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 without traverse of claims 1-13 and 17-20 are in the reply filed on 12/31/25 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/31/25.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a cord lock” in line 7 should read “[[a]]the cord lock”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 9-13 and 19-20 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 9 recites the limitation "the cord lock" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 9, 11, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stegerhoek (US 20140250566).
Regarding Claim 9, Stegerhoek discloses a hair accessory (figure 1) comprising: an external casing (102; figure 1; paragraph [0015] discloses it is the outer fabric and paragraph [0017] discloses it covers channels 114 and 116) comprising an internal chamber (114 and 116; figure 1) and forming an opening (figure 1), the external casing being generally torus-shaped (figure 1); an elastic cord (130; figure 1) disposed in the interior chamber (figure 1), the elastic cord threaded through the external casing (figure 1), and the cord lock (126 and 128; figure 1) configured to adjust a tightness of the hair accessory based on a position of the cord lock along the elastic cord (figure 1; paragraph [0017]); and a cord lock through which the elastic cord extends (figure 1).
Regarding Claim 11, Stegerhoek discloses the device of claim 9. Stegerhoek discloses the external casing forms at least one aperture (122 and 124; figure 1), the at least one aperture sized and configured to allow a hairpin to pass therethrough (figure 1; The Examiner notes that “configured to” is functional language and the device must be capable of performing such function, in figure 1 there is enough room for a hairpin to pass through. Additionally, a hairpin is not being expressly recited).
Regarding Claim 13, Stegerhoek discloses the device of claim 9. Stegerhoek discloses the external casing comprises fabric (abstract; paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 19, Stegerhoek discloses the device of claim 9. Stegerhoek discloses the external casing having a first length (figure 5) and the elastic cord having a second length (figure 5), wherein the first length is greater than the second length (figure 5 depicts the elastic cord held within is a shorter length that the external casing as shown in step 506).
Claims 9, 11, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al. (US 20220256990, hereinafter Brown).
Regarding Claim 9, Brown discloses a hair accessory (figures 1-13) comprising: an external casing (20; figure 1; paragraph [0022]) comprising an internal chamber (36; figure 11) and forming an opening (25; figure 1`), the external casing being generally torus-shaped (figure 1-13); an elastic cord (60, 69; figures 1-13; paragraph [0023]) disposed in the interior chamber (figure 11), the elastic cord threaded through the external casing (figure 11), and the cord lock (70; figure 11) configured to adjust a tightness of the hair accessory based on a position of the cord lock along the elastic cord (figure 1-13; paragraph [0026]); and a cord lock through which the elastic cord extends (figure 11).
Regarding Claim 11, Brown discloses the device of Claim 9. Brown discloses the external casing forms at least one aperture (25; figure 11), the at least one aperture sized and configured to allow a hairpin to pass therethrough (figure 11; The Examiner notes that “configured to” is functional language and the device must be capable of performing such function, in figure 11 there is enough room for a hairpin to pass through. Additionally, a hairpin is not being expressly recited).
Regarding Claim 13, Brown discloses the device of Claim 9. Brown discloses the external casing comprises fabric (abstract; paragraph [0027]).
Regarding Claim 19, Brown discloses the device of Claim 9. Brown discloses the external casing having a first length (figure 2) and the elastic cord having a second length (figures 3-5), wherein the first length is greater than the second length (figures 3-5 depicts the elastic cord held within is a shorter length that the external casing; paragraph [0024]).
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 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20220256990, hereinafter Brown) in view of Schneider et al. (US 20240023654, hereinafter Schneider) and Jacobs (US 5458108).
Regarding Claim 1, Brown discloses a hair accessory (figures 1-13) comprising: an external casing (20; figure 1; paragraph [0022]) comprising a first end and a second end (see illustrated figure 11), the external casing forming an interior chamber (36; figure 11) and an opening therein (25; figure 11; paragraph [0025]); an elastic cord (60, 69; figures 1-13; paragraph [0023]) disposed in the interior chamber (figure 11); a cord lock (70; figure 11) through which the elastic cord extends (figure 11), the cord lock configured to adjust a tightness of the hair accessory based on a position of the cord lock along the elastic cord (figure 11; paragraph [0026]).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Brown does not disclose a first loop attached to the interior chamber at the first end; a second loop attached to the interior chamber at the second end; an elastic cord disposed in the interior chamber, the elastic cord threaded through the first loop and the second loop; a first snap at the first end; and a second snap at the second end, the first snap and the second snap configured to removably attach to each other.
Schneider discloses a fabric accessory (Figure 3) comprising: a first loop (101; figures 2-4) attached to the device at the first end (see illustrated figure 3); a second loop (102; figures 2-4) attached to the device at the second end (see illustrated figure 3); an elastic cord (103; figure 2; paragraph [0025] disposed from the first end to the second end (Figure 3), the elastic cord threaded through the first loop and the second loop (figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
918
1003
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the interior chamber of Brown to have attached to the interior chamber at the first end, a second loop attached to the interior chamber at the second end, an elastic cord disposed in the interior chamber, the elastic cord threaded through the first loop and the second loop as taught by Schneider in order to allow for the tightening of the fastening device (paragraph [0056]).
Jacobs discloses a hair accessory (10; figures 1-3) comprising: a casing (22; figure 1) comprising a first end and a second end (26 and 28; figure 1), the external casing forming an interior chamber (figure 1), a first snap at the first end (at 26; figure 1); and a second snap at the second end (at 28; figure 1; column 4, lines 8-20 disclose that the connection can be a snap), the first snap and the second snap configured to removably attach to each other (figure 3; column 4, lines 8-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the external casing of Brown to be separable and have a snap connection between the first and second end as taught by Jacobs in order to easily enclose the hair without the user having to twist their wrist to collect it.
Regarding Claim 3, Brown as modified by Schneider and Jacobs discloses the device of Claim 1. Brown discloses the external casing forms at least one aperture (25; figure 11), the at least one aperture sized and configured to allow a hairpin to pass therethrough (figure 11; The Examiner notes that “configured to” is functional language and the device must be capable of performing such function, in figure 11 there is enough room for a hairpin to pass through. Additionally, a hairpin is not being expressly recited).
Regarding Claim 5, Brown as modified by Schneider and Jacobs discloses the device of Claim 1. Brown discloses the external casing comprises fabric (abstract; paragraph [0027]).
Regarding Claim 17, Brown as modified by Schneider and Jacobs discloses the device of claim 1. Brown discloses the external casing having a first length (figure 2) and the elastic cord having a second length (figures 3-5), wherein the first length is greater than the second length (figures 3-5 depicts the elastic cord held within is a shorter length that the external casing; paragraph [0024]).
Regarding Claim 18, Brown as modified by Schneider and Jacobs discloses the device of claim 1. Brown discloses a first hairpin (78; figure 2), wherein the external casing forms a first aperture (within 76; figure 5; paragraph [0029]), the first aperture sized and configured to allow the first hairpin to pass therethrough (figure 2).
Brown does not disclose a second hairpin, wherein the external casing forms a second aperture and the second aperture sized and configured to allow the second hairpin to pass therethrough.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to construct the a second hairpin, wherein the external casing forms a second aperture and the second aperture sized and configured to allow the second hairpin to pass therethrough, since mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and one would be motivated to do so in order to provide additional stability and to ensure that the hair accessory is secured to the head.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20220256990, hereinafter Brown), Schneider et al. (US 20240023654, hereinafter Schneider) and Jacobs (US 5458108) further in view of Cotton (US 20210244153).
Regarding Claim 2, Brown as modified by Schneider and Jacobs discloses the device of Claim 1. Brown does not disclose the opening is sized and configured to allow the cord lock to pass therethrough
Cotton discloses a hair accessory (figures 3-4) with an opening for a cord lock (figures 3-4; paragraph [0031]), the opening is sized and configured to allow the cord lock to pass therethrough (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the opening of Brown to be sized and configured to allow the cord lock to pass therethrough as taught by Cotton in order to prevent the cord from interfering with the hair and avoid tangling (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding Claim 4, Brown as modified by Schneider and Jacobs discloses the device of Claim 1. Brown discloses an opening (figure 11) but does not disclose hook and loop fasteners at the opening, the hook and loop fasteners configured and located to seal the opening.
Cotton discloses hook and loop fasteners(figures 9-10) the hook and loop fasteners configured and located to seal the opening (paragraph [0034] discloses the use of Velcro which is a hook and loop fastener to close the device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the opening of Brown to hook and loop fasteners at the opening, the hook and loop fasteners configured and located to seal the opening as taught by Cotton in order to prevent the cord from interfering with the hair and ensuring the cord does not become accidentally loosened.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20220256990, hereinafter Brown), Schneider et al. (US 20240023654, hereinafter Schneider) and Jacobs (US 5458108) further in view of Stephens (US 20060150997).
Regarding Claim 6 Brown as modified by Schneider and Jacobs discloses the device of Claim 5. Brown does not disclose the fabric is satin.
Stephens discloses a hair accessory (figure 1) wherein the fabric is satin (Paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the fabric of Brown to be satin as taught by Stephens as it is mere design choice that is well known by those in the art to change fabric and satin is used in order to decrease the damage on the hair by the force of the elastic.
