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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/18/2025 has been entered.
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, 7-11, 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonham (US 3,420,249) in view of Capparelli et al. (US 3,521,648).
Bonham discloses a first hair weft unit, comprising a first hair strand, and a hair transplantation base (mesh; col. 1, lines 65-70), wherein said first hair strand is fixed to said hair transplantation base (see Figure 2), wherein the hair transplantation base comprises a mesh (col. 1, lines 65-70) and a glue layer applied on said mesh to form an integral layer with the mesh embedded and hidden in the glue layer (col. 1, lines 65-70 “the clear silicone rubber is carefully worked into and through the interstices of the mesh so that it sets up it will laminate or bond the mesh”) wherein a front surface of the hair transplantation base and a rear surface of the hair transplantation base are respectively flat surfaces formed by a glue material of the glue layer (see Figure 2; col. 2, lines 5-10: “working of the silicone rubber into the interstices of the mesh makes the scalp base take on the skin color and smooth skin-like texture”) wherein the first hair strand comprises a first hair strand body and a first root portion integrally extended from the first hair strand body, wherein the first root portion is penetrating through the glue layer of the hair transplantation base for a single time and adhere to said hair transplantation base wherein the first hair strand body of the first hair strand is extended form the front surface of the hair transplantation base, wherein the first root portion is adhered to the rear surface of the hair transplantation base (col. 2, lines 50-70). Bonham does not disclose the mesh being silk mesh. Capparelli et al. discloses a hair piece made from silk mesh which is made from a much tighter interwoven knit of strands defining smaller interstitial areas (col. 2, lines 15-20). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the mesh of Bonham be made from silk mesh as taught by Capparelli to allow for smaller interstitial areas.
Claim 7, Bonham further discloses the first hair weft unit is prepared by allowing said first root portion of said first hair strand to penetrate through said silk mesh and then affixing said first root portion of said first hair strand to said glue layer (see Figure 2; col. 2, lines 50-70). Regarding claim 8, Bonham further discloses the first hair weft unit (22) is prepared by placing said hair transplantation base and a spacer (13) above said first hair strand, guiding an end of said first hair strand to pass through said hair transplantation base and the spacer (13), cutting a portion of said first hair strand between said hair transplantation base and the spacer to leave said first root portion of said first hair strand on said hair transplantation base, and affixing said first root portion of said first hair strand on said hair transplantation base (see Figure 2; col. 2, lines 70; “the scalp base is removed from the rubber block and the hairs are pulled therefrom they are also pulled further through the scalp base. The hairs are trimmed to a uniform length of the underside of the scalp base”). Regarding the method of forming the device is not germane to the issue of patentability of the device itself. Therefore, this limitation has not been given patentable weight. Regarding claims 9 and 10, the combination discloses the claimed invention except for the first root portion of the first hair strand on a rear side of the silk mesh base is 0.1 to 2cm. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the parameters of the length of the root portion on the rear side to be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results. In this instance case, the length of the first root portion on the rear side would have to be short enough to be concealed by the weft of hair. Regarding claims 11 and 13, the combination discloses the claimed invention except for glue layer further comprises phthalate and calcium carbonate or the glue layer comprises one or more of acrylic resin, epoxy resin and polyurethane. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to glue layer further comprises phthalate and calcium carbonate or the glue layer comprises one or more of acrylic resin, epoxy resin and polyurethane, 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.
Claims 15, Bonham further discloses the first hair strand comprises a plurality of first hair element, wherein a top row of said first hair elements is extended from a top edge of said hair transplantation base and is naturally draping over said hair transplantation base in a curved manner (see Figure 2).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is 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 11/18/2025 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, 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
1/28/2026