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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the handle configured to position the applicator at various angles recited in claim 15 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 recites an articulating handle that includes a sensor and the handle is configured to position the applicator cap assembly at various angles upon detection of the type of cosmetic formula being applied. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. When claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. V. M-I LLC, 14 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008). In this case, Applicant has described a result (the handle positions the applicator at various angles) without describing any structure(s) that achieves that result. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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, 7, 15, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 9185860) in view of Betz, III (US 3894807) and Pathak (US 2018/0311062).
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a bottle having an applicator cap assembly for applying a cosmetic formula and an interconnect feature for receiving an articulating handle, the bottle comprising: a bottle (47) comprising a cosmetic formulation; an applicator cap assembly, and an articulating handle (10) connected to the applicator cap assembly, wherein the applicator cap includes: an applicator (comprising 40, 44 and 45) releasably coupled to the bottle, wherein a first end of the applicator includes a brush (45) configured to retain an amount of the cosmetic formula for application; a coupling portion (shown at 61) is connected to a second end of the applicator, the coupling portion is configured to releasably couple the applicator to the bottle (47), a cap portion (41) has a cylindrical exterior wall from a top to a bottom of the cap portion; the cap portion has an open bottom end (56) that fits on the top-facing cylinder of the coupling portion (col. 6, ll. 53-55), and the cap portion has a flat top end (42) with a cavity (43) extending at least partially into the cap and configured to receive a corresponding protrusion (30) from a handle therein, wherein the interior wall of the cavity extends to ‘about’ a middle of the cap portion, and a magnet (42).
Park does not teach that the handle includes a sensor; that the coupling portion has a closed top-facing cylinder; that coupling portion is releasably inserted within the cap portion; that the cavity includes an interior wall having a cross-sectional shape of two intersecting lobes with a narrow section at respective sides of the intersections of the lobes, that a first and second magnet is each respectively placed vertically adjacent to one of the intersections of the first and second lobes between the interior wall of the cavity, the cylindrical wall of the cap portion, and an underside of the flat top end of the cap portion; or that a data storage device embedded in the cap portion that communicates with the sensor in the handle, wherein the data storage device communicates information of a type of the cosmetic formulation.
Betz, III teaches a cap portion (16) that releasably receives a “coupling portion” (18).
Regarding the difference in shape between the coupling portion of Park and the claimed coupling portion with a closed top-facing cylinder on top: at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to change the shape of the coupling portion such that it had a closed top-facing cylinder because Applicant has not disclosed that the particular top shape of the coupling portion provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Park’s coupling portion and the applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the open cylinder taught by Park or the claimed closed top-facing cylinder on top because both coupling portions are equally capable of being received in the cap portion.
Regarding the difference in the shape of the cavity of Park and the claimed cavity: at the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cavity of Park such that the a cross-sectional shape of an interior wall of the cavity is of two intersecting lobes with a narrow section at respective sides of the intersections of the lobes because Applicant has not disclosed that the shape of the cavity provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Park’s applicator and the applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the cavity shape taught by Park or the claimed cavity with a cross-sectional shape of an interior wall of the cavity is of two intersecting lobes with a narrow section at respective sides of the intersections of the lobes because both cavities are equally capable of releasably joining the handle and the applicator. It is noted that Applicant discloses that the cavity may be any shape that interfaces with the handle (pg. 8, ll. 9-11). It is also noted that Park does not teach any particular limitations on possible cavity shapes (see col. 5, ll. 62-66).
Regarding the difference between the magnet of Park and the claimed first and second magnet is each respectively placed vertically adjacent to one of the intersections of the first and second lobes between the interior wall of the cavity, the cylindrical wall of the cap portion, and an underside of the flat top end of the cap portion: it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cap of Park such that a first and second magnet is each respectively placed vertically adjacent to one of the intersections of the first and second lobes between the interior wall of the cavity, the cylindrical wall of the cap portion, and an underside of the flat top end of the cap portion because Applicant has not disclosed that the specific location of the magnet provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Park’s applicator and the applicant’s invention to perform equally well with either the magnet taught by Park or the claimed first and second magnet is each respectively placed vertically adjacent to one of the intersections of the first and second lobes between the interior wall of the cavity, the cylindrical wall of the cap portion, and an underside of the flat top end of the cap portion because both magnets are equally capable of retaining a handle with a magnetic portion.
Pathak teaches a sensor (120) in a handle, a data storage device (identifier contact, ¶0026) embedded in the cap portion that communicates with a sensor (120) in the handle, wherein the data storage device communicates information of a type of the cosmetic formulation (¶0036) and the handle is configured to position the applicator cap assembly at various angles upon detection of the type of cosmetic formula being applied (¶0036-0037).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cap portion of Park such that the coupling portion is releasably inserted within the cap portion via a press fit as taught by Betz, III, for the purpose of enabling one cap portion to be used with a plurality of coupling portions (Betz, III, col. 1, ll. 13-22 and Park, col. 6, ll. 55-59).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Park with a data storage device embedded in the cap portion that communicates with a sensor in the handle, wherein the data storage device communicates information of a type of the cosmetic formulation and the handle is configured to position the applicator cap assembly at various angles upon detection of the type of cosmetic formula being applied as taught by Pathak for the purpose of better assisting users with limited mobility (Pathak, ¶0002 and 0021).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Park, Betz, III, and Pathak teaches the bottle and applicator cap assembly of Claim 1, wherein the application end has a plurality of application bristles (Park, 45) configured to retain an amount of the cosmetic formula for application.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Park, Betz, III and Pathak teaches the bottle and applicator cap assembly of Claim 1, further comprising an elongate stem (Park, 44) positioned between the application end and the coupling portion.
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Park, Betz, III and Pathak teaches the bottle and applicator cap assembly of Claim 1, and further that the handle is configured to position the applicator cap assembly at various angles upon detection of the type of cosmetic formula being applied (Pathak ¶0036-0037).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handle of Park such that the handle is configured to position the applicator cap assembly at various angles upon detection of the type of cosmetic formula being applied as taught by Pathak for the purpose of better assisting users with limited mobility (Pathak, ¶0002 and 0021).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Park, Betz, III and Pathak teaches the bottle and applicator cap assembly of Claim 17 in the same way as the bottle and applicator assembly of claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Park, Betz, III, and Pathak teaches the bottle and applicator assembly of claim 1, wherein the handle is configured to mechanically remove the applicator cap assembly from the bottle (applying a torque to the handle of Park would rotate the cap, thereby mechanically removing the applicator cap assembly).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 13 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that the objection to the drawings should be withdrawn due to the amendment to claims 1, 15, and 17, it is noted that claim 15 still recites a handle that is configured to position the applicator cap assembly at various angles upon detection of the type of cosmetic formula being applied. The drawings do not show any such configuration.
In response to the argument that the 112(b) rejections of claims 1, 15, and 17 should be withdrawn due to the amendments of claims 1, 15, and 17, it is noted that claim 15 still recites a handle that is configured to position the applicator cap assembly at various angles upon detection of the type of cosmetic formula being applied.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 13 April 2026, with respect to the Pang reference (US 2020/0085168) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Pang reference is not relied upon for any present rejection.
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 BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 ET.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/BRADLEY S OLIVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights