transitional area between the first and second regions as taught by Kim et al. ‘355 in order to create a natural looking part and/or a hairline which matches that of the user.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kim et al. and Kim et al. ‘355 disclose the method of claim 1 above, where the first wig component is stitched and secured to the elastic wig cap; however, the combination does not disclose a transparent thread is used to create the stitch. It is understood that when stitching or sewing pieces of material together thread is used and it is well-known and conventional in the art to use transparent thread such as fishing line or nylon thread, in wigs for concealment purposes as demonstrated by Kim et al. ‘355 (Refer to paragraph 0056). 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 method of the combination of Kim et al. and Kim et al. ‘355 such that the thread used to stitch the first wig component to the elastic wig cap be a transparent thread such as nylon thread or fishing line as Kim et al. ‘355 demonstrate it is well-known and conventional in the art to use such transparent threads.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kim et al. and Kim et al. ‘355 disclose the method of claim 1 above, where Kim et al. further disclose a frontal part of the elastic wig cap is a curved first elastic lace net (front portion of 110,105,210,205 Refer to paragraphs 0023 and 0027, and Figures 2 and 4), and the remaining part (rear portion of 105,205) of the elastic wig cap is an unshaped second elastic lace net (the remaining part has the same or similar “unshaped” configuration as Applicant’s invention, Refer to Applicant’s Figure 9 where 22 is the second elastic net, and Figures 1-3 and 5 of Kim et al.), wherein the first elastic lace net and the second elastic lace net are stitched together (seams 120, 230). However, the combination does not disclose a transparent thread is used to create the stitch. It is understood that when stitching or sewing pieces of material together thread is used and it is well-known and conventional in the art to use transparent thread such as fishing line or nylon thread, in wigs for concealment purposes as demonstrated by Kim et al. ‘355 (Refer to paragraph 0056). 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 method of the combination of Kim et al. and Kim et al. ‘355 such that the thread used to stitch the lace nets together be a transparent thread such as nylon thread or fishing line as Kim et al. ‘355 demonstrate it is well-known and conventional in the art to use such transparent threads.
Claims 2, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim et al. and Kim et al. ‘355 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koehler (NO 124350B).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kim et al. and Kim et al. ‘355 disclose the he method of claim 1 above, where hair implantation machine is used to pass roots of hairs through a simulated scalp portion (base/support) of the weft; however, the combination does not disclose the step of preparing a first wig component obtained through a machine hair implantation process comprises: fixing hair bundles with a clamp; wherein the hair bundles are formed by converging multiple hair strands; creating a simulated scalp consists of a layered arrangement of a first scalp layer, a second scalp layer, and an elastic mesh; wherein the roots of the hair bundles emerge from the first scalp layer of the simulated scalp, while the ends of the hair bundles are positioned on the outer side of the elastic mesh; removing the first scalp layer of the simulated scalp; adhering and securing the roots of the hair bundles onto the second scalp layer to generate the first wig component.
Kim et al. explain the first wig component may be in the form of wefts which are small hair pieces often provided as strips. Kim et al. is silent regarding how the wefts are made. Koehler, published in 1972, outlines a method of making a hair piece where a simulated scalp is created, the simulated scalp having a layered arrangement which includes a mesh layer (61), a first scalp layer (PVC layer 53 or 53,52) and a second scalp layer (polyurethane coating layer 62,64), where roots of the hairs are inserted through the simulated scalp such that ends of the hair bundles are on the outer side of the mesh and roots emerge from the first scalp layer. The first scalp layer is removed and an adhesive resin is applied to secure the roots to the second scalp layer and to the mesh layer (Refer to Abstract and Figures 5-8). Although Koehler is silent regarding the mesh being elastic and how the hair bundles are arranged prior to implantation, it is well known and conventional for such meshes to be made of elastic or inelastic material and for the hair bundles (converging strands of hair) to be fixed with a clamp.
