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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/15/2025 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, 3-4, 9-11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0167858) in view of Salinas (US 2006/0086368).
Lee discloses a hair extension, comprising a hair base (131) having one or more openings (130a); and a plurality of hair members (110) fixed to said hair base (see Figures 1 and 2), the hair base comprises a glue base (paragraph 23), said one or more openings are penetrating through a thickness of said glue base (see Figure 1). Claim 3, each of said plurality of hair members comprises a root part which is embedded in said glue base and a hair body part which is integrally extended from said root part, wherein said hair body part is extended out of said glue base from a bottom edge of said glue base (see Figure 3). Claim 4, the root part of each hair member has an end edge embedded in the blue base, wherein a plurality of openings are located between end edges of the root parts and the bottom edge of the glue base, wherein multiple root parts of the hair members are located between two of the adjacent openings (see Figure 1). Claim 14, the glue base comprises polyurethane (paragraph 19). Claim 15, further comprising one or more mounting tubes for mounting the hair extension to natural hair of a user (see Figure 19).
Lee discloses the claimed invention except for the glue base has two upper side corner edges each is a curved edge, glue base has two lower side corner edges each is an orthogonal edge, wherein each of the upper side corner edges is an arc edge, glue base has multiple openings, wherein a distance between two adjacent openings is 0.1-20mm, a distance between the openings and the bottom edge of the glue base is 0.1-10mm, each opening has a circular shape, a diameter of each opening is 0.1-3.5mm, a distance between a side of the glue base and the corresponding opening adjacent to the side of the glue base is 0.1-10mm, hair base further comprises a mesh yarn integrated with the glue base, wherein the one or more openings are penetrating through the mesh yarn and the glue base. Salinas discloses a hair extension device except for the glue base having two upper side corner edges each is a curved edge (Figures 8-10), the glue base has multiple openings, wherein a distance between two adjacent openings is 0.1-20mm (paragraph 59), a distance between the openings and the bottom edge of the glue base is 0.1-10mm (paragraph 59), each opening has a circular shape, a diameter of each opening is 0.1-3.5mm (paragraph 60), a distance between a side of the glue base and the corresponding opening adjacent to the side of the glue base is 0.1-10mm (paragraph 59), hair base further comprises a mesh yarn (lace) integrated with the glue base, wherein the one or more openings are penetrating through the mesh yarn and the glue base (paragraph 55). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the base of Lee be curved and dimensioned as taught by Salinas to provide a more comfortable hair extension.
Claim(s) 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0167858) in view of Salinas (US 2006/0086368) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 9-12, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Toda (US 2004/0149302).
Lee and Salinas disclose the claimed invention except for each mounting tube comprises a tube body and an inner flexible tube disposed in the tube body wherein the inner passage has inner threads. Toda teaches a mounting tube comprising a tube body (11) and an inner flexible tube (15) made from rubber (paragraph 7) disposed in the tube body wherein the inner passage has inner threads (42) (see Figures 1-11). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the flexible tube of Lee be made with the inner body and threads of Toda to provide a more secure attachment.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2013/0167858) in view of Salinas (US 2006/0086368) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 9-12, and 14-15 above, and further in view of Waters (US 2009/0014023).
Lee and Salinas disclose the claimed invention except for a double-sided binding tape (5) wherein the double-sided binding tap is the same shape. Waters teaches using a double-sided binding tape that is the same shape (see Figure 4; paragraph 32). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the device of Lee and Salinas be made with a double-sided adhesive tape ad taught by Waters to allow for additional securement of the device to the user’s hair and help conceal the device when worn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Lee fails to disclose a glue base having lower orthogonal corner edges and upper curved corner edges. Lee discloses a sheet binding portion formed from polyurethane sheets used to secure extension hairs. While Lee does not explicitly describe the precise corner geometry recited in the claims, the exact shaping of the outer perimeter of a sheet component is considered a design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Lee’s sheet binding portion inherently possesses edges and corners that can be configured in various geometries depending on manufacturing preference or aesthetic considerations. Modifying the corner shape of a sheet element, including forming curved or orthogonal edges, would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization. Furthermore, Lee teaches orthogonal corners and Salinas teaches orthogonal corners and rounded corners both art recognized in the art.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Lee does not disclose that the edges are “cut edges.” The formation of sheet components from polymer sheets necessarily involves conventional manufacturing operations such as trimming, cutting, or stamping. Therefore, forming the edges through a cutting operation would have been an obvious and well-known manufacturing technique. Furthermore, 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)
In response to Applicant’s argument that Lee fails to disclose a mesh yarn integrally combined with the glue base. While Lee does not explicitly describe a mesh yarn layer, Salinas teaches a hair attachment structure incorporating support materials used to stabilize or reinforce hair attachment elements. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that incorporating a mesh or reinforcing layer within Lee’s sheet structure would improve durability and structural support. Accordingly, the modification of Lee to include such a reinforcing mesh layer would have been obvious in view of Salinas.
In response to Applicant further argues that the claimed openings extend through both the mesh yarn and the glue base. Lee already discloses openings in the sheet binding portion for attaching the extension to the user’s hair. When Lee is modified to include a reinforcing mesh layer as suggested by Salinas, it would have been obvious that such openings would extend through all layers of the structure so that the openings remain functional for attachment. Thus, the claimed feature of openings penetrating multiple layers does not distinguish the invention from the combined teachings of the references.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Lee does not disclose that the mesh yarn and glue base share the same shape. When multiple layers are combined into a laminated structure, it is conventional manufacturing practice for the layers to share a common perimeter geometry to facilitate alignment and bonding. Therefore, providing the mesh layer with the same shape as the glue base would have been an obvious and predictable design choice.
With respect to Salinas, Applicant argues that Salinas teaches uniformly rounded corners and therefore does not suggest the combination of curved upper corners and orthogonal lower corners. This argument is not persuasive. Salinas demonstrates that hair attachment components may include curved corners for comfort and aesthetic integration with the scalp. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the perimeter geometry of such components can be modified as needed to suit installation preferences, trimming requirements, or manufacturing considerations. Selecting a mixture of curved and orthogonal corners would have been an obvious variation within the ordinary skill in the art.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claimed corner configuration provides ergonomic, aesthetic, and durability benefits. While such advantages may be asserted, the claims themselves merely recite geometric edge shapes without structural limitations that would uniquely produce the alleged functional improvements. Statements of intended advantages or benefits do not overcome a showing of obviousness where the structural differences are minor and would have been within routine design variation.
Regarding claim 21, Applicant argues that Waters does not disclose openings penetrating through a mesh yarn, glue base, and double-sided adhesive tape of the same shape. However, Waters teaches a double-sided adhesive tape used for hair attachment. When combined with the layered structure resulting from Lee and Salinas, it would have been obvious to incorporate an adhesive tape layer into the multi-layer assembly to facilitate attachment. As discussed above, where multiple layers are stacked in a laminated structure, openings provided for hair passage would necessarily extend through each layer to maintain functionality.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Toda does not disclose an inner flexible tube made of rubber or silicone as recited in claim 16. Toda teaches a tubular structure made of rubber (paragraph 7) used for attaching hair material.
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
3/12/2026