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
Newly submitted claims 21-25 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the originally filed claims are directed to a hair tool while the newly submitted claims 21-25 are directed to a method of using a hair tool to couple beads to hair. The inventions are patentably distinct because the hair tool can be used for other methods than just installing hair beads, for example it can be used to weave or thread sections of hair into hair styles rather than for installing beads onto hair.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 21-25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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, 3-4, 9-10, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traintinger (EP 0760215) in view of Gardner (US 8,707,968) and Turley (US 11,419,376).
Regarding Claim 1, Traintinger teaches a hair tool apparatus (threader) for facilitating coupling a bead to hair of a person (explained in “Fastening operation” paragraph), the hair tool apparatus comprising:
a body (handle part 4) extending along an axis (Figure shows that handle part 4 is straight and extends along an axis) between a first body end (left side adjacent to screw connection 5 in figure) and a second body end (right end in figure, shown as free);
a first tool (metal wire 6 held by screw connection 5) coupled to the first body end (see figure), the first tool having a loop (metal wire 6, see figure) configured to hold the bead thereon before a portion of the hair is received through the loop, wherein the loop is further configured to receive the portion of the hair therethrough such that the bead can be coupled to the portion of the hair (all of these intended use steps are explained in “Fastening operation” paragraph).
Traintinger does not explicitly teach a second tool coupled to the second body end.
However, Gardner, in the related field of endeavor of tools for removing hair extensions (abstract; col 1 lines 10-14; examiner notes the instant application is for a device for installing hair extensions, or could be utilized for other types of hair beads, therefore it would be obvious to look to the related field of removing hair extensions for obvious modifications to devices), teaches a body (shaft 50) extending along an axis (Figure 3) between a first body end (first end of shaft 60) and a second body end (second end of shaft 70); a first tool (hook and razor peripheral 80) coupled to the first body end (Figure 3; col 3 lines 45-55); and a second tool (fork with razor peripheral 120 or scalp scratcher peripheral 160) coupled to the second body end (Figures 3 and Figure 4; col 3 line 56 – col 4 line 36) and extending along the axis (Figure 3 shows that the body and the tools on either end extend along one axis).
Gardner teaches that it is beneficial to incorporate two tools used in the procedure for removing hair extensions or weaves into a single tool in order to improve efficiency of the procedures in which they are used.
Turley, in the same field of endeavor of installing hair extensions (abstract), teaches that the procedure for installing hair extensions (col 4 line 54 to col 5 line 10) includes using a tool (hair separator 118) configured to engage the hair and partition the portion of the hair from the hair of the person (Figure 1) and another tool (threader 132) to hold a bead and install the bead onto the hair utilizing a loop on the tool (Figure 4).
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 hair tool apparatus as taught by Traintinger to also include a second tool in the form of a rod or hair separator as taught by Turley, because Gardner teaches that combining two tools used in the same hair procedure into one tool will increase efficiency. The combination of first tool taught by Traintinger (metal wire 6 forming a loop) and the second tool taught by Turley (hair separator 118) on either end of a single body as taught by Gardner (Figure 3; col 3 line 56 – col 4 line 36) results in an arrangement wherein the first tool and the second tool are on either end of a handle or body and as such are configured such that they are fully capable of performing the claimed intended use: after the second tool partitions the portion of the hair from the hair of the person, the hair tool apparatus is re-orientable to position the loop of the first tool to receive the same portion of the hair through the loop while the bead is held on the loop and before the bead is moved from the loop onto the same portion of the hair.
Regarding Claim 3, Traintinger, Gardner, and Turley teach the hair tool apparatus according to claim 1 (as presented above). Traintinger further teaches wherein the first tool includes the loop (metal wire 6) and a head (screw connection 5) to which the loop is coupled (see Figure), and wherein the head is coupled to the first body end (see Figure).
Regarding Claim 4, Traintinger, Gardner, and Turley teach the hair tool apparatus according to claim 3 (as presented above). Traintinger further teaches wherein the loop is formed of a wire (metal wire 6).
