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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 21-22, 24-26, 28, 32-36 and 38-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bau et al (US3559657) herein after Bau.
Regarding claim 21, Bau teaches a monolithic eyelash segment comprising: a base structure defining an elongate body (figure 11, element 80 the spine structure); a set of individual artificial lash hairs integrally formed with the base structure and extending outwardly from the elongate body along a first direction (82 the artificial lashes as shown in Figures 11, 12 and 13); and an array of coupling members integrally formed with the base structure extending outwardly from the elongate body in a second direction that is transverse to the first direction (parts 81, coupling members), the array of coupling members configured to structurally engage a set of natural lashes of a wearer to the monolithic eyelash segment (as shown in figure 12).
Regarding claim 22, Bau teaches the monolithic eyelash segment of claim 21, wherein: the base structure, the set of individual artificial lash hairs, and the array of coupling members and each coupling member of the array of coupling members are configured to extend upwards towards and between the set of natural lashes of the wearer as taught in claim 21. Bau further teaches they are integrally formed (Column 5, lines 11-12) Here, using a three-dimensional printing process is a product by process limitation. (“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding claim 24, Bau teaches the monolithic eyelash segment of claim 21, wherein a respective second end of a first coupling member from the array of coupling members (81) is configured to at least partially wrap (Figure 13, the member 81 seen to be partially around the lash 51) around a natural lash from the set of natural lashes (as seen in figures 11,12, and 13)
Regarding claim 25, Bau teaches the monolithic eyelash segment of claim 21, wherein each coupling member of the array of coupling members defines a respective protrusion configured to be positioned between adjacent natural lashes from the set of natural lashes (as seen in figure 13, where the protrusions 81 are in between the lashes 82).
Regarding claim 26, Bau teaches the monolithic eyelash segment of claim 21, wherein the array of coupling members is arranged linearly along the elongate body (81, arrangement can be seen in figures 11,12, and 13).
Regarding claim 28, Bau teaches a monolithic eyelash segment comprising: a base structure defining an elongate body (figure 11, 80); a set of individual artificial lash hairs (82) integrally formed with the base structure and extending outwardly from the elongate body along a first direction, and a coupling member (81) integrally formed with the base structure extending outwardly from the elongate body in a second direction different from the first direction, the set of individual artificial lash hairs, and the coupling member are integrally (figure 11 and 13, integrally formed protrusions 81) formed without the use of adhesives.
The first direction and the second direction define an angle less than 180 degrees (Figures 11 and 12 provide support for the angle between 81 and at least a portion of 82 being less than 180 degrees); the base structure, the set of individual artificial lash hairs, and the coupling member is formed from a thermoplastic polymer material (column 2, lines 65-68).
Regarding claim 32, Bau teaches the monolithic eyelash segment of claim 28, Bau further teaches wherein: the coupling member (81) is configured to extend between a wearer’s natural lashes (51) in an applied position (as shown in figure 12).
Regarding claim 33, Bau teaches the monolithic eyelash segment of claim 28, Bau further teaches wherein the base structure is configured to be positioned under a wearer’s natural lash (as shown in figure 12 where the base 85 situated relative to the natural lashes 51).
Regarding claim 34, Bau teaches the monolithic eyelash segment of claim 28, Bau further teaches wherein the first direction is oblique with respect to a surface of the elongate body (85, and the first direction which the direction of artificial lashes 82 corresponding to the base, as seen in figure 12, the first direction/ the under-lash section is oblique shapes compared to the elongated body).
Regarding claim 35, Bau teaches a monolithic eyelash segment comprising: a base structure defining (part 80, having a width) a width of the monolithic eyelash segment; an array of artificial hairs (82) extending from the base structure and distributed along the width of the monolithic eyelash segment (as seen figure 11), each artificial hair of the array of artificial hairs defining a respective curvature (seen in figures 11 and 12, the curvature of lashes 82); and an array of coupling members (81) extending from the base structure and configured to extend between one or more natural lashes of a user in a substantially transversal direction (as seen in figure 12).
