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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 9 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “wherein bonding base” and “said” should be provided between “wherein” and “bonding”. Claim 9 recites “folding ends tabs” where the claim should recite “folding end tabs”. 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 7 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 7 requires the stitched line be a 5 lb test, where this language is indefinite as it is not understood what is meant by a stitched line being a 5 lb test.
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 1, 3-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenna (US 20090120451) and Gold (US 20130298925).
Regarding claim 1, Kenna discloses a hair extension (Refer to Figures 1-25) comprising: a tuft of hair (18) formed from a plurality of individual hair strands (individual strands of 18) having a proximal end and a distal end; a stitch line (34, 34’ is a sewn end or weft, Refer to Figures and paragraphs 0013, 0069, 0070, 0072) juxtapositioned to said proximal end of said tuft, said stitch line constructed and arranged to maintain a lateral length of the tuft by inhibiting stretching and separating; a bonding base (20 and/or 22) formed of non-allergenic flexible tape (Refer to paragraph 0006) having a first side surface (surface of 20 and/or 22 contacting hair 18) secured to said proximal end of said tuft with adhesive, and a second side surface (surface of 20 and/or 22 with cover sheet 24 or 26, respectively) having a tacky adhesive; a cover sheet (24 and/or 26) releasably secured to said second side surface, said cover sheet including a cut line (scoring forms a cut line, Refer to paragraph 0061) for ease of cover sheet removal, whereby removal of said cover sheet exposes said second side surface of said bonding base, allowing securement of said tuft of hair to an individual’s scalp or hair wherein said air passage apertures inhibit moisture buildup between the individual’s scalp and said bonding base. However, Kenna is silent regarding the stitched line being a monofilament stitched line and the cut line being centrally disposed, and Kenna does not disclose at least two air passage apertures located along the length of said bonding base.
Kenna teaches the hairs are sewn along the proximal end forming a stitch line (34, 34’), where a filament (e.g. thread, nylon filament, etc.) is required when sewing. Although Kenna does not specify the type of filament used to create the stitch line, monofilaments are well-known and a commonly used type of thread. It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair extension of Kenna such that the thread used to form the stitch line be a monofilament as it is well-known and conventional for threads to be monofilaments and to use monofilaments in making hair extensions/wigs.
With regard to the cover sheet, Kenna teaches the cover sheet is cut/scored to facilitate removal of the cover sheet (Refer to paragraph 0061) but does not specify the exact location of the cut line. In one embodiment, Kenna provides another tape with a removable cover sheet, where the scoring/cut line Is disposed centrally (Refer to paragraph 0078) demonstrating it is well-known to provide such cut lines at a central location. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair extension of Kenna such that the cut line be centrally disposed as Kenna teaches it is conventional to provide such cut lines at a central location.
Gold discloses a similar hair extension having a plurality of hairs fixed to a bonding base in the form of tape (Refer to Figures 1-5A). Gold teaches the tape provides a plurality of through holes (Refer to paragraph 0040 and 0047) which reduces the overall weight of the bonding base and creates a ventilated arrangement which makes the base more breathable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair extension of Kenna to include a plurality of air passage apertures along the length of the bonding base as taught by Gold in order to decrease the weight of the bonding base and make the base more breathable for the comfort of the wearer.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Kenna and Gold disclose the hair extension of claim 1 above; however, the combination is silent regarding the openings being circular and having a diameter of 3 mm. It is well-known and conventional in the art for such mesh materials, like that used in the tape of the combination of Kenna and Gold, to have various shapes such as circular, oval, hexagonal, diamond, square, etc. (See pertinent prior art cited in Conclusion). It is also well-known and conventional for such openings to have a diameter/width of about 3mm size (See pertinent prior art cited in Conclusion). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair extension of the combination of Kenna and Gold such that the openings be circular and have a diameter of 3mm as these are well-known and conventional configurations of mesh/netted materials used in hair extensions.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the combination of Kenna and Gold disclose the hair extension of claim 1 above where the apertures are equally spaced apart on the bonding base. Kenna further discloses the bonding base may be 1.5 inches long or 3 inches long (Refer to paragraph 0061 which states the length may be 1.5 to 4 inches). Although Kenna does not explicitly disclose the bonding base being 0.25 inches tall (width per Kenna), Kenna states the base is preferably 0.75 inches tall but “but other widths may be functional” (Refer to paragraphs 0060, 0063 and 0006). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the height of the bonding base of the hair extension of the combination of Kenna and Gold to be 0.25 inches, as Kenna explains the dimensions can be changed as desired.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kenna and Gold disclose the hair extension of claim 1 above, wherein bonding base is releasably secured to said hair tuft wherein said hair tuft can be reused by bonding base substitution (Refer to paragraph 0008 of Kenna).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kenna and Gold as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ukei et al. (US 20080081143).