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 method of the combination of Kim et al. and Kim et al. ‘355, such that the step of preparing the first wig component include creating a simulated scalp having a mesh layer, a first scalp layer of PVC and a second scalp layer or polyurethane, where the hair implantation machine passes roots of the hair strands through the simulated scalp such that the roots emerge from the first scalp layer and the ends are on the outside of the mesh, removing the first scalp layer and adhering and securing the roots to the second scalp layer and the mesh, as Koehler demonstrates these steps are conventional in the creation of hair wefts/pieces. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Kim et al., Kim et al. ‘355, and Koehler such that the mesh be made of an elastic material and for the hair to be provided fixed with a clamp, 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, and it is conventional to provide clamped bundles of hair when constructing hair pieces so that the hairs are organized and easily accessible.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kim et al., Kim et al. ‘355 and Koehler disclose the method of claim 2 above, wherein the first scalp layer is a simulated scalp made of PVC material, and the second scalp layer is a simulated scalp made of PU material, with the second scalp layer significantly thinner than the first scalp layer. As explained in the rejection of claim 2 above, where Koehler was relied upon, the first scalp layer is made of PVC, where the drawings depict it as thicker than the second scalp layer which is a polyurethane coating layer.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kim et al., Kim et al. ‘355 and Koehler disclose the method of claim 2 above, wherein Kim et al. further disclose the hair strands are made of synthetic fiber or human hair (Refer to paragraph 0021).
Claims 3, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kim et al., Kim et al. ‘355 and Koehler as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hong (KR 102084184 B1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kim et al., Kim et al. ‘355 and Koehler disclose the method of claim 2; however, the combination does not disclose before the step of removing the first scalp layer of the simulated scalp, the method further comprises: using a wide-toothed comb to arrange the roots of the hair bundles on the first surface of the simulated scalp; pruning the roots of the hair bundles to a predetermined length. Although the method of the combination of Kim et al., Kim et al. ‘355 and Koehler does not explicitly disclose a step of combing the hair, it is well-known and conventional in the art to comb the hair of a wig during different phases of manufacture; for this reason, it would have been obvious to modify the method to include the step of combing the roots of the hair bundles as claimed. Hong discloses a method of manufacturing a wig where the roots of the wig protruding through the base are cut/pruned to a predetermined length using a cutting machine (Refer to Figures 4 and 11) prior to application of adhesive (Refer to the last paragraph on page 3 and the first three paragraphs of page 4). 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 method of the combination of Kim et al., Kim et al. ‘355 and Koehler to include a step of pruning the roots of the hair bundles to a predetermined length as claimed as Hong demonstrates this is a well-known and conventional step in manufacturing wigs which results in smaller root portion protruding beyond the supporting material.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kim et al., Kim et al. ‘355 and Koehler disclose the method of claim 2; however, the combination does not disclose before the step of adhering and securing the roots of the hair bundles onto the second scalp layer, the method further comprises: pruning the roots of the hair bundles to the predetermined length; wherein the predetermined length is the length at which the hair strands protrude from the second scalp layer. Hong discloses a method of manufacturing a wig where the roots of the wig protruding through the base are cut/pruned to a predetermined length using a cutting machine (Refer to Figures 4 and 11) prior to application of adhesive (Refer to the last paragraph on page 3 and the first three paragraphs of page 4). 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 method of the combination of Kim et al., Kim et al. ‘355 and Koehler to include a step of pruning the roots of the hair bundles to a predetermined length prior to adhering and securing the roots as claimed as Hong demonstrates this is a well-known and conventional step in manufacturing wigs which results in smaller root portion protruding beyond the supporting material.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kim et al., Kim et al. ‘355, Koehler and Hong disclose the method of claim 4 above. Although the combination does not explicitly disclose the predetermined length being 2mm, the combination does disclose the general conditions of the claim, where the predetermined length is small to ensure comfort and appropriate adhesion. 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 method of combination of Kim et al., Kim et al. ‘355, Koehler and Hong such that the predetermined length be 2mm, 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 involves only routine skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following patent publications demonstrate it is well-known and conventional to form wig components via a machine hair implantation process: US 3882804, US 4570559, and GB 301272A.
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