Regarding Claim 7, Brown as modified by Schneider and Jacobs discloses the device of Claim 5. Brown does not disclose the fabric is cotton.
Stephens discloses a hair accessory (figure 1) wherein the fabric is cotton (Paragraph [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the fabric of Brown to be cotton as taught by Stephens as it is mere design choice that is well known by those in the art to change fabric and cotton is used in order to decrease the damage on the hair by the force of the elastic.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20220256990, hereinafter Brown), Schneider et al. (US 20240023654, hereinafter Schneider) and Jacobs (US 5458108), further in view of Stegerhoek (US 20140250566).
Regarding Claim 8, Brown as modified by Schneider and Jacobs discloses the device of Claim 1. Brown does not disclose the cord lock comprises plastic.
Stegerhoek discloses a hair accessory (figure 1) comprising: an external casing (102; figure 1; paragraph [0015] discloses it is the outer fabric and paragraph [0017] discloses it covers channels 114 and 116) comprising an internal chamber (114 and 116; figure 1) and forming an opening (figure 1), the external casing being generally torus-shaped (figure 1); an elastic cord (130; figure 1) disposed in the interior chamber (figure 1), the elastic cord threaded through the external casing (figure 1), and the cord lock (126 and 128; figure 1) configured to adjust a tightness of the hair accessory based on a position of the cord lock along the elastic cord (figure 1; paragraph [0017]); and a cord lock through which the elastic cord extends (figure 1) and the cord lock comprises plastic (paragraph [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have specified the material of the cord lock of Brown to be plastic as taught by Stegerhoek in order to reduce the cost of manufacturing.
Claims 10 and 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stegerhoek (US 20140250566) further in view of Cotton (US 20210244153).
Regarding Claim 10, Stegerhoek discloses the device of Claim 9. Stegerhoek does not disclose the opening is sized and configured to allow the cord lock to pass therethrough
Cotton discloses a hair accessory (figures 3-4) with an opening for a cord lock (figures 3-4; paragraph [0031]), the opening is sized and configured to allow the cord lock to pass therethrough (paragraph [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the opening of Stegerhoek to be sized and configured to allow the cord lock to pass therethrough as taught by Cotton in order to prevent the cord from interfering with the hair and avoid tangling (paragraph [0031]).
Regarding Claim 12, Stegerhoek discloses the device of Claim 9. Stegerhoek discloses an opening (figure 1) but does not disclose hook and loop fasteners at the opening, the hook and loop fasteners configured and located to seal the opening.
Cotton discloses hook and loop fasteners(figures 9-10) the hook and loop fasteners configured and located to seal the opening (paragraph [0034] discloses the use of Velcro which is a hook and loop fastener to close the device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the opening of Stegerhoek to hook and loop fasteners at the opening, the hook and loop fasteners configured and located to seal the opening as taught by Cotton in order to prevent the cord from interfering with the hair and ensuring the cord does not become accidentally loosened.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stegerhoek (US 20140250566) in view of Wilczynska et al. (US 20200383449, hereinafter Wilczynska).
Regarding Claim 20, Stegerhoek discloses the device of claim 9. Stegerhoek discloses wherein the external casing forms a first aperture (122; figure 1) and a second aperture (figure 1), the first aperture sized and configured to allow the first hairpin to pass therethrough, and the second aperture sized and configured to allow the second hairpin to pass therethrough (figure 1, the Examiner notes that the hairpin is being functionally recited to pass through the aperture).
Stegerhoek does not disclose a first hairpin and a second hairpin.
Wilczynska discloses a hair accessory (figure 1) and having first hairpin and a second hairpin (paragraph [0010]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device of Stegerhoek to have a first hairpin and a second hairpin as taught by Wilczynska in order to ensure the hair is pinned into place when the hair tie is in use and ensure it does not move when the user turns their head.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 20220256990, hereinafter Brown).
Regarding Claim 20, Brown discloses the device of claim 9. Brown discloses a first hairpin (78; figure 2), wherein the external casing forms a first aperture (within 76; figure 5; paragraph [0029]), the first aperture sized and configured to allow the first hairpin to pass therethrough (figure 2).
Brown does not disclose a second hairpin, wherein the external casing forms a second aperture and the second aperture sized and configured to allow the second hairpin to pass therethrough.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to construct the a second hairpin, wherein the external casing forms a second aperture and the second aperture sized and configured to allow the second hairpin to pass therethrough, since mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art and one would be motivated to do so in order to provide additional stability and to ensure that the hair accessory is secured to the head.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sydney J Pulvidente whose telephone number is (571)272-8066. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 7:30 a.m. - 3:30 p.m..
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.
/SYDNEY J PULVIDENTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772