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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11/5/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-18 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/5/2025.
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 1-9 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.
Claims 1-9 are invalid under 35 USC 112(b), since a claim which purports to be both product and process of manufacture is ambiguous and therefore does not particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention. Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (1990).
Claim 1, states the method steps “planting net is manufactured as a wig fabric”; “a certain shape prepared in advance”. Claim 2, states “to manufacture a braid”; Claim 3 states “a crochet method”; Claim 4 states “to manufacture a braid”; claim 5 states “adjusting tension on the planting net”; Claim 6 states “adjusting a speed and a frequency at which the wig fibers are knotted together with the tension”; Claim 9 states “the loop pattern is formed when the tension applied to the planting net is applied near a greatest slope of a load-strain curve and the tension ranges from 20 N to 50 N”.
Claim 1 states “a certain shape” it is unclear as to what applicant is referring to with the language a “certain shape”. The meets and bounds of the claim cannot be demined since it is unclear what a certain shape encompasses.
Claim 4, states “prepared wig fibers are connected to wig fiber strands” it is unclear if applicant is setting forth separate and distinct wig fibers or if the wig fiber and wig fiber strands are the same fibers braided together.
Claim 5, “the planning net” it is unclear which planting net the claim is referring too, “the plurality of planting nets”, “the front planting net”, “one pair of side planting nets”, or “the rear planting net”. It will be examined as “the front planting net”.
Claim 8, “according to a wig design” it is unclear what applicant is referring to as “a wig design”. The meets and bounds of the claim cannot be demined since it is unclear what a wig design encompasses.
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.
Claims 5, 6, and 9 are 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. Claims 5, 6, and 9 recite method steps that do not further limit the product. 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 § 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(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cheong (US 12,098,490).
Cheong discloses a wig comprising a planting net (1) divided into a plurality of planting nets (Fig. 2), the planting net comprising a front planting net, one pair of side planting nets, and a rear planting net, wherein the front planting net is manufactured as a wig fabric by knotting wig fibers to the front planting net (col. 3,lines 60-65), a loop pattern with a certain shape prepared in advance is provided as a plurality of portions on the one pair of side planting nets and the rear planting net (co. 3, lines 3-15), and an ornamental hairpiece in a certain shape is connected to the loop pattern (col. 3,lines 10-15), and the front planting net, the one pair of side planting nets, and the rear planting net are sewn together (col. 3, lines 44-60).
PNG
media_image1.png
630
1000
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, wherein the wig fibers knotted to the front planting net are braided together to manufacture a braid (col. 3, lines 59-63; claim 3).
Regarding claim 3, wherein in at least one of the one pair of side planting nets and the rear planting net, a pre-manufactured braid is connected to the loop pattern with the certain shape in a crochet method (col. 3, lines 59-63).
Regarding claim 4, wherein in at least one of the one pair of side planting nets and the rear planting net, prepared wig fibers are connected to wig fiber strands drawn from the loop pattern with the certain shape to manufacture a braid (col. 3, lines 59-65; claims 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, wherein when wig fibers are knotted to the planting net, the loop pattern is formed by adjusting tension on the planting net (performed by embroidery machine col. 3, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the loop pattern is formed by adjusting a speed and a frequency at which the wig fibers are knotted together with the tension. Regarding the limitation of adjusting the speed and frequency the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this instance case, a loop pattern is formed with wig fibers knotted together.
Regarding claim 7, wherein a breathable net is provided at a portion where the sewn planting nets contact a user's head (col. 3, lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 8, wherein a separation (i.e. gaps) interval between the plurality of portions where the loop pattern is provided is set to vary according to a wig design and wig fibers are planted even in the separation interval to create a natural look (col. 4, lines 1-10).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the loop pattern is formed when the tension applied to the planting net is applied near a greatest slope of a load-strain curve, and the tension ranges from 20 N to 50 N. Regarding the limitation of adjusting the tension the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this instance case, a loop pattern is formed with wig fibers knotted together.
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, 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.
/RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
6/11/2026
Prosecution Insights