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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12-15, 17-19, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lotti (US 10,660,388).
Lotti discloses an artificial eyelash extension system comprising a plurality of eyelash filaments, each of the plurality of eyelash filaments comprising a base (col. 2, lines 62-70) and a tip (end of filament); a support strip (col. 4, lines 24-30) attached to the bases of the plurality of eyelash filaments; and an adhesive element disposed on the support strip and disposed on and overlapping with the plurality of eyelash filaments at least at their bases (col. 3, lines 42-47), wherein the adhesive element is adapted to adhere to natural eyelashes of a user when the artificial eyelash extension system is applied (see Figure 7). Claim 2, the adhesive element is applied to an upward-facing surface of the eyelash filaments (col. 3, lines 42-50). Claim 3, the adhesive element comprises an adhesive that retains its stickiness during storage of the artificial eyelash extension system (col. 3, lines 42-50). Claim 4, the system is adapted to attach to the user’s natural eyelashes without application of additional adhesive to said natural eyelashes (col. 3, lines 42-50). Claim 6, the adhesive element extends from the support strip along a length of the eyelash filaments (col. 5, lines 40-45). Claim 7, the adhesive element is continuously applied from the support strip to a distance of less than about half of the eyelash filaments’ average length (col. 5, lines 40-50). Claim 8, the eyelash filaments extend from the support strip such that at least some of eyelash filaments overlap (see Figures 1-3). Claim 9, the eyelash filaments extend from the support strip such that at least one-quarter of the eyelash filaments overlap (see Figure 1-3). Claim 10, eyelash extension system is a wisp, cluster, flare, or individual eyelash extension system (see Figures 1-3). Claim 12, an artificial eyelash extension system comprising a plurality of eyelash filaments, each having a base and a tip (end of lashes); a support strip (col. 4, lines 25-27) attached to the bases of the plurality of eyelash filaments; and an adhesive element connected to the support strip and applied to the plurality of eyelash filaments before the artificial eyelash extension system is packaged for sale to a user, wherein the adhesive element is adapted to adhere to natural eyelashes of the user when the artificial eyelash extension system is applied, and the adhesive element is disposed on and overlaps with the plurality of eyelash filaments at least at their bases (col. 3, lines 42-50). Claim 13, the adhesive element is applied to an upward-facing surface of the eyelash filaments (col. 3, lines 42-50). Claim 14, the adhesive element comprises an adhesive that retains its stickiness during storage of the artificial eyelash extension system (col. 3, lines 42-50). Claim 15, the system is adapted to attach to the user’s natural eyelashes without application of additional adhesive to said natural eyelashes (col. 3, lines 42-50). Claim 17, the adhesive element extends from the support strip along a length of the eyelash filaments (col. 5, lines 40-45). Claim 18, the adhesive element is continuously applied from the support strip to a distance of less than about half of the eyelash filaments’ average length (col. 5, lines 40-45). Claim 19, the eyelash extension system is a wisp, cluster, flare, or individual eyelash extension system (see Figures 1-3). Claim 21, an artificial eyelash extension system comprising: a plurality of eyelash filaments, each of the plurality of eyelash filaments comprising a base and a tip; a support strip (col. 4, lines 24-30) attached to the bases of the plurality of eyelash filaments; and an adhesive element disposed on the support strip and disposed on and overlapping with an upward-facing surface of the plurality of eyelash filaments at least at their bases, wherein the adhesive element is adapted to adhere to natural eyelashes of a user when the artificial eyelash extension system is applied (col. 3, lines 40-45). Claim 22, Lotti discloses an artificial eyelash extension system comprising: a plurality of eyelash filaments, each having a base and a tip; a support strip (col. 4, lines 24-30) attached to the bases of the plurality of eyelash filaments; and an adhesive element connected to the support strip and applied to an upward-facing surface of the plurality of eyelash filaments before the artificial eyelash extension system is packaged for sale to a user (col. 3, lines 40-45), wherein the adhesive element is adapted to adhere to natural eyelashes of the user when the artificial eyelash extension system is applied, and the adhesive element is disposed on and overlaps with the plurality of eyelash filaments at least at their bases (col. 5, lines 40-45). Claim 23, Claim 22, Lotti discloses an artificial eyelash extension system comprising: a plurality of eyelash filaments, each having a base and a tip; a support strip (col. 4, lines 24-30) attached to the bases of the plurality of eyelash filaments; and an adhesive element connected to the support strip and applied to an upward-facing surface of the plurality of eyelash filaments before the artificial eyelash extension system is packaged for sale to a user (col. 3, lines 40-45), wherein the adhesive element is adapted to adhere to natural eyelashes of the user when the artificial eyelash extension system is applied,
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) 5, 11, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotti (US 10,660,388) in view of Shin (US 2002/0056465).
Lotti discloses the claimed invention except for an elongate substrate revovably overlay the adhesive element. Shin teaches an artificial eyelash comprising an adhesive with an elongated substrate (16) removably overlaying the adhesive element (14) (see Figure 6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the adhesive of Lotti have an elongate substate as taught by Shin to protect the adhesive prior to user. Furthermore, regarding the limitation the bond between the eyelash filaments and the adhesive element is stronger than the bond between the adhesive element and the elongated substrate. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the bond between the eyelash filaments and the adhesive element is stronger than the bond between the adhesive element and the elongated substrate, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Claim(s) 24-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotti (US 10, 660,388) in view of Hassler (US 2,503,552).
Lotti does not disclose a package configured to store the plurality of eyelash segments prior to sale, and the adhesive is applied before the plurality of eyelash segments are placed in the package. Hassler teaches an eyelash package and applying the adhesive to the artificial eyelash segments prior to sale of the package (col. 1, lines 15-35) to preserve the tacky surface indefinitely while the lash is in storage (col. 1, lines 15-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the eyelash segments of Lotti be stored in a package with the pre-applied adhesive as taught by Hassler to preserve the tacky surface indefinitely while the lash is in storage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Lotti fails to disclose “an adhesive element disposed on the support strip and disposed on and overlapping with the plurality of eyelash filaments at least at their bases.” These arguments are not persuasive. Lotti discloses applying adhesive to “the top of each lash fusion” (see Lotti, col. 3, ll. 42–47). As described in Lotti, a lash fusion comprises multiple lash filaments fused together at their inner ends to form a base, with the filaments extending outward therefrom (see Lotti, col. 2, ll. 63–67; col. 3, ll. 1–5). Because the lash filaments are fused at their bases to form the lash fusion, adhesive applied to the “top of each lash fusion” necessarily overlaps both the support structure (i.e., the fused base) and the bases of the individual lash filaments. Applicant’s argument improperly attempts to narrow Lotti’s disclosure by limiting the adhesive to a single point or discrete location on the base. However, claim 1 does not require adhesive to extend a particular distance along the lash filaments, nor does it exclude adhesive applied at the fused base where the filaments overlap. The claim merely requires that the adhesive be disposed on the support strip and overlap the lash filaments “at least at their bases.” Lotti clearly satisfies this limitation because the fused base inherently includes the bases of the lash filaments, and adhesive applied thereto necessarily overlaps those filament bases.
Applicant further contends that Lotti does not “identify where on each lash fusion the adhesive is applied.” This argument is unpersuasive because anticipation does not require the reference to describe the claimed feature with the same level of specificity or terminology used in the claim. It is sufficient that the disclosure reasonably conveys to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed structure is present. Lotti’s disclosure that adhesive is applied to the top of the lash fusion, when read in light of Lotti’s description of the lash fusion structure, reasonably conveys adhesive overlapping the bases of the lash filaments.
Applicant’s reliance on Lotti’s figures, including FIG. 7, is also not persuasive. Patent drawings are generally schematic and not drawn to scale, and the presence of tweezers grasping the lash filaments does not negate the express textual disclosure that adhesive is applied to the lash fusion. Moreover, the manner in which a user handles the lash during application does not limit where adhesive is structurally disposed in the product itself.
Applicant’s discussion of Aylott is likewise unpersuasive. Aylott is external evidence and does not alter the plain disclosure of Lotti. Furthermore, even if Aylott describes a preference for keeping adhesive-free regions, such teachings do not negate Lotti’s disclosure nor impose additional limitations on Lotti’s structure.
Applicant additionally argues that Lotti does not appreciate the benefits of applying adhesive beyond the base and instead addresses adhesion by reducing weight. However, this argument is irrelevant to anticipation. Anticipation does not require that a reference recognize the same problem addressed by the claimed invention or articulate the same advantages. The issue is whether the reference discloses the claimed structure, not whether it discloses Applicant’s motivation for that structure.
Finally, Applicant’s assertion that Lotti “teaches away” from applying adhesive along the lash filaments is not persuasive. Claim 1 does not require adhesive to extend along the length of the lash filaments; it only requires overlap at least at the bases, which Lotti discloses.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL RUNNING STEITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm 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, 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.
/RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
12/22/2025