DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The proposed amendment to the specification is objected to because it remains improper. As outlined in the non-final rejection: The only appendices allowed in a patent application specification are computer program listings, sequence listings, and tables. Applicant’s attempt to incorporate by reference a series of text files is improper and objected to.
The original objection is repeated: It is noted that applicant filed approximately 105 pages and a series of text files labeled “Appendix to Specification”; however, this is improper. The only appendices allowed in a patent application specification are computer program listings, sequence listings, and tables.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant is respectfully reminded of their duty to disclose all relevant prior filed patent applications and any patent references cited therein in a proper Information Disclosure Statement. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
It is noted applicant has prior filed application 15464482, which discloses another hair clip very similar to the currently claimed clip, yet no such reference is disclosed by applicant on an IDS.
Drawings
The replacement figures were received on 4/30/26; these drawings overcome the previous objection(s).
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: line 9, replace “based” with ---base---.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 8, 11-13 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1: this claim has been amended to recite “the locking bar is connected to the clip body with a plurality of fastening devices”; however, the claim has been amended to require the clip body includes the locking bar so how can the locking bar be attached to itself? For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as reciting “the locking bar is connected to the U-shaped base member with a plurality of fastening devices”. Additionally, the last lines of this claim were amended to recite “wherein the clip interface is configured to selectively interact with another hair clip, a hair extension, a fabric, a hair accessory, or a human scalp”; however, what additional structure is this language supposed to add to the already recited “clip interface comprising at least one of a magnet, adhesive, fabric, tape, or hook and loop fastener”? Furthermore, how does a fabric selectively interact with another fabric as applicant is now attempting to claim? These limitations are confusing and unclear. For examination purposes, the claim will be treated as omitting the “configured to” language as it is unclear what structure, if any, it is meant to add to the “interface” seemingly none? Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 2: recites “wherein the plurality of legs includes four legs”; however, claim 1 was amended to require “the plurality of legs includes two center legs that are longer than outer legs”. So how many total legs are being claimed? Are the four legs including the two center legs or are these in addition to the center and the outer legs now required by claim 1? Clarification or correction is requested.
Claim 8: recites “wherein the magnets configured to interface with ferromagnetic materials”; however, this language is confusing and unclear because claim 1 already requires a “clip interface” and language about this interface “interacting” with additional materials. Claim 8 then does not clearly tie these materials to the interface of claim 1 making it unclear if the interface is “the magnets” being referenced or something else. In other words, is this claim requiring the interface is a plurality of magnets or is it claiming the interface of claim 1 in addition to a plurality of magnets? This creates a host of issues because even if the claim were treated as reciting “wherein the at least one magnet is configured to interface with ferromagnetic materials” this is not further limiting because this is the definition of a magnetic material. Clarification or correction is requested.
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(s) 3 is/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.
Claim 3: this claim repeats limitations now amended into the last lines of claim 1, so it is not further limiting.
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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-5, 8, and 11-13, as best understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 2016015843) in view of Umezu (US 8361804).
Claims 1-5 and 11: Kim discloses a spring/elastic [0004 & 0038] style type hair clip (see Figs 1-2) comprising: a clip body including: a U-shaped base member (210+200); a plurality of legs (220) attached to a bottom of the U-shaped base member (see Figs 1-2); a plurality of holes (201 & 202) positioned about a perimeter of the U-shaped base member; a locking bar (10) including a plurality of holes (101 & 102 & 103) and the plurality of locking bar holes are aligned with the plurality of base member holes and the locking bar is connected to the base member with a plurality of eyelets or reinforced eyelets (202 & 203 – note these are enlarged, which the office interprets as illustrated to be “reinforced”) through the plurality of holes of the base member and locking bar (see Figs 1-2). The locking bar includes a slot (112, see Figs 2 & 5) perpendicular to the direction of the plurality of legs (at least four), configured to help improve grip and keep the clip body in place in a user’s hair (see Figs 1-2). A rubber [0046] sleeve (111) is slidably and removably (because anything is removable with enough force) mounted over the locking bar and placed on the locking bar (see Figs 1-2). Rubber [0046] is a known elastomer. The clip has an open and a closed position for being secured to a user’s hair. The clip further comprises a clip interface (B, Fig 3) on a surface of the clip body and the clip interface “interacts with” a hair extension (see Fig 3). The plurality of legs are illustrated to all have a same length (see Figs 1-3). Kim discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for more than one perpendicular slot and the plurality of legs including at least two center legs that are longer than at least two adjacent shorter outer legs. The legs are bent and “bendable” [0038] and include spring action to hold the hair [0038-0039]. The plurality of legs include a bent region (see Figs 1-3).
Kim discloses the locking bar including a singular perpendicular slot; however, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the filing to modify the hair clip of Kim to include two perpendicular slots instead of one on the locking bar of the hair clip, which would result in the slots being parallel to each other, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B). Modified Kim discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for the plurality of legs including at least two center legs that are longer than at least two adjacent shorter outer legs.
Umezu, however, teaches the same type of spring style hair clip with a U-shaped body member and a perpendicular locking bar; a plurality of legs (20) extending from a bottom of the U-shaped body (see Figs 2-3 & 6-7). In one embodiment, the plurality of legs have a same length (see Figs 2-3) and in another embodiment the plurality of legs includes two center legs that are longer than at least two shorter outer legs (see annotations) and all the legs engage with the hair to hold the clip in place. In other words, Umezu teaches it to be an obvious matter of design choice to make the plurality of legs of a same length or to provide longer central legs and shorter outer legs as a matter of design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing (or the time of invention if Pre-AIA ) to modify the hair clip of modified Kim by providing the plurality of legs including at least two center legs that are longer than at least two adjacent shorter outer legs in view of Umezu since Umezu teaches this to be an obvious matter of design choice known in the art and used in these type of hair clips.
PNG
media_image1.png
347
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 8: magnets in claim 1 are optional; Kim discloses the interface being a fabric and so also teaches these limitations so they are only required if the interface is a magnet. The claim optionally requires a magnet; so since the claim does not actually require a magnet, teaching an interface of fabric that is another option over a magnet in claim 1 obviates the additional limitations required by claim 8. So modified Kim teaches these limitations because magnets are optional as the interface.
Claims 12-13: Modified Kim discloses the invention essentially as claimed except for stating explicitly that the spring clip is made of metal. Umezu, however, teaches making these types of spring clips from metal (Col 5, 25-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the of filing to modify the hair clip of modified Kim by providing the hair clip of metal as taught by Umezu to be known in the art, since it has been held by the courts that selection of a prior art material on the basis of its suitability for its intended purpose is within the level of ordinary skill. See MPEP 2144.07.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/30/26 have been considered but are moot because the new claim amendments have required a modified rejection as presented above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Gill whose telephone number is (571)270-1797. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JENNIFER GILL/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/NICHOLAS D LUCCHESI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
