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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged (provisional application, 63507554). Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) as follows:
Claim 1 discloses a bead made of an elastic material with a friction reducing lining, which is broader than the disclosure of the provisional application, which discloses a rubber hair bead with a satin lining (page 2, lines 1-5). As the claim language is broader than the disclosure, claim 1 is not supported.
Claims 2-6 specify the elastic material as natural rubber, polyurethane, silicone, neoprene or nitrile. The disclosure only specifies rubber as the bead material(page 2, line 1); the materials of claims 2-6 are not supported by the disclosure of the provisional application.
Claims 7-9 specify the friction-reducing fabric as silk, polyester or spun yarn in a satin-weave structure. The disclosure only specifies a satin lining (page 2, line 3), not a satin-weave structure or the fabric material; claims 7-9 are not supported by the disclosure of the provisional application.
Claims 10-11 specify how the bead and lining are connected; the disclosure does not state how the bead and lining are connected; claims 10-11 are not supported by the disclosure of the provisional application.
Claims 12-14 specify the shape and curvature of the bead; however, the specification and figures do not specify or show a first end, second end, and intersection edge to support the claim language; claims 12-14 are not supported by the disclosure of the provisional application.
For the purpose of examination, the priority date for claims 1-14 is 06/12/2024.
Drawings
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 satin-weave structure of claims 7-9 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner recommends modifying the preamble of claims 2-14 to "the child-proof hair bead of claim 1".
Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1-2, 4, 10, and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham et al. (US 20150173481 A1), herein referred to as Durham, in view of Townsell (US 9439489 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Durham discloses a child-proof hair bead (10) comprising (refer to Paragraph [0026]; “child-proof” is understood as being able to wear the beads without breaking or cracking (see Specification, page 2, lines 15-18); the elastic beads (10) are made from a soft material to avoid pain or injury to the wearer, thereby being child-proof):
a bead body (12);
a hair-receiving channel (14);
the bead body (12) comprising a lateral surface (surface of 12), a channel surface (surface of 14), a first end (first end of 12), and a second end (second end of 12) (refer to annotated Fig. 1 below);
the hair-receiving channel (14) traversing through the bead body (12) from the first end (first end of 12) to the second end (second end of 12) (refer to Paragraph [0020], annotated Fig. 1 below; the channel (14) extends through the body (12));
the channel surface (surface of 14) being delineated by the hair-receiving channel (14) (refer to annotated Fig. 1 below);
the lateral surface (surface of 12) being positioned around the channel surface (surface of 14) (refer to annotated Fig. 1 below);
the lateral surface (surface of 12) and the channel surface (surface of 14) being positioned in between the first end (first end of 12) and the second end (second end of 12) (refer to annotated Fig. 1 below);
the bead body (12) being made of an elastic material (refer to Paragraph [0024]; the elastic bead (10) is made of plasticizer-extended block copolymers (e.g., oil extended styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) tri-block copolymers, etc.), silicone, natural rubber and the like);
PNG
media_image1.png
232
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Durham does not disclose the bead (10) comprising a lining in the hair-receiving channel (14).
Townsell discloses an elastic hair bead (50) in the same field of endeavor, wherein the elastic hair bead (50) comprises an outer elastic body (23) , hair channel (46), and lining (49) (refer to col. 5, lines 58-64; the tube (50), made of a pair of sheets (23, 49) is made of pliable material to impart flexibility);
the lining (49) being connected across the channel surface (surface of 46) (refer to col. 5, lines 58-62; the inner sheet (49) and outer sheet (23) are stitched together forming the closed circular interior volume (46) for receiving hair);
the lining (49) being positioned around the hair-receiving channel (46) (refer to col. 5, lines 58-62, annotated Fig. 1C below; the inner sheet (49) forms the interior of the closed circular interior volume (46) for receiving hair);
the lining (49) traversing from a first end (first end of 50) to a second end (second end of 50) (refer to col. 5, lines 58-62 annotated Fig. 1C below); and
the lining (49) being made of a piece of friction-reducing fabric (refer to col. 7, lines 65-67; the inner lining (49) preferable consists of satin or silk).
The lining (49) and its construction are advantageous for allowing the elastic hair bead (50) to be readily slipped over a loc of human hair (22) (refer to col. 9, line 12-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the child-proof hair bead (10) as taught by Durham with the lining (49) as taught by Townsell, as Townsell teaches a layered elastic bead (50) for a user’s hair, with a satin or silk lining (49) for the bead to easily slip over a user’s hair (refer to col. 9, line 12-14).
PNG
media_image2.png
528
445
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Durham and Townsell disclose the child-proof hair bead as claimed in claim 1, with Durham further disclosing wherein the elastic material is natural rubber (refer to Paragraph [0024]; the elastic bead (10) is made of natural rubber).
