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 § 102
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) 1-3, 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alex (US 8,434,500).
Regarding claim 1, Alex discloses a hair weft, comprising a hair transplantation base (2); and a first hair strand (4) which comprises a plurality of first hair elements (col. 5, lines 38-40), wherein each of the plurality of first hair elements comprises a first end fixing end portion (8), a transplantation portion (near 7), and a first hair body portion (4), wherein the transplantation portion, which is extended between the first end fixing end portion and the first hair body portion (Fig. 3), is embedded in the hair transplantation base (2), the first end fixing end portion and the first hair body portion are provided at two opposite sides of the hair transplantation base (Fig. 3); wherein the hair transplantation base (2) comprises a front surface (Fig. 1) and a rear surface, the transplantation portion is extended through the hair transplantation base from the front surface to the rear surface in a single pass (Fig. 3), wherein the first hair body portion (4) is extended downward from the front surface (Fig. 1) of the hair transplantation base, the first end fixing end portion (8) is bent downward from the transplantation portion (2) and adhered to the rear surface of the hair transplantation base (col. 5, lines 60-65; Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 2, the hair transplantation base (2) has a plurality of transplantation holes (7) each is penetrated by one or more transplantation portions of the plurality of first hair elements (4) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, wherein the hair transplantation base (2) has a plurality of transplantation holes (7) each is penetrated by multiple transplantation portions of the plurality of first hair elements (4) (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the transplantation portion (7) is vertically penetrated through a thickness of the hair transplantation base (2) (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 12, further wherein the first end fixing end portion is adhered to the rear surface of the hair transplantation base by the fixing glue (Fig. 3; col. 5, lines 60-65).
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) 4 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alex (US 8,434,500).
Regarding claim 4, Alex discloses the claimed invention except for the hair transplantation base comprises a silk mesh. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to the hair transplantation base be a silk mesh, 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.
Regarding claims 14-16, Alex discloses the claimed invention except for a distance between a topmost first hair element and a top edge of the hair transplantation base is 0-1 cm (claim 14); smaller than 1 mm (claim 15) and 0.5mm (claim 16). However, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the parameters of the distance between topmost hair and transplantation edge 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, it would be obvious to have the hairs located close to the top edge to ensure blending of the hairpiece with the user’s natural hair to help conceal the hairpiece.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/8/2026 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
9/17/2026
