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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 09/25/2025 with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot as the arguments rely on limitations not present in the most recent claims, namely a third edge and the first and second edges being defined differently than in the most recent claims.
Applicant’s remarks submitted on 03/30/2026 address the claim correspondence certification necessary for PPH applications, but do not address prior art rejections.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “plan view” should be “plane view”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “has an attached surfaces” should be “has an attached surface”.
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.
Claims 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao (US 8,347,896) in view of Yu ( US 11,986,037), Bickford (US 2024/0172826), and Choe (US 2005/0061341).
Regarding Claim 1, Liao discloses false eyelashes (artificial eyelash structure 1) comprising
a shaft portion (mounting member 10) and a plurality of eyelash main body portions (multiple eyelashes 20),
wherein the shaft portion extends in a curved shape or a straight shape in a first direction (Figure 1 shows a straight shape for mounting member 10 extending in a first direction that is horizontal),
the plurality of eyelash main body portions have proximal end portions connected to the shaft portion and extend from the shaft portion in a direction intersecting the first direction (eyelashes 20 connect to mounting member 10 at one end of the eyelashes and extend away from the mounting member vertically in Figure 1, or approximately perpendicular to the first direction therefore intersecting the first direction),
the plurality of eyelash main body portions include a first eyelash main body portion located on an outermost side among the plurality of eyelash main body portion (eyelash 20 all the way to the right in Figure 1),
an end surface in the first direction of the shaft portion constitutes one surface continuous with an end surface in the first direction of the first eyelash main body portion (end surface in the first direction of the mounting member is the end surface on the right in Figure 1; Figures 1 and 2 show that the side of the outermost eyelash and the end of the mounting member form a continuous plane, as evidenced by them forming a single continuous line in Figure 1 and a continuous shape with no segmentation in Figure 2; further support for the end and outermost surfaces of Liao forming a continuous plane is provided in claims 1 and 4 which recite the mounting member and eyelashes being "made from one plane thin film as a unitary body", and thus if the mounting member and eyelashes are made of a unitary thin film and the end surface of the shaft and outermost side of the outermost eyelash are at the same place the plane of such would be continuous),
the shaft portion includes a second side constituting the end surface in the first direction (the end surface in the first direction is the end surface to the right in Figure 1) and first side adjacent to the second side on a side opposite to the eyelash main body portion in a plan view (the first side is the bottom of mounting member 10 opposite where the eyelashes 20 extend from as seen in Figure 1, this end surface is adjacent to the second side as they both intersect at the corner of the mounting member),
a corner portion formed by the first side and the second sides in the shaft portion in a plane view (see annotated Figure 1 below).
the shaft portion and the plurality of eyelash main body portion are integrally molded (col 3 lines 6-7; claims 1 and 4).
PNG
media_image1.png
374
559
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liao does not explicitly teach the corner portion being rounded or the first and second sides forming an obtuse angle.
However, Yu, in the same field of endeavor of false eyelashes (abstract), teaches false eyelashes (false eyelash body 100) comprising a shaft portion (eyelash stem 100) and a plurality of eyelash main body portions (false eyelash 120) wherein the corners of the shaft portion are rounded in a plane view (Figure 1 shows the ends of eyelash stem 110 are rounded; col 8 lines 14-18 describe eyelash stem 110 as being an elliptical cylinder).
Bickford, in the same field of endeavor of false eyelashes (abstract), teaches rounded corners on tools for applying artificial eyelashes (¶ 0042) in order to provide increased safety by eliminating sharp edges around a user’s eye (¶ 0042). The same reasoning applies to artificial eyelash strips to be applied to the user’s eye since both have edges around the user’s eyes.
Therefore 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 false eyelashes as taught by Liao to have rounded corners on the shaft as taught by Yu in order to increase safety by eliminating sharp corners near a user’s eye, as taught by Bickford.