Regarding 2, the combination of Kenna and Gold disclose the hair extension of claim 1 above, wherein said cover sheet is removable without releasing said first side surface from the tuft of hair, such that a first coefficient of release for said tacky side surface at a rate less than a second coefficient of release for said first side surface (Kenna teaches the cover sheet is removed while the tuft of hair remains on the bonding base, thus, the coefficients of release of the first and second sides are as claimed, if not the hair would be removed from the first side when the cover sheet is removed); however, the combination does not disclose said cover sheet is treated with a release powder. It is well-known and conventional practice for cover sheets of adhesive tapes to be release treated with powders such as silica powder as demonstrated by Ukei et al. (Refer to paragraph 0064). The release liner disclosed by Ukei et al. is release-treated with “any of various conventionally known release agents” such as “a silicone-based release agent, fluoride-based release agent,…., silica powder and the like” (Refer to paragraph 0064). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cover sheet of the combination of Kenna and Gold such that the cover sheet be treated with a release powder as Ukei et al. demonstrates it is well-known and conventional in the art to provide such release powder treatments on cover sheets to facilitate their release from the adhesive surfaces which they cover. The combination of Kenna, Gold and Ukei et al. provide a cover sheet treated with release powder which thereby provides a first coefficient of release for said tacky side surface at a rate less than a second coefficient of release for said first side surface.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kenna and Gold as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20130133680).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kenna and Gold disclose the hair extension of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not disclose said cover sheet includes a peel edge centrally positioned along the length of the bonding base, wherein said peel edge facilitates cover sheet removal from said bonding base from a central position. As explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, Kenna teaches providing the cover sheet with a cut line, and therefore a peel edge, at a central location but does not specify if the center is along the length of the bonding base. Wang discloses a similar hair extension where hairs are secure together and attached to an adhesive tape bonding base where a cover sheet is disposed over the adhesive (Refer to Figures 1-8). Wang teaches the cover sheet has a cut line (33) which forms a peel edge centrally positioned along the length of the bonding base (Refer to Figure 4) which facilitates removal of the cover sheet (Refer to paragraph 0060-0062). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair extension of the combination of Kenna and Gold such that the cover sheet include a peel edge centrally disposed along the length of the bonding base as Wang demonstrates it is well-known for such cover sheets to have a cut line and therefore a peel edge disposed centrally along the length to facilitate removal of the cover sheet.
Claim 7, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kenna and Gold as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fazal (US 11596191).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kenna and Gold disclose the hair extension of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not disclose said stitched line is about a 5 lb test. The combination of Kenna and Gold is silent regarding the specific break strength of the thread used to create the stitched line, but it is well-known and conventional in hair extensions to use strong threads to prevent breakage as demonstrated by Fazal. The disclosure of Fazal is directed to a hair extension and method of use thereof, where top and bottom wefts of hair are sewn together using a thread that has a break strength of at least about 5 lbs or more (Refer to col. 2 lines 47-55 and claim 20). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair extension of the combination of Kenna and Gold such that the thread used to form the stitched line be about a 5lb test as Fazal demonstrated it is well-known and conventional to use such strong threads when sewing to provide structural integrity and prevent breakage.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Kenna and Gold as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sthair (US 7533676).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kenna and Gold disclose the hair extension of claim 1 above; however, the combination does not disclose said bonding base includes folding ends tabs wherein said end tabs can be wrapped around hair. Sthair discloses a similar hair extension (Refer to Figures 1-11) where a tuft/section of hair (12) is secured to an adhesive tape bonding base (14, 16). Sthair teaches the bonding base includes folding end tabs (16) which serve to secure the hair extension to the user’s hair by wrapping the tabs around the hair such that the adhesive on the portion of the bonding base corresponding to the tuft is secured to one side of the user’s natural hair and the folding tabs are wrapped around the user’s natural hair and adhered to a backside thereof, as best shown in Figures 5-10. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair extension of the combination of Kenna and Gold such that the bonding base include folding end tabs as taught by Sthair in order to enhance securement of the hair extension to the user’s natural hair by permitting wrapping of the hair extension on the user’s hair via the tabs.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Poellnitz (US 20230180873) demonstrates it is well-known for mesh materials to have circular apertures (Refer to paragraph 0092). Lloyd et al. (US 4245630) demonstrates it is well-known for the adhesive tape to have circular air passage holes (Refer to claim 10). Finamore (US 5368052) demonstrates it is well-known for mesh materials to provide apertures of 3mm (Refer to col. 2 lines 44-52, where 1/8 inch is approximately 3.175 mm).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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.
/TATIANA L NOBREGA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799