Regarding claim 36, Bau teaches an eyelash segment as of claim 35, wherein: the base structure, the set of individual artificial lash hairs, and the array of coupling members and each coupling member of the array of coupling members are configured to extend upwards towards and between the set of natural lashes of the wearer as taught in claim 35. Bau further teaches they are integrally formed (Column 5, lines 11-12) Here, using a three-dimensional printing process is a product by process limitation. (“Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Regarding claim 38, Bau teaches the monolithic eyelash segment of claim 35, wherein the base structure (80) is curved along the width of the monolithic eyelash segment (column 6, lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 39, Bau teaches the monolithic eyelash segment of claim 35, wherein the array of coupling members is configured to partially wrap around the user’s natural lash (as seen in figure 12, where the structure 81 is in contact with lash 51).
Regarding claim 40, Bau teaches the monolithic eyelash segment of claim 35 and each coupling member of the array of coupling members (81, attached to base/spine 80) define a textured surface configured (grooves 13 for a rough texture) to increase a contact surface area between the user’s natural lash and the monolithic eyelash segment (Figure 12).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 4, 6-7, 15-20, 23, 27, and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bau et al (US3559657) herein after Bau in view of Rabe et al (US8061367) herein after Rabe.
Regarding claim 1, Bau teaches an artificial eyelash system comprising: a support frame (one-piece integrally molded false eyelash construction having an elongated base strip, Figures 9, 11-12) comprising: a spine defining an elongate body (80, Figures 11,12) ; an array of coupling members (plurality of spaced projections 81) extending from the spine in a first direction (81, on underside of the base strip 80), the array of coupling members configured to extend between the natural lashes of a wearer in a substantially transversal direction with respect to the natural lashes (Figure 9, Column 3, 23-27);
However, Bau does not teach engagement posts in a second direction, first and second adhesive. Further Bau does not explicitly teach that “wherein an angle between the first direction and the second direction is between 60 degrees and 160 degrees”.
Rabe teaches an eyelash assembly with posts an array of engagement posts extending (950) from the spine in a second direction; an artificial eyelash assembly coupled to a particular engagement post of the array of engagement posts (Figs 9A and 9B), the artificial eyelash assembly comprising a plurality of artificials hairs having a proximate end and a distal end (902, artificial hairs); and a first adhesive (page 3, lines 24-26) where these methods of attachment such as adhesive bonding can be used to attach the artificial lashes to the surrounding surfaces such as engagements posts which corresponding to the “composition bonding the proximate end of the plurality of artificial hairs of the artificial eyelash assembly to the particular engagement post;” (page 3, lines 28-30) wherein the array of coupling members of the support frame is configured to be coupled to the natural lashes of the wearer using a second adhesive composition (page 6, lines 16-17 that extensions can be applied to the natural lashes using adhesives).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before filling date of the application to modify the support frame of Bau by providing an array of engagement posts as taught by Rabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to create a more modular artificial lashes that allow easy attachments and replacement. It would be further obvious to use adhesive material for attaching the lashes with the support frame, engagement posts and with the lash line as taught by Rabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to create more modular artificial eyelash system that allows easy attachment and replacement of lash assemblies while maintaining secure mechanical interlacing with natural lashes. After modification of Bau to have engagement posts of Rabe, the projections extend from the underside of the base/spine while the posts extends from the front face of the spine, the combination would result in an angle within the claimed range (between 60-160 degrees) because the coupling members and posts would be about 90 degrees apart (look at Figures 11 and 12 of Bau, 81 extend in a first direction from a lower side of the base and the root portions of 82 extend from a front side of the base).
Regarding claim 4, Bau and Rabe teaches an artificial eyelash system of claim 1,
Bau teaches wherein: the plurality of artificial hairs includes between three to twenty artificial hairs (As seen in Figure 11 and 13); However, Bau does not teach engagement posts.
Rabe teaches the plurality of engagement posts (9A, 9B, element 902), which shows numerous engagement posts which can be varied with the number of artificial lashes thereby around the claimed range (between five to fifteen engagement posts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before filling date of the application to modify the support frame of Bau by providing an array of engagement posts as taught by Rabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to create more modular artificial eyelash system that allows easy attachment and replacement of lash assemblies while maintaining secure mechanical interlacing with natural lashes.
Regarding claim 6, Bau and Rabe teaches an artificial eyelash system of claim 1, However, Bau does not teach engagement posts. Rabe teaches plurality of engagement posts as in claim 1.
