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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 3/25/2026 has been entered.
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 11-20 are 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.
Claim 11, line 8 states “the artificial eyelash extension system is packaged for sale to a user”. “the artificial eyelash extension system” lacks a prior antecedent. Further the claims are drawn to an artificial eyelash extension not a system.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrne (US 8,225,800) in view of Lotti (US 11,330,855).
Byrne discloses an artificial eyelash extension comprising a plurality of eyelash filaments (7), each of the plurality of eyelash filaments comprising a first end and a second end opposite the first end (see Figure 1); a base (5) configured to support the plurality of eyelash filaments, the base comprising a first adhesive (microbonding; col. 7, line 26), the first adhesive being configured to attach the first ends of the plurality of eyelash filaments (col. 7, line 26); and a second adhesive (col. 7, lines 50-55) disposed on the base the second adhesive being adapted to adhere to natural eyelashes of a user when the artificial eyelash extension is applied (see Figure 1; col. 7, lines 5-15) wherein at least some of the eyelash filaments extend from the base such that they overlap or cross one another (Fig. 32) . Byrne does not disclose the second adhesive on the plurality of eyelash filaments. Lotti teaches artificial filaments wherein the adhesive is applied to the plurality of filaments (col. 5, lines 40-45). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the artificial lashes of Byrne be made with an adhesive as taught by Lotti to further secure the eyelash extension to the user’s eyelashes.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose the second adhesive is applied to upward-facing surfaces of the base and eyelash filaments, the upward- facing surfaces corresponding to surfaces designed to face toward a top of a user's eye when applied (Lotti; Figure 9).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose the first adhesive is disposed between the second adhesive and at least the base of the artificial eyelash extension (Bryne Figure 1; microbonding; col. 7, line 26).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose the second adhesive comprises an adhesive that retains its stickiness during storage of the artificial eyelash extension (Lotti; col 5, lines 50-col. 6, line 25).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose the artificial eyelash extension is approximately one quarter to one third the width of the user’s natural eyelashes (Bryne and Lotti disclose multiple lash extension of different sizes).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose the artificial eyelash extension curls upward toward an upward-facing direction (see Byrne Figure 1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose a removable substrate adapted to cover at least a part of the filaments and the substrate is removed prior to use (Byrne col. 7, lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose wherein the second adhesive is disposed between the first adhesive and the elongated substrate (see Lotti Figure 3).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose wherein the eyelash filaments extend from the base such that at least some of eyelash filaments overlap (see Bryne Figure 32).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose a strength of the first adhesive (i.e. microbonds) is greater than a strength of the second adhesive (i.e. removable adhesive).
Regarding claim 11, Byrne discloses an artificial eyelash extension comprising a plurality of eyelash filaments (7), each of the plurality of eyelash filaments comprising a first end and a second end opposite the first end (see Figure 1); a base (5) configured to support the plurality of eyelash filaments, the base comprising a first adhesive (microbonding; col. 7, line 26), the first adhesive being configured to attach the first ends of the plurality of eyelash filaments (col. 7, line 26); and a second adhesive (col. 7, lines 50-55) disposed on the base the second adhesive being adapted to adhere to natural eyelashes of a user when the artificial eyelash extension is applied (see Figure 1; col. 7, lines 5-15). Byrne does not disclose the second adhesive on the plurality of eyelash filaments. Lotti teaches artificial filaments wherein the adhesive is applied to the plurality of filaments (col. 5, lines 40-45) plurality of eyelash filaments before the artificial eyelash extension system is packaged for sale to a user (col. 8, lines 50-55); wherein at least some of the eyelash filaments extend from the base such that they overlap or cross one another (Fig. 32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the artificial lashes of Byrne be made with an adhesive as taught by Lotti to further secure the eyelash extension to the user’s eyelashes
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose the second adhesive is applied to upward-facing surfaces of the base and eyelash filaments, the upward- facing surfaces corresponding to surfaces designed to face toward a top of a user's eye when applied (Lotti; Figure 9).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose the first adhesive is disposed between the second adhesive and at least the base of the artificial eyelash extension (Bryne Figure 1; microbonding; col. 7, line 26).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose the second adhesive comprises an adhesive that retains its stickiness during storage of the artificial eyelash extension (Lotti; col 5, lines 50-col. 6, line 25).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose the artificial eyelash extension is approximately one quarter to one third the width of the user’s natural eyelashes (Bryne and Lotti disclose multiple lash extension of different sizes).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose the artificial eyelash extension curls upward toward an upward-facing direction (see Byrne Figure 1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose a removable substrate adapted to cover at least a part of the filaments and be removed prior to use (Byrne col. 7, lines 5-15).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose wherein the second adhesive is disposed between the first adhesive and the elongated substrate (see Lotti Figure 3).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose wherein the eyelash filaments extend from the base such that at least some of eyelash filaments overlap (see Bryne Figure 32).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Byrne and Lotti disclose a strength of the first adhesive (i.e. microbonds) is greater than a strength of the second adhesive (i.e. removable adhesive).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that Bryne does not disclose “at least come of the eyelash filaments extend from the base such that they overlap or cross one another” is not persuasive. Bryne teaches multiple embodiments where the artificial eyelashes overlap or cross each other see Figure below.
PNG
media_image1.png
380
854
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lotti also teaches that crossing eyelashes is readily practiced (see Fig. 3A)(col. 4, lines 44-47).
In response to applicant’s argument that the combination of Byrne and Lotti do not disclose “a second adhesive disposed on the base and overlapping at least a portion of the plurality of the eyelash filaments extending from the first ends” is not persuasive. Lotti teaches the use of a second adhesive that is applied to the eyelash fusion which is defined as “multiple clusters can then be fused together to form a bundle (also referred to as a “lash fusion”)”. The lash fusion is interpreted to include the base and eyelashes col. 2, lines 65-67 “More specifically, a lash fusion can include multiple cluster that are fused together near the inner ends of the artificial lashes (also referred to as the “base” of the lash fusion)”. Col. 5, lines 40-50 “An adhesive can be applied to the top of each lash fusion in the set, which enables an individual to easily apply the set directly to the natural lashes” col. 6, lines 53-55 “Fig. 7 depicts how an adhesive can be applied to the top of an entire set of lash extension or to the lash fusions that make up the set”. Therefore, Lotti teaches the claim limitation “a second adhesive disposed on the base and overlapping at least a portion of the plurality of the eyelash filaments extending from the first ends” and one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply the teaching of applying an adhesive to the base and artificial eyelashes to Bryne to further secure and hold the eyelashes on the wearer’s natural eyelashes.
In response to applicant’s argument that the combination of Byrne and Lotti do not disclose the adhesive is not applied before packaging for consumer use is not persuasive. Lotti teaches col. 3, lines 45-50 “An adhesive may be applied to the top of each lash fusion within a set during the manufacturing process”.
In response to applicant’s argument that Bryne and Lotti do not disclose “a removable substrate adapted to cover at least a part of the filaments”, is not persuasive. Byrne teaches a removable substrate col. 7, lines 5-15; Bryne as modified by Lotti teaches the second adhesive on the base and plurality of eyelash filaments, therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand the removable substrate as modified by Lotti would be desirable to be made large enough to cover the adhesive on the filaments, since one having ordinary skill in the art recognizes that the purpose and design of a removable substrate is to protect the adhesive.
Conclusion
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
5/5/2026
Prosecution Insights