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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/19/2026 has been entered.
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 1-17 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 is rejected for the recitation of “vinyl polymer” in line 7. There are several vinyl polymers recited in claim 1 and for clarity Applicant is advised to clearly recite which vinyl polymer. It is believed Applicant intended to recite “aromatic vinyl polymer” and the claim has been examined as such. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horihata et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0171754).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 10-11, Horihata et al. teach a fiber for artificial hair with the fiber comprising a vinyl chloride polymer and an aromatic vinyl polymer (considered to be the vinyl based copolymer) wherein the vinyl chloride polymer is a homopolymer and vinyl chloride based acrylic graft copolymer [Abstract and 0012 and 0028 and Example 2]. The content of the vinyl chloride based acrylic graft copolymer is substantially 0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of a total of the vinyl chloride polymer and vinyl polymer [Example 2]. Horihata et al. teach the fiber shrinks at 120 degrees Celsius 25% [0062]. Given this teachings along with Horihata et al. teaching such a similar fiber made of such similar composition in such similar amounts, the claimed heat shrinkage rate (including as defined in the claim) is necessarily inherent to the fiber of Horihata et al.
Regarding claim 3, a content of the vinyl chloride polymer is in the claimed range and a content of the aromatic vinyl polymer is in the claimed range [claims 2 and 3].
Regarding claims 4-5, the aromatic vinyl polymer has a styrene based compound (styrene) and methacrylonitrile as monomer units [0031].
Regarding claims 6 and 12, a proportion of the monomer units of the styrene based compound is in the claimed range by mass and a proportion of the monomer unit of the (meth)acrylonitrile is in the claimed range by mass on the basis of the entire aromatic vinyl polymer [0032].
Regarding claim 7, Horihata et al. teach a fiber bundle for artificial hair comprising the fiber for artificial hair according to claim 1 [0080]. Further, given the teachings of ‘970 in use of a wig and the artificial fiber for hair and the level of knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the artificial fiber in a bundle which is merely a collection of multiple fibers in order to use the bundle in a wig or other commonly known uses of artificial hair fibers in the art and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Horihata et al. teach the claimed fiber bundle and also teaches further a fiber different from the fiber for artificial hair can be used. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the different fiber in the fiber bundle and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Horihata et al. teach a hair decoration product (wig) comprising the fiber bundle for artificial hair of claim 7 [Abstract and 0012].
Regarding claim 14, Horihata et al. teach the aromatic vinyl polymer has (meth)acrylonitrile as a monomer unit and a proportion of the monomer unit of the (meth)acrylonitrile is in the claimed range by mass on the basis of the entire aromatic vinyl polymer [0032].
Regarding claim 15, Horihata et al. teaches the aromatic polymer has a (meth)acrylonitrile as a monomer unit and a proportion of the monomer unit of the (meth)acrylonitrile is in the claimed range by mass on the basis of the entire aromatic vinyl polymer [0032].
Regarding claims 16-17, the total amount of the monomer unit of the styrene based compound and the monomer unit of the (meth)acrylonitrile is in the claimed range by mass on the basis of the entire aromatic vinyl polymer [0032].
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 7-9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horihata et al. (PG Pub. 2021/0171754).
Regarding claim 7, Given the teachings of ‘970 in use of a wig and the artificial fiber for hair and the level of knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, it would have been more than obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the artificial fiber in a bundle which is merely a collection of multiple fibers in order to use the bundle in a wig or other commonly known uses of artificial hair fibers in the art and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 8, Horihata et al. teach the claimed fiber bundle and also teaches further a fiber different from the fiber for artificial hair can be used. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the different fiber in the fiber bundle and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 9, Horihata et al. teach a hair decoration product (wig) comprising the fiber bundle for artificial hair of claim 7 [Abstract and 0012].
Regarding claim 13, Horihata et al. teach the aromatic vinyl polymer has a styrene based compound as a monomer unit and a proportion of the monomer unit of the styrene based compound is 85% by mass on the basis of the entire aromatic vinyl polymer. It is apparent, however, that the instantly claimed proportion of the monomer unit of the styrene based compound and that taught by Horihata et al. are so close to each other that the fact pattern is similar to the one in In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) or Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed.Cir. 1985) where despite a “slight” difference in the ranges the court held that such a difference did not “render the claims patentable” or, alternatively, that “a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough so that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties”. For example the present claim includes amounts of 85.0001% which would not render a patentable difference.
In light of the case law cited above and given that there is only a “slight” difference between the proportion of the monomer unit of the styrene based compound disclosed by Horihata et al. and the proportion of the monomer unit of the styrene based compound disclosed in the present claims and further given the fact that no criticality is disclosed in the present invention with respect to the proportion of the monomer unit of the styrene based compound, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the proportion of the monomer unit of the styrene based compound disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the proportion of the monomer unit of the styrene based compound disclosed in Horihata et al., and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Prior Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2006/0237869 teaches artificial vinyl polymer used for hair.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Horihata does not teach the claimed vinyl chloride based acrylic graft copolymer is substantially 0 parts by mass with respect to 100 parts by mass of a total of the vinyl chloride polymer and vinyl polymer. For clarity, the "vinyl based polymer" would need to
recite "aromatic vinyl polymer" in line 7. As Applicant admits Horihata teaches 0.5 parts by mass of vinyl chloride acrylic graft copolymer per 100 parts by mass of the sum of vinyl chloride based resin and vinyl based copolymer in the Examples. The specification teaches 1-20 parts by mass of vinyl chloride acrylic graft copolymer per 100 parts by mass of the sum of vinyl chloride based resin and vinyl based copolymer. Therefore, it is clear Horihata envisaged lower amount under 1 part by mass. Further, the proposed claim language merely recites substantially 0 parts by mass which 0.5 parts by mass would read on the proposed claim language.
Applicant is invited to amend the claims over the cited art.
Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2021/0246294 teaches an artificial hair comprising vinyl chloride and an aromatic vinyl polymer.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN MCKINNON whose telephone number is (571)272-6116. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday generally 8:00am-5:00pm 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, Marla McConnell can be reached at 571-270-7692. 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.
/Shawn Mckinnon/Examiner, Art Unit 1789
Prosecution Insights