Regarding Claim 9, Traintinger, Gardner, and Turley teach the hair tool apparatus according to claim 1 (as presented above).
Turley further teaches wherein the first tool is coupled to the first body end with a threaded screw connection (metal wire 6 is connected to handle part 4 via clamping metal screw connection 5).
Gardner also further teaches the tools on either end of the body being removable from the body in order to be swapped with alternative tools (col 2 lines 48-50; col 3 line 56 to col 4 line 36) and that the removable connection can be “detent connections, threaded screw attachment, friction fitting, or any other means commonly used in the art” (col 3 line 40-44). Therefore Gardner also further teaches wherein the first tool is coupled to the first body end with a threaded screw connection.
Regarding Claim 10, Traintinger, Gardner, and Turley teach the hair tool apparatus according to claim 9 (as presented above). As presented above, Gardner further teaches the first tool being coupled to the first body end with a threaded screw connection. Gardner further teaches wherein the first body end has screw threads that engage with screw threads of the first tool (col 3 lines 50-55 refer to threaded screw attachments as mated to the base and an attachment so the parts can be attached or removed from each other).
Regarding Claims 13 and 14, Traintinger, Gardner, and Turley teach the hair tool apparatus according to claim 1 (as presented above). Gardner further teaches wherein the first tool and the second tool are removably coupled to the body (col 3 lines 40-44; col 4 lines 4-9 and lines 31-36). Gardner teaches the tools being removable so it could potentially be switched for an additional useful tool for the procedure (col 2 lines 48-50; col 3 line 56 to col 4 line 36).
Regarding Claim 15, Traintinger, Gardner, and Turley teach the hair tool apparatus according to claim 1 (as presented above). Turley further teaches wherein the second tool (hair separator 118) includes a rod and a tip (see Figure 3 where hair separator 118 is a rod that terminates in a tip away from where it is connected to the handle).
Claims 2, 7, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traintinger (EP 0760215), Gardner (US 8,707,968), and Turley (US 11,419,376) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of McCray Webb (US 20240415218, effectively filed 06/16/2023).
Regarding Claim 2, Traintinger, Gardner, and Turley teach the hair tool apparatus according to claim 1 (as presented above). They do not explicitly teach the second tool having a perimeter surface with indicia.
However, McCray Webb, in the related field of endeavor of tools for installing hair extensions (¶ 0009), teaches a hair tool apparatus (hair locking tool charm 10) with a first tool at one end (upper part of the tool as shown in Figure 1 with center channel 18, narrow tip 20, and notch 22, which can be used together to secure the hair as shown in Figures 5-10 and described in ¶ 0042) and a second tool at the other end (bent tip 14), wherein the second tool (bent tip 14) has a perimeter surface with indicia (demarcations 16) that is configured to facilitate partitioning of the portion of the hair (¶ 0041). McCray Webb teaches the inclusion of indicia on the surface of the second tool to aid in measuring sections of the hair to create a uniform grid pattern when parting (¶ 0041).
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 apparatus as taught by Traintinger, Gardner, and Turley to further include indicia on the perimeter surface of the second tool as taught by McCray in order to aid in creating uniform sections when parting the hair.
Regarding Claim 12, Traintinger, Gardner, Turley, and McCray Webb teach the hair tool apparatus according to claim 2 (as presented above). McCray web further teaches wherein the indicia (demarcations 16) includes grooves in the perimeter surface (¶ 0041 states “the bent tip has demarcations 16 scored around the circumference of its surface” therefore it teaches that the demarcations are grooves).
Regarding Claim 7, Traintinger, Gardner, and Turley teach the hair tool apparatus according to claim 1 (as presented above). They do not explicitly teach the second tool having a perimeter surface with partitioning components.
However, McCray Webb, in the related field of endeavor of tools for installing hair extensions (¶ 0009), teaches a hair tool apparatus (hair locking tool charm 10) with a first tool at one end (upper part of the tool as shown in Figure 1 with center channel 18, narrow tip 20, and notch 22, which can be used together to secure the hair as shown in Figures 5-10 and described in ¶ 0042) and a second tool at the other end (bent tip 14), wherein the second tool (bent tip 14) has a perimeter surface with one or more partitioning components (demarcations 16) that are configured to facilitate partitioning of the portion of the hair (¶ 0041). McCray Webb teaches the inclusion of indicia on the surface of the second tool to aid in measuring sections of the hair to create a uniform grid pattern when parting (¶ 0041).
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 apparatus as taught by Traintinger, Gardner, and Turley to further include partitioning components in the form of marked lines on the perimeter surface of the second tool as taught by McCray in order to aid in creating uniform sections when parting the hair.
Regarding Claim 8, Traintinger, Gardner, Turley, and McCray Webb teach the hair tool apparatus according to claim 7 (as presented above). McCray web further teaches wherein the partitioning components include textured elements, grooves, or indicia (¶ 0041 states “the bent tip has demarcations 16 scored around the circumference of its surface” therefore it teaches that the demarcations are grooves and as such they also create a texture and thus are textured elements, and the demarcations are also a form of indicia).
Claims 5, 6, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Traintinger (EP 0760215), Gardner (US 8,707,968), and Turley (US 11,419,376) as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hudson (US 2,083,380).
Regarding Claim 5, Traintinger, Gardner, and Turley teach the hair tool apparatus according to claim 1 (as presented above). Gardner does teach the tools being removable from the body in order to be swapped with alternative tools (col 2 lines 48-50; col 3 line 56 to col 4 line 36) and that the removable connection can be “detent connections, threaded screw attachment, friction fitting, or any other means commonly used in the art” (col 3 line 40-44). Neither Traintinger, Gardner, nor Turley teach the connection specifically including a slot in the body and a pin on the first tool.
However, Hudson, in the related field of endeavor of devices for treating hair (col 1 lines 7-9) with removable tools (Figure 4), teaches a first tool (hair pulling implement comprising casing 20) removably connected to a body (flexibly connector 13 that terminates in head or sleeve 15), wherein the body defines a slot (notched slot 17), and wherein the first tool (casing 20) includes a pin (pin 54) that is received into the slot (Figure 2; col 4 lines 19-30) to thereby removably couple the first tool to the body(Figure 4).
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 hair tool apparatus taught by Traintinger, Gardner, and Turley to make the removable connection between the first tool and the body be of the bayonet joint type taught by Hudson such that the body includes a slot and the first tool includes a pin. This is a simple substitution of one type of removable connection for another type of removable connection, which Gardner supports as being obvious since the removable connection can be of a type known in the art.
Regarding Claim 6, Traintinger, Gardner, Turley, and Hudson teach the hair tool apparatus according to claim 5 (as presented above). Hudson further teaches wherein the slot is J-shaped (notched slot 17 is J-shaped).
Regarding Claim 11, Traintinger, Gardner, Turley, and Hudson teach the hair tool apparatus according to claim 5 (as presented above). Hudson further teaches wherein the slot includes a first slot end through which the pin passes and a second slot end in which the pin is located when the first tool is coupled to the body (Figure 2; col 4 lines 19-35).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the combination of Traintinger, Gardner, and Turley do not teach intended use of the tool, particularly the last limitation of the amended claim 1, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Traintinger teaches a threader, which is a tool for coupling beads to hair. Gardner teaches that it is known to couple multiple tools for the same hair styling procedure on either end of one handle, including one of them being a tool that meets the limitations of the second tool of the instant application. Turley teaches that a threader like that taught by Traintinger and a hair separator tool like a pointed rod are both known to be used in the hair styling procedure of installing beaded hair extensions. Together these references teach that it is obvious to combine a threader and a pointed rod into one device with the two tools being on either end of the handle, meeting the structural limitations of the apparatus of claim 1.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
