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 Objections
Claim 1, line 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a bottom edge” should be changed to - -the bottom edge- -. 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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Willet, Jr. (US 10,390,602).
Willet, Jr. discloses a first hair weft unit (10), comprising a first hair strand (Fig. 3), and a hair transplantation base, wherein said first hair strand is fixed to said hair transplantation base (col. 7, lines 55-65), wherein said hair transplantation base comprises a mesh (col. 7, lines 67 “manufactured as a mesh internal structure”) and a glue layer (col. 7, lines 65-col. 8, lines 1-5; “a mesh internal structure that is coated with a surface formulation that creates a surface that will grip the user’s skin”) applied on said mesh to form an integral layer with the mesh embedded (col. 7,lines 65-col. 8 lines 1-4) and hidden in the glue layer, wherein said glue layer comprise polyurethane (col. 7,lines 60-65), wherein said integral layer is a flat sheet having a top edge and a bottom edge parallel to the top edge (Fig. 3), wherein a front surface of said hair transplantation base and a rear surface of said hair transplantation base are respectively flat surfaces formed by a glue material of said glue layer, wherein said first hair strand comprises a first hair strand body and a first root portion integrally extended from said first hair strand body (Fig. 3), wherein said first root portion is penetrating through said glue layer of said hair transplantation base for a single time and adhered to said hair transplantation base wherein said first hair strand body of said first hair strand is extended from said front surface of said hair transplantation base (col. 7, lines 55-65), wherein said first root portion is adhered to said rear surface of said hair transplantation base, wherein said first hair strand comprises a plurality of first hair elements, wherein a top row of said first hair elements is extended from the top edge of said integral layer of said hair transplantation base and is naturally draping over said hair transplantation base and a bottom row of said first hair elements which is extended from a bottom edge of said integral layer of said hair transplantation base (Fig. 3).
Willet, Jr. does not disclose the mesh being Korean silk and the flat sheet being rectangular. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the mesh be Korean silk, 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. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. In this instance case, both mesh and Korean silk offer small porous holes to aid in ventilation and allow for natural looking pores. The instant claim differs from Willet in that the flat sheet is has rounded corners rather than rectangular. Modifying Willet’s body to have a rectangular shape would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because such modification constitutes a change in shape that does not affect the function of the device. The rectangular corners would perform the same weft function as the rounded corner configuration. Altering the shape of a known device where the modification yields predictable results is considered an obvious matter of design choice. See MPEP 2144.04. Therefore, the difference between the claimed rectangular shape and Willet’s rounded corners is merely a predictable variation and does not patentably distinguish the claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/29/2026 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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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
5/21/2026
Prosecution Insights