Additionally, Choe, in the same field of endeavor of artificial eyelashes (abstract), teaches that artificial eyelashes and their associated attachment base may extend straight out at approximately 90° to the first direction (Figures 6A, 6B, 7, 8A, 8B) or they may extend at an obtuse angle to relative to the first direction (Figure 9A, 9B, 9C) or they may extend at an acute angle relative to the first direction (Figure 10B).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the false eyelashes as taught by Liao, Yu, and Bickford to have the second sides of the shaft, which are planar with the outermost sides of outermost eyelash main bodies, be inclined at obtuse angles with respect to the first side, whose length is in the first direction. This would have been obvious to try given that Choe teaches the eyelashes extending perpendicular to or at acute or obtuse angles to the first direction. Since the end surfaces (or second sides) of the that is planar with the outermost sides of the outermost eyelash main bodies, changing the eyelash main bodies to be obtuse would also cause the end surfaces to be obtuse with regards to the first direction.
Regarding Claim 4, Liao, Yu, Bickford, and Choe teach the false eyelashes according to claim 1, as presented above. Liao further teaches wherein the shaft portion intersect with the plurality of eyelash main body portions (Figure 1 shows that all the bases of eyelashes 20 intersect with mounting member 10).
Regarding Claim 6, Liao, Yu, Bickford, and Choe teach the false eyelashes according to claim 1, as presented above. Liao further teaches wherein the shaft portion has a flat shape (mounting member 10 is a flat shape as seen in Figure 1; it can be bent at bendable portion 13 but then still has a flat shape of bonding portion 11) and has an attached surfaces (surfaces of mounting member 10, particularly bonding portion 11), and the attached surfaces is smooth (bonding portion 11 as seen in Figures 2, 4, 5).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liao (US 8,347,896), Yu ( US 11,986,037), Bickford (US 2024/0172826), and Choe (US 2005/0061341) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2014/0332025).
Regarding Claim 7, Liao, Yu, Bickford, and Choe teach the false eyelashes according to claim 1, as presented above. Liao further teaches the eyelash main body parts are flat (Figures 1-5 show the eyelashes extending flatly from the mounting member and Claim 1 provides for the entire structure to made from a planar thin film). They do not explicitly teach a thickness of the eyelash main body portions.
However, Kim, in the same field of endeavor of artificial eyelashes (abstract), teaches the eyelash main body parts have an average thickness of 0.05 - 2 mm (¶ 0024, 0041; Claim 15), which overlaps the claimed range at 0.05 mm thickness.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the false eyelashes as taught by Liao, Yu Bickford, and Choe have a thickness of 0.05 mm as taught by Kim. Liao teaches that the described eyelashes can be made of any material in any shape or size (col 2 lines 38-40), therefore it would have been obvious to make them in a size known to be successful in the prior art, such as 0.05 mm taught by Kim.
Furthermore, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.01(IV)(A). In the instant case, the eyelash main body parts would not operate differently with the claimed thickness of 0.05 mm. Additionally, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating 0.05 mm or below thickness is a preferred technical solution in ¶ 0019.
Regarding Claim 8, Liao, Yu, Bickford, and Choe teach the false eyelashes according to claim 1, as presented above. They do not explicitly teach a thickness of the shaft portion.
However, Kim, in the same field of endeavor of artificial eyelashes (abstract), teaches the shaft parts have an average thickness of 0.05 - 2 mm (¶ 0024, 0041; Claim 15), which overlaps the claimed range at 0.05 mm thickness.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the false eyelashes as taught by Liao, Yu, Bickford, and Choe have a shaft part with a thickness of 0.05 mm as taught by Kim. Liao teaches that the described eyelash structures can be made of any material in any shape or size (col 2 lines 38-40), therefore it would have been obvious to make them in a size known to be successful in the prior art, such as 0.05 mm taught by Kim.
Furthermore, it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). See MPEP 2144.01(IV)(A). In the instant case, the eyelash main body parts would not operate differently with the claimed thickness of 0.05 mm. Additionally, it appears that applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating “the average thickness of the shaft parts 2 is not particularly limited” in ¶ 0045.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer P. Connell whose telephone number is (703)756-1169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 3 pm ET.
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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571)270-5614. 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.
/JENNIFER P CONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights