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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (PG Pub. 2017/0360133) in view of Curbeon (PG Pub. 2020/0178629) in view of Harada (US Pat. 7,501,177).
Regarding claims 1, 4 and 7-8, Lee teaches (paragraphs [0032]-[0070], fig. 1-11) teaches an artificial hair in which there is a fiber cord in which fiber bundles are fixed at intervals with a plurality of fixtures and are wound in a helical form, the fiber bundle includes at least first fibers and second fibers different from each other in thermal shrinkage rate at 93 °C (refer to examples 1-14 ), the fiber cord has a plurality of processed regions in a middle portion in the longitudinal direction, the plurality of processed regions are adjacent to each other in the longitudinal direction and are either a region between stitches of the weave, or a region corresponding to the pitch of the helix, and for the fiber cord, the number of processed regions is five or more. Lee is silent regarding the arithmetic mean length and average length. However, the arithmetic mean length of the plurality of processed regions in the longitudinal direction is 0.7-6 cm inclusive when the hair is suspended (for styles such as "Senegal twist'', "Box Braid", "Havana Twist", and "Faux Locs", is common technical knowledge that the processing regions are within the range of 0.7-6 cm are common knowledge to a person of ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious as evidenced by Curbeon who teaches “It will be appreciated that the braids can be wider or narrower than the examples in the figures, the length in a suspended state of the hair extensions can change to be either longer or shorter than the illustrated hair extensions, and the number of bunches of hair and the particular weave pattern used to make the braids can be different than the illustrated examples in the figures.” Curbeon teaches the number of processing regions is 10 or more. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to vary the fixation or braid spacing as evidenced by Curbeon and use any average length in a suspended state and the number of processing regions including those presently claimed in order to achieve various braid styles as well as tightness of braid to improve style holding capacity and arrive at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teachings of Curbeon in Lee in order to achieve various braid styles as well as tightness of braid to improve style holding capacity and arrive at the claimed invention. The previous combination is silent regarding the softening temperatures of the first and second fibers being different. However, Harada teaches using first fibers such as such as acrylonitrile/vinylidene chloride/vinyl chloride copolymer and second fibers (such as acrylic/polyvinyl chloride copolymer and fiber second such as vinyl chloride/acrylic ester copolymer) with different softening temperatures with the first and second fiber softening temperatures in the claimed range in order to improve volume and preserve flexibility. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the first and second fibers of Sakuma et al. in the previous combination in order to improve volume and preserve flexibility and arrive at the claimed invention.
The previous combination is silent regarding the claimed property. However, Lee and Harada both teach increase volume and density and given the cited art teaches such similar artificial haor made of such similar materials with such similar arrangement, the claimed property is necessarily inherent. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 2, Lee teaches the first fibers are taught as having a heat shrinkage rate of 5% or less and second fibers having a heat shrinkage of 10% or more in examples 1-3. While it is noted that Lee teaches temperature at 93 degrees Celsius rather than 90 degrees Celsius for twenty seconds rather than 10 seconds, it appears the fibers would still possess the claimed heat shrinkages at 3 degrees Celsius less than and for 10 seconds less.
Regarding claim 3, Lee and Curbeon are silent regarding the first and second fibers being polyvinyl chloride. However, Harada teaches first and second fibers are polyvinyl chloride fibers (one with solely polyvinyl chloride and one with partial polyvinyl chloride and acrylic) in order to provide superior stylability and sensory. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the polyvinyl chloride fibers of Harada in the previous combination in order to provide superior stylability and sensory characteristics and arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 5, Lee teaches the claimed amount of second fibers with respect to 100 parts by mass of a total of the first and second fibers [Examples].
Regarding claim 6, Lee teaches the claimed amount of first fibers with respect to 100 parts by mass of a total of the first and second fibers [Examples].
Prior Art Not Used but Relevant
PG Pub. 2011/0271976 teaches polyvinyl chloride fibers used in artificial hair with first and second fibers.
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