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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 10-13, and 21-23 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.
In claims 1-3, 10-13, and 21-23 there is an inconsistency in the language of the claim and that of the base claim 1 thus making its scope unclear. Base claim 1 recites a hair extension strap with the hair extension strands being only functionally recited, thus indicating that the claims are directed to the subcombination, the hair extension strap. However, claims 2-3 and 10-13 positively recites the hair extension strands, i.e. hairs, thus indicating that the claim is directed to the combination the strap and the hair extension strands. As such it is unclear whether applicant intends the claim to be drawn to the combination or the subcombination. Applicant is hereby required to indicate which, the combination (hair extension strap and hair extension strands) or subcombination (the hair extension strap) claims 2-3 and 10-13 are intended to be drawn and make the language consistent with this intent. For examination purposes, these claims will be considered as drawn to the combination.
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) 1, 2, 10, 11, 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gray (US 11,832,668) in view of Hayes (US 10,575,576).
Gray discloses a hair extension strap (20) comprising a length of material (22), wherein the length of material has one or more through holes (50), for receiving one or more hair extension strands (54), formed on and through a front surface and through and exiting a rear surface; one or more combs (55) fixedly attached to said length of material, wherein said combs have a plurality of teeth, for attaching to a wearer’s hair or a hair piece (see Figures 7 and 7A). Claim 2, the one or more hair extension strands, wherein the strand is comprised of natural hair, synthetic hair, fur, synthetic fur, yarn, thread, beads, or combinations thereof (col. 7, lines 12-15). Claim 10, a hair extension thread (14) is threaded through a first through hole and threaded through a second through hole (see Figures 4 and 5). Claim 11, the hair extension thread is formed as a single grouping of thread comprised of natural hair, synthetic hair, fur, synthetic fur, yarn, thread, beads, or combinations thereof (col. 7, lines 12-15). Gray discloses the claimed invention except for the strap being made from rubber. Hayes teaches rubber as a material to be used in the strap of hair wefts (col. 15, lines 30-55). At the time of the invention, it would have been an obvious design choice to modify the material of Gray by substituting the rubber as taught by Hayes to provide a flexible support since substitution of parts which provide the same function, in this case that of flexibility, would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 3, 12, 13, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray (US 11,832,688) in view of Hayes (US 10,575,576) as applied to claims 1, 2, 10, and 11 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0223532).
Gray discloses the claimed invention except for the hair extension thread is formed from two groupings of strands comprised of natural hair, synthetic hair, fur, synthetic fur, yarn, thread, beads, or combinations thereof, wherein each grouping of thread comprises a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the proximal end is terminated by a loop of material, wherein the loop of material is affixed to the proximal end by a crimp, whipping, or adhesive, wherein the two groupings of strands are joined by knotting the two loops of material together to form a unitary two-piece hair extension thread. Kim et al. teaches a hair extension thread (230) is formed from two groupings of strands (220, 225) comprised of natural hair, synthetic hair, fur, synthetic fur, yarn, thread, beads, or combinations thereof, wherein each grouping of thread comprises a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the proximal end is terminated by a loop of material (245), wherein the loop of material is affixed to the proximal end by a crimp, whipping, or adhesive, wherein the two groupings of strands are joined by knotting the two loops of material together to form a unitary two-piece hair extension thread (see Figure 2A; paragraph 41). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the hair extension of Gray have hairs attached as taught by Kim et al. to allow for the hairs to be easily crocheted to a wig or hairpieces.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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
11/3/2025