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 of Invention I, Species B, and Subspecies L2 (claims 1-10 and Figs. 9-13b) without traverse in the reply filed on 15 January 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 11-19 have been withdrawn by then Examiner as being drawn to non-elected Invention II, there being no allowable generic of linking claim.
Accordingly, claims 1-19 are pending in the application and an action on the merits follows regarding claims 1-10.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
“30” in Fig. 10.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because the following reference characters have been used to designate the same structure:
“10” and “22” for “hair extension mount”.
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 “hair extension attachment” 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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
¶0006 should recite, “The first piece can comprise an inner diameter on its open end wherein the inner diameter , and can have at least one locking groove.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. In the instant case, the Abstract begins with, “The patent application pertains to” which is improper. Further, the Examiner notes that in light of the Response to Election/Restriction filed on 12 January 2026, the method has been withdrawn and thus the invention relates to a product only.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1-3, 6, and 10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 3-4, should recite, “a first piece having an open end and a closed end, wherein the closed end has a hair extension attachment”.
Claim 2, lines 1-3, should recite, “wherein the first piece comprises an inner diameter on [[its]] the open end, and wherein the inner diameter comprises at least one groove[[,]] and at least one locking groove”.
Claim 3, line 2, should recite, “wherein the second piece comprises a channel”.
Claim 6, lines 1-2, should recite, “wherein the first piece and the second piece [[is]]are manufactured from plastic, metal, or carbon”.
Claim 10, lines 1-3, should recite, “wherein the loop is a d-loop, ring, or split steel ring; wherein the at least one hair extension is attached to a D-ring having a straight section and wherein the straight section of the D-ring passes through [[the]]a mount hole”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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) 1-2, 6, and 10 (and claims 3-5 and 7-9 at least for depending from a rejected claim) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites the limitation, “a second piece having a substantially cylindrical core.” It is unclear how one having ordinary skill in the art can ascertain how much the second piece’s cylindrical core can deviate from being cylindrical to be considered “substantially cylindrical”.
Claim 1 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “A hair extension mount that attaches to a head covering, the hair extension mount comprising: a first piece having an open end and a closed end wherein the closed end has a hair extension attachment”. It is unclear what structure the “hair extension attachment” is as this is not shown in the Drawings not discussed in sufficient detail in the Specification. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “hair extension attachment” is the same as structure #23 in Fig. 13b of the Applicant’s Drawings.
Claim 2 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “wherein the first piece comprise an inner diameter on its open end wherein the inner diameter comprises at least one groove, and at least one locking groove”. It is unclear if the open end is part of the first piece as previously recited in claim 1, or if this is a new/different structure as “its” is not clear. Further, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation “at least one groove”, and the claim also recites “at least one locking groove” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Further, it is unclear if the “at least one groove” and the “at least one locking groove” are the same or different structures. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “wherein the first piece comprises an inner diameter on [[its]] the open end, and wherein the inner diameter comprises at least one groove[[,]] and at least one locking groove” where the “open end” is the previously recited structure from claim 1, and the “at least one groove” is not the same as the “at least one locking groove”.
Claim 6 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “wherein the first piece and the second piece is manufactured from plastic, metal, or carbon”. It is unclear what material “carbon” is intended to be since “carbon” is an element involved in many chemical processes and material constructions. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as “carbon” being any material that has an organic chemical compound as these all contain carbon.
Claim 10 is/are indefinite as it/they recite(s) “wherein the loop is a d-loop, ring, or split steel ring wherein the at least one hair extension is attached to a D-ring having a straight section and wherein the straight section of the D-ring passes through the mount hole”. It is unclear what structure the mount hole is associated with as there is no “a mount hole” previously recited in the claims, and there are many openings and holes in the immediate invention. Therein the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is being interpreted as, “wherein the loop is a d-loop, ring, or split steel ring, and wherein the at least one hair extension is attached to a D-ring having a straight section, and wherein the straight section of the D-ring passes through [[the]] a mount hole” where the mount hole is attached to the hair extension mount #22 (not hair extension mount #10), as shown in Fig. 13b of the Applicant’s Drawings.