However, both Bau and Rabe does not teach that the diameter of engagement posts is between 0.02 mm and 0.2 mm; and a respective length of each engagement post of the plurality of engagement posts is between 1 mm and 5 mm.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that a diameter of engagement posts between 0.02mm and 0.2 mm and length between 1-5mm would result in a difference in function of the modified Bau et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the engagement posts of modified Bau and Rabe device, would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed diameters and lengths. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, indicating that the diameters and lengths “may” be within the claimed range, and offering other acceptable ranges (e.g., specification at para. [0071]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the engagement posts of modified Bau and Rabe device to have a diameter of engagement posts between 0.02mm and 0.2 mm and length between 1-5mm as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 7, Bau and Rabe teaches an artificial eyelash system of claim 1, However, Bau does not teach wherein the angle between the first direction and the second direction is about 90 degrees.
After modification of Bau to have engagement posts (950) of Rabe as in claim 1, the projections extend from the underside of the base/spine while the posts extends from the front face of the spine, the combination would result in an angle around 90 degrees because the coupling members and posts would be about 90 degrees apart (look at Figures 11 and 12 of Bau, 81 extend in a first direction from a lower side of the base and the root portions of 82 extend from a front side of the base).
Regarding claim 15, Bau teaches a support frame (one-piece integrally molded false eyelash construction having an elongated base strip, Figures 9, 11-12) for an artificial eyelash segment, the support frame comprising: a spine (80) defining a first length and a flat surface along the length (as shown in figure 11); and an array of coupling members (plurality of spaced projections 81) protruding from a surface of the spine different from the flat surface. each coupling member from the array of coupling members defining a third length less than the first length (coupling structures 81 as seen in figure 11 is shorter in comparison to the spine 80), the array of coupling members configured to interlace with a wearer’s natural eyelashes such that the array of coupling members are positioned crosswise with respect to the wearer’s natural eyelashes in a worn configuration (as shown in figure 12).
However, Bau does not teach engagement posts in the second direction.
Rabe teaches an array of engagement posts (950) protruding from the flat surface, each engagement post of the array of engagement posts having a second length and configured to engage to respective artificial eyelash assemblies (902).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before filling date of the application to modify the support frame of Bau by providing an array of engagement posts in the second direction as taught by Rabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to create more modular artificial eyelash system that allows easy attachment and replacement of lash assemblies while maintaining secure mechanical interlacing with natural lashes.
Regarding claim 16, Bau and Rabe teaches a support frame as of claim 15, Bau teaches coupling member (81) of the array of coupling members defines a respective second cross-sectional area (81 consist a cross-section area as seen). Where the thickness is around the thickness of eyelash hair as seen in Figures 12 and 13. While Rabe teaches array of engagement posts (950, around multiple lashes 902) defines a substantially cylindrical profile having a first cross-sectional area (as seen in figure 9B consist of cylindrical profile) as in claim 15; a first cross sectional area of the engagement posts (950) is larger than that of eyelash hair (Figure 9B) therefore larger than the coupling members as taught.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before filling date of the application to modify the support frame of Bau by providing an array of engagement posts as taught by Rabe. Where the first cross sectional area (of engagement posts) is larger than the second cross section area (of coupling members). One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to create more modular artificial eyelash system that allows easy attachment and replacement of lash assemblies while maintaining secure mechanical interlacing with natural lashes. Further the Bau in view of Rabe device can be modified to have second cross-sectional area that is less than the first cross-sectional area as taught above, because this would be obvious modification and does not change the function of the device.
Regarding claim 17, Bau and Rabe teaches an artificial eyelash assembly as in claim 15, However, Bau does not teach wherein the angle between the first direction and the second direction is about 90 degrees.
After modification of Bau to have engagement posts (950) of Rabe as in claim 15, the projections extend from the underside of the base/spine while the posts extends from the front face of the spine, the combination would result in an angle around 90 degrees because the coupling members and posts would be about 90 degrees apart (look at Figures 11 and 12 of Bau, 81 extend in a first direction from a lower side of the base and the root portions of 82 extend from a front side of the base).
Regarding claim 18, Bau and Rabe teaches a support frame as of claim 15, Bau teaches the spine, and the array of coupling members are a unitary member formed by a molding process (column 5, lines 5-10). However, does not teach array of engagement posts. Rabe teaches the array of engagement posts (950). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before filling date of the application to modify the support frame of Bau by providing an array of engagement posts as taught by Rabe by combining using similar molding process. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to create more modular artificial eyelash system that allows easy attachment and replacement of lash assemblies while maintaining secure mechanical interlacing with natural lashes.