Regarding claim 4, Durham and Townsell disclose the child-proof hair bead as claimed in claim 1, with Durham further disclosing wherein the elastic material is silicone (refer to Paragraph [0024]; the elastic bead (10) is made of silicone).
Regarding claim 10, Durham and Townsell disclose the child-proof hair bead as claimed in 1, Durham is silent to the lining.
Based on the modification of the lining (49) of Townsell in claim 1, Townsell further discloses wherein the lining (49) is smoothly connected across the channel surface (surface of 46) (refer to col. 5, lines 58-62; the inner sheet (49) and outer sheet (23) are stitched together forming the closed circular interior volume (46) for receiving hair).
Regarding claims 12-13, Durham and Townsell disclose the child-proof hair bead as claimed in 1, with Durham further disclosing wherein an intersection edge between the lateral surface (surface of 12) and the first end (first end of 12), and between the lateral surface (surface of 12) and the second end (second end of 12) is a rounded edge (refer to annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
187
319
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Durham and Townsell disclose the child-proof hair bead as claimed in 1, with Durham further disclosing wherein the lateral surface (surface of 12) is a convex surface (refer to Paragraph [0020], annotated Fig. 1 above; the body (12) is cylindrical in shape).
Claim(s) 3, and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham (US 20150173481 A1) herein referred to as Durham, in view of Townsell (US 9439489 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gravani (US 20200375334 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 5-6, Durham and Townsell disclose the child-proof hair bead as claimed in claim 1; however, neither discloses wherein the elastic material is polyurethane, neoprene, or nitrile.
Gravani discloses an elastic hair tie (100) in the analogous art of elastic hair securement devices (refer to Paragraph [0022]). The elastic loop (102) of the hair tie (100) is formed of a urethane rubber (analogous to polyurethane as rubber is a polymer), a chloroprene rubber (analogous to neoprene, as chloroprene are the monomers used to form neoprene and rubber is a polymer), or a nitrile rubber, as these materials are generally known in the art for their elastic properties (refer to Paragraph [0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the elastic material of the bead (10) as taught by Durham and Townsell with the elastic materials as taught by Gravani, as Gravani teaches these materials as suitable alternatives to rubber known in the art for their elastic properties (refer to Paragraph [0049]).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham (US 20150173481 A1) herein referred to as Durham, in view of Townsell (US 9439489 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Franklin (US 20240365945 A1).
Regarding claims 7-9, Durham and Townsell disclose the child-proof hair bead as claimed in claim 1; Durham is silent to a friction reducing fabric.
Based on the modification from claim 1, Townsell further discloses wherein the piece of friction-reducing fabric is silk (refer to col. 9, line 12-14). Townsell does not further disclose the silk being in a satin-weave structure; neither reference discloses wherein the piece of friction-reducing fabric is polyester or spun yarn in a satin-weave structure
Franklin discloses a device (10) in the analogous art of hair styling devices (refer to Paragraph [0004]). The device (10) is comprised of an elongated body (20) configured for contacting the user’s hair, wherein the material is a polyester or cotton, and further a satin-weave structure (refer to Paragraph [0037]; Examiner understands cotton as a suitable spun-yarn fabric in light of the Specification (refer to page 3, lines 28-31)). The material of the elongated body (20) is based on providing good sliding friction properties to reduce hair breakage (refer to Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the lining (49) as taught by Durham and Townsell with the satin-weave structure in alternative polyester and cotton materials as taught by Franklin in order to provide good sliding friction and reduce hair breakage (refer to Paragraph [0037]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durham (US 20150173481 A1) herein referred to as Durham, in view of Townsell (US 9439489 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wendschuh (US 20140290682 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Durham and Townsell disclose the child-proof hair bead as claimed in 1; however, neither reference discloses the hair bead comprising an adhesive, and the lining being connected across the channel surface by the adhesive.
Wendschuh discloses device (Fig. 1) in the analogous art of hair securement and adornment (refer to Paragraph [0002]), comprising an adhesive, and the lining (12) being connected across the channel surface (inner surface of 11) by the adhesive (refer to Paragraph [0037]; the hook fabric (12) is secured to the tube (11) using glue (26)).
PNG
media_image4.png
225
294
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hair bead as taught by Durham and Townsell with the adhesive attachment as taught by Wendschuh, as Wendschuh teaches this as a suitable method for attaching a lining (12) to a tubular structure in the hair adornment art (refer to Paragraph [0037]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adriena J Webb Lyttle whose telephone number is (571)270-7639. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-5:00 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.
/ADRIENA J WEBB LYTTLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799