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) 1-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botkus US 20210180642 in view of Rowell US 20170251740.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Botkus discloses an extension mount (Figs. 1A-7C #1) that attaches to a head covering (Figs. 1A-7C #5), the extension mount comprising: a first piece (Figs. 1A-7C #20/21) having an open end (Figs. 1B #21 interior) and a closed end (Fig. 1A #21 #210/top/exterior) wherein the closed end has an extension attachment (Figs. 1A-7C #20); a second piece (Figs. 1A-7C #23) having a substantially cylindrical core (Fig. 7B) with a first end (Figs. 1A-7C #23 top) and a second end (Figs. 1A-7C #23 bottom), with at least one radial extension (Figs. 1A-7C #230) extending from the first end and a base (Figs. 1A-7C #233) on the second end (Figs. 1A-7C) configured to couple to the head covering (Figs. 1A-7C show #232 attaches to the head covering via parts #24/25/26/27/30/31); wherein the open end is configured to accept and encompass the radial extension on the first end (Figs. 1A-7C); and at least one spring (Fig. 1A #22) coupled to the first piece or the second piece (Figs. 1A-7C) such that when the first end is accepted into the open end the spring is situated between the first piece and the second piece to bias the first piece away from the second piece (Figs. 1A-1B; ¶0142-0143).
Botkus does not expressly disclose the mount is specifically for a hair extension and the extension attachment is specifically a hair extension.
Rowell discloses a hair extension mount (Figs. 3A-3B #30) with a hair extension attachment (Figs. 3A-3B #35/36/14)
Both Botkus and Rowell teach analogous inventions in the art of adornments for a human head. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Botkus with the teachings of Rowell such that the mount would be capable of attaching a hair extension in order to provide the proper aesthetic and enable to user to express their personality via the hair extension on the helmet. Further, the mount of Botkus is capable of having a camera and cellphone attached, therefore it would not be unreasonable to attach other devices, such as a bobble or a hair extension. It is also noted that claimed limitations of the hair extension attachment are directed toward ornamentation only which have no functional relationship to the product and will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art (MPEP § 2111.05). See also In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir 1983)
Regarding Claim 2, the modified hair extension mount of Botkus discloses the hair extension mount according to claim 1, wherein the first piece comprise an inner diameter on its open end (Fig. 1B) wherein the inner diameter comprises at least one groove (Fig. 1B #21 interior right groove), and at least one locking groove (Fig. 1B #21 interior left groove).
Regarding Claim 3, the modified hair extension mount of Botkus discloses the hair extension mount according to claim 1, wherein second piece comprises a channel (Fig. 1B #234) formed between the at least one radial extension and the base (Fig. 1B).
Regarding Claim 4, the modified hair extension mount of Botkus discloses the hair extension mount according to claim 1, wherein the at least one spring is coupled to the open end (Figs. 1A-7C).
Regarding Claim 5, the modified hair extension mount of Botkus discloses the hair extension mount according to claim 2, wherein the at least one groove allows the at least one radial extension to enter into the first piece and lock within the at least one locking groove (Figs. 1A-7B; ¶0144-0147).
Regarding Claim 7, the modified hair extension mount of Botkus discloses the hair extension mount according to claim 1, wherein the second end couples to the head covering via a fastener (Figs. 1A-B #31; ¶0144-0145).
Regarding Claim 8, the modified hair extension mount of Botkus discloses the hair extension mount according to claim 1, wherein the head covering is a motorcycle helmet, a bicycle helmet, or a ski helmet (Fig. 1A #5; ¶0135).
Regarding Claim 9, the modified hair extension mount of Botkus discloses the hair extension mount according to claim 1 with the closed end, but does not expressly disclose wherein the closed end has a loop configured to couple to at least one hair extension.
Rowell discloses a hair extension mount (Figs. 3A-3B #30) wherein the closed end (Figs. 3A-3B #23) has a loop (Figs. 3A-3B #24) configured to couple to (Figs. 3A-3B #36) at least one hair extension (Figs. 3A-3B #14).
Both Botkus and Rowell teach analogous inventions in the art of adornments for a human head. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Botkus with the teachings of Rowell such that the mount would have a loop to couple to at least one hair extension in order to provide an easy method of exchanging hair extensions should the user choose to do so and to also allow the hair extensions mobility when the user is moving their head.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botkus and Rowell as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Teetzel US 20190104797.
Regarding Claim 6, the modified hair extension mount of Botkus discloses the hair extension mount according to claim 1, but does not expressly disclose wherein the first piece and the second piece is manufactured from plastic, metal, or carbon.
Teetzel teaches a helmet mount (Figs. 1A-6B #110/150) wherein the first and second pieces (Figs. 1A-6B #160/180) are manufactured from plastic, metal, or carbon (¶0066-0067, 0070-0071).
Both Botkus (as modified by Rowell) and Teetzel teach analogous inventions in the art of headwear with outer attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Botkus (as modified by Rowell) with the teachings of Teetzel such that the first and second pieces would be made of plastic, metal, or carbon so that the two pieces and be cost-effective to produce. Further, 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. See MPEP 2144.07
Claim(s) 1 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Botkus in view of Johnson US 2479239.
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Botkus discloses an extension mount (Figs. 1A-7C #1) that attaches to a head covering (Figs. 1A-7C #5), the extension mount comprising: a first piece (Figs. 1A-7C #20/21) having an open end (Figs. 1B #21 interior) and a closed end (Fig. 1A #21 #210/top/exterior) wherein the closed end has an extension attachment (Figs. 1A-7C #20); a second piece (Figs. 1A-7C #23) having a substantially cylindrical core (Fig. 7B) with a first end (Figs. 1A-7C #23 top) and a second end (Figs. 1A-7C #23 bottom), with at least one radial extension (Figs. 1A-7C #230) extending from the first end and a base (Figs. 1A-7C #233) on the second end (Figs. 1A-7C) configured to couple to the head covering (Figs. 1A-7C show #232 attaches to the head covering via parts #24/25/26/27/30/31); wherein the open end is configured to accept and encompass the radial extension on the first end (Figs. 1A-7C); and at least one spring (Fig. 1A #22) coupled to the first piece or the second piece (Figs. 1A-7C) such that when the first end is accepted into the open end the spring is situated between the first piece and the second piece to bias the first piece away from the second piece (Figs. 1A-1B; ¶0142-0143).
Botkus does not expressly disclose the mount is specifically for a hair extension and the extension attachment is specifically a hair extension.
Johnson discloses a cap with tassel extension (Figs. 1-6) with a hair extension attachment (Figs. 1-6 #21/22/23/24)
Both Botkus and Johnson teach analogous inventions in the art of headwear with outer attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Botkus with the teachings of Johnson such that the mount would be capable of attaching a hair extension in order to provide the proper aesthetic and enable to user to express their personality via the hair extension on the helmet. Further, the mount of Botkus is capable of having a camera and cellphone attached, therefore it would not be unreasonable to attach other devices, such as a bobble or a hair extension. It is also noted that claimed limitations of the hair extension attachment are directed toward ornamentation only which have no functional relationship to the product and will not distinguish the claimed product from the prior art (MPEP § 2111.05). See also In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385-86, 217 USPQ 401,404 (Fed. Cir 1983)
Regarding Claim 9, the modified hair extension mount of Botkus discloses the hair extension mount according to claim 1 with the closed end, but does not expressly disclose wherein the closed end has a loop configured to couple to at least one hair extension.
Johnson discloses a cap with tassel extension (Figs. 1-6) wherein the closed end (Figs. 1-6 #17) has a loop (Figs. 3A-3B #22) configured to couple to (Figs. 3A-3B #36) at least one hair extension (Figs. 3A-3B #21).
Both Botkus and Johnson teach analogous inventions in the art of headwear with outer attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Botkus with the teachings of Johnson such that the mount would have a loop to couple to at least one hair extension in order to provide an easy method of exchanging hair extensions should the user choose to do so and to also allow the hair extensions mobility when the user is moving their head.
Regarding Claim 10, the modified hair extension mount of Botkus discloses the hair extension mount according to claim 9, wherein the loop is a d-loop, ring, or split steel ring (Johnson Figs. 1-6 shows #22 is a ring), but does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one hair extension is attached to a D-ring having a straight section and wherein the straight section of the D-ring passes through the mount hole.
Johnson discloses a cap with tassel extension (Figs. 1-6) wherein the at least one hair extension is attached to a D-ring having a straight section (Fig. 6 #23) and wherein the straight section of the D-ring passes through the mount hole (Col. 3:41-53).
Both Botkus and Johnson teach analogous inventions in the art of headwear with outer attachments. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify Botkus with the teachings of Johnson such that the hair extension would attach to a D-ring and that D-ring would pass through the mount hole so that the hair extension, “is maintained in a self-sustaining position” on the hat (Johnson Col. 4:2-3) while still having movement when the hat is still in use.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Butler US 7234411 teaches a helmet with rear attachment
Pike US 8418266 teaches a hat with hair extension
Morris US D674968 teaches a hair extension for a helmet
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAQUEL M. WEIS whose telephone number is 571-272-6804. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 0800-1700.
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, ALISSA J. TOMPKINS can be reached on 571-272-3425. 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.
/RAQUEL M. WEIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3732
/HEATHER MANGINE, Ph.D./Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3732