Regarding claim 19, Bau and Rabe teaches a support frame as of claim 15, Bau further teaches wherein each coupling member (81) of the array of coupling members define a separation distance between adjacent coupling members (as in Figure 13). It would have been obvious to optimize the separation distance configured to receive no more than two natural eyelashes crosswise, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated do to so as a predictable routine optimization to provide secure mechanism while allowing interlacing.
Regarding claim 20, Bau and Rabe teaches a support frame as of claim 15, wherein Bau further teaches the spine is positioned under the wearer’s natural eyelashes (Figure 12, natural lashes 51, spine portion 80)
However, Bau does not teach engagement posts. Rabe teaches an array of engagement posts (950) protruding from the flat surface.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before filling date of the application to modify the support frame of Bau by providing an array of engagement posts as taught by Rabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to create more modular artificial eyelash system that allows easy attachment and replacement of lash assemblies while maintaining secure mechanical interlacing with natural lashes.
Regarding claim 23, Bau teaches a monolithic eyelash segment of claim 21, wherein each coupling member of the array of coupling members defines a respective first end and a second end, the second end curved towards the first end (the structure 81, can be seen as curved shape as seen in figure 13).
However, Bau does not explicitly teach hook shaped coupling structures. Rabe teaches the coupling structures to the backbone can be a hook shape (col.6, lines 40-45). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before filling date of the application to modify the coupling members of Bau to consist of a hook shaped as taught by Rabe, in order to have better attachment of the artificial lashes to the backbone.
Regarding claim 27, Bau teaches the monolithic eyelash segment of claim 21, wherein the array of coupling members (81) comprises number of coupling members according to the length and number of lashes). However, the number coupling members are not explicitly taught by Bau.
There is no evidence of record that establishes that the number of coupling members of 30 would result in a difference in function of the modified Bau et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the support frame/coupling members of Bau et al., would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed numbers of coupling members. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed range solves any stated problem, (e.g., specification at para. [0006]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed. Therefore, mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bau et al device to have 30 coupling members as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 37, Bau teaches the monolithic eyelash segment of claim 35, however does not teach wherein a length of a first artificial hair of the array of artificial hairs is less than a length of a second artificial hair of the array of artificial hairs.
Rabe teaches that length of different eyelash hairs can be of different lengths (column 3, para. [0014]) corresponding to the limitation ‘a first artificial hair of the array of artificial hairs is less than a length of a second artificial hair of the array of artificial hairs’.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bau et al device to have artificial eyelash hairs with different lengths as taught by Rabe, because varying the lengths of artificial hair in eyelash arrays is a known technique for achieving a more natural and aesthetic appearance.
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bau et al (US3559657) herein after Bau in view of Charles (US1450259) herein after Charles.
Regarding claim 29, Bau teaches a monolithic eyelash segment as of claim 28, however, does not teach a second row of artificial lash hairs, and the first row of artificial lash hairs and the second row of artificial lash hairs are vertically distributed with respect to the first direction at the base structure.
Charles teaches an eyelash segment with multiple rows (page 3, lines 82-85) vertically distributed to the base (Figure 4, hairs 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hairs (82) on base/spine (80) of Bau et al device to have multiple rows of artificial hairs as taught by Charles, in order to achieve more natural and aesthetically pleasing appearance.
Claim(s) 2, 3, and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bau in view of Rabe and in further view of Lotti (US11234472) herein after Lotti.
Regarding claim 2, Bau and Rabe teaches an artificial eyelash system of claim 1, Rabe teaches using of adhesive bonding the proximate end of the plurality of hairs to the particular engagement post as in claim 1. However, both Bau and Rabe does not teach a third adhesive.
Lotti teaches the artificial eyelash assembly comprises a bonded portion comprising a third adhesive composition bonding the plurality of artificial hairs to each other at a location between the proximate end and the distal end (col 3, lines 45-50, and col. 3, lines 20-26); subsequent to the third adhesive composition of the bonded portion being cured, the proximate end of the plurality of artificial hairs remains substantially free of the third adhesive composition (col 4, lines 45-60); and the third adhesive composition of the bonded portion is cured prior to the first adhesive composition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eyelash assembly of Bau and Rabe modified system by forming it as a pre-bonded cluster using a third adhesive that is cured first as taught by Lotti. The motivation is to create a stable lash assembly that can be modularly attached to the engagement posts while still blending naturally to the wearer’s lashes.
Regarding claim 3, Bau, Rabe and Lotti teaches the artificial eyelash system of claim 2, Bau does not teach engagement posts. Whereas Rabe teaches using of adhesive bonding the proximate end of the plurality of hairs to the particular engagement post (950) as in claim 1.
Rabe further teaches that the artificial hairs (902) can be wrapped partially around the inner surface of the engagement post (can be seen in Figure 9A, the space 940 of engagement posts and the lash hair 902).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before filling date of the application to modify the support frame of Bau by providing an array of engagement posts as taught by Rabe. It would be further obvious to use adhesive material for attaching the lashes with the support frame, engagement posts and with the lash line so it might be partially wrapped as taught by Rabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to create more modular artificial eyelash system that allows easy attachment and replacement of lash assemblies while maintaining secure mechanical interlacing with natural lashes.
Regarding claim 5, Bau and Rabe teaches an artificial eyelash system of claim 1, However Bau does not teach wherein: the first adhesive composition is different from the second adhesive composition; and a curing time of the first adhesive composition is less than a curing time for the second adhesive composition.
Lotti teaches different adhesive compositions (column 6, lines 17- 37) corresponding to such first and second adhesive compositions being different in curing time. Lotti teaches one adheisve can be used to secure the base to the user’s natural lashes (analogous to the second adhesive) and another adhesive can be used to secure the lashes to the base or to one another, where these adhesives are different (col. 6 lines 58-61). Here, different adhesives may have different curing times based on their chemical compositions as stated (col. 7, lines 5-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before filling date of the application to select different adhesive compositions for first adhesive (bonding assembly to the engagement posts) and second adhesive (bonding hairs within clusters) as taught by Lotti in the device of Bau, in order to choose adhesive such that best for suit for specific bonding function.
Claim(s) 8-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bau in view of Rabe and in further view of Bi (LED Eyelash Extensions: A Safe Beauty Trend or a Risky Business?) herein after Bi.
Regarding claim 8, Bau teaches an artificial eyelash segment comprising: a support frame comprising: (one-piece integrally molded false eyelash construction having an elongated base strip, Figures 9, 11-12) a spine defining an elongate body (80, Figures 11,12), However, does not teach engagement posts and the adhesive material.
Rabe teaches an array of engagement posts (950, Figures 9A and 9B), each engagement post of the array of engagement posts protruding perpendicularly from the length of the spine;
a plurality of artificial eyelash assemblies (902), each artificial eyelash assembly of the plurality of artificial eyelash assemblies defining: a bonded portion (902 bonded to element 950) coupling a plurality of artificial hairs of a respective artificial eyelash assembly to each other, the bonded portion positioned between a proximate end and a distal end of the respective artificial eyelash assembly (Col. 9, lines 57-65); and a base portion (base portion of 940) between the proximate end and the bonded portion, the plurality of artificial hairs in the base portion wrapped at least partially around a respective engagement post of the array of engagement posts (902 seem to be partially wrapped around inner surface of 950, seen in Figure 9A where the 940 is the space of the structure 950); Neither Bau and Rabe teaches a UV light cured adhesive composition.
Bi teaches a UV light cured adhesive composition (Page 3, lines 3-5, that eyelash adhesive/glue can be solidified using UV light) which can be adhering each artificial eyelash assembly of the plurality of eyelash assemblies.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one in ordinary skill in the art before filling date of the application to modify the support frame of Bau by providing an array of engagement posts as taught by Rabe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to create a more modular artificial lashes that allow easy attachments and replacement. It would be further obvious to use the light adhesive material curing for attaching the lashes with the support frame as taught by Bi, which can be used to connect the lashes to the engagement posts as taught by Rabe and modify the support frame of Bau therefore. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so to create more modular artificial eyelash system that allows easy attachment and replacement of lash assemblies while maintaining secure mechanical interlacing with natural lashes.
Regarding claim 9, Bau, Rabe and Bi teaches an artificial eyelash segment of claim 8, Bau teaches coupling members (81) and Rabe teaches the engagement posts (950) as in claim 8.
After above modification of Bau to have engagement posts of Rabe, the projections extend from the underside of the base/spine while the posts extends from the front face of the spine, the combination would result in an angle within the claimed range (between 60-160 degrees) because the coupling members and posts would be about 90 degrees apart (look at Figures 11 and 12 of Bau, 81 extend in a first direction from a lower side of the base and the root portions of 82 extend from a front side of the base).
Regarding claim 10, Bau, Rabe and Bi teaches an artificial eyelash segment of claim 9, Bau teaches wherein the support frame is a unitary structure (80, as seen in figure 11).
Regarding claim 11, Bau, Rabe and Bi teaches an artificial eyelash segment of claim 9, Bau teaches wherein: each coupling member (81) of the array of coupling members is separated by a first separation distance (the separation between parts 81) with respect to an adjacent coupling member;
Rabe teaches each engagement post (950) of the array of engagement posts is separated by a second separation distance (the separation between each part) with respect to an adjacent engagement post. However, prior art does not teach the second separation distance larger than the first separation distance. There is no evidence of record that establishes that difference in distances would result in a difference in function of the modified Bau et al. device. Further, a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the support frame of Bau et al., would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification and it appears the device would function as intended being given the claimed distance of separation. Lastly, applicant has not disclosed that the claimed change of distance solves any stated problem, (e.g., specification at para. [0021]) and therefore there appears to be no criticality placed on the range as claimed such that it produces an unexpected result.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the support frame of modified Bau et al device to have the second separation distance larger than the first separation distance as an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 12, Bau, Rabe and Bi teaches an artificial eyelash segment of claim 8, Bau teaches particular proximate end (85) corresponding to a particular eyelash assembly (82) is positioned at a distance with respect to the spine (80) as shown in Figure 11.
Regarding claim 13, Bau, Rabe and Bi teaches an artificial eyelash segment of claim 8, Bau teaches for each artificial eyelash assembly: the respective plurality of artificial hairs splay with respect to each adjacent artificial hair at the distal end; and the plurality of artificial hairs (82) includes between three and twenty artificial hairs (can be seen in figure 11).
Regarding claim 14, Bau, Rabe and Bi teaches an artificial eyelash segment of claim 8, Bau teaches the artificial lashes and support frame structure and support frame is formed from a first material comprising a thermoplastic polymer (col.2, lines 63-67); However, does not teach the eyelash assemblies is made of a second material.
Rabe teaches the plurality of artificial eyelash assemblies are formed from a second material (column 3, lines 43-45) which are different from the first material taught above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to manufacture the Bau’s artificial eyelashes (82) with such materials which are different from first material as taught by Rabe, in order to have better durability and appearance.
Claim(s) 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bau et al (US3559657) herein after Bau in view of Merszei (US10888133) herein after Merszei.
Regarding claim 30, while Bau teaches a body with first and second ends as in claim 28, Bau does not teach at least one of the first end or the second end define a mating surface configured to align to another monolithic eyelash segment.
Merszei teaches that least one of the first end or the second (Figure 2, surfaces of 14a, contains adhesive surfaces to attach to each other) end define a mating surface configured to align to another monolithic eyelash segment (hair clusters 20 can attach to each other with the adhesive surfaces which correspond to mating surfaces).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spine (80) of Bau et al device to include a mating surface at least one of the first end or second end, as taught by Merszei. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to create more modular and customizable artificial eyelash system. This would allow multiple segments to be aligned and connected end to end to better accommodate different eye widths or to facilitate easy replacement of individual segments while maintaining proper alignment.
Regarding claim 31, Bau teaches an eyelash assembly as of claim 28, however does not teach mating surface defines a serrated surface configured to engage to an end of another monolithic eyelash segment.
Merszei teaches mating surface defines a serrated surface (mechanical interlocking) configured to engage to an end of another monolithic eyelash segment (col. 4, lines 25-32).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spine (80) of Bau et al device to include a mating surface (such as mechanical interlocking) at least one of the first end or second end, as taught by Merszei. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to create more modular and customizable artificial eyelash system. This would allow multiple segments to be aligned and connected end to end to better accommodate different eye widths or to facilitate easy replacement of individual segments while maintaining proper alignment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA N. SAMARASEKARA whose telephone number is (571)272-9653. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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.
/SARA N SAMARASEKARA/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights