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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and remarks filed (5 – 4 – 2026) have been fully considered but they are not persuasiveApplicant argues…
Lazzarini et al. (US 20080143018, hereinafter Lazzarini) / Lazzarini does not teach the newly amended feature(s) of a closing plate including a perimeter edge and at least one opening having an edge, the perimeter edge and the edge of the at least one opening configured to protrude from an inner surface of the closing plate toward the cosmetic product, and that an exterior outer surface, opposite from the inner surface, of the closing plate having one or more cavities or recesses for distributing the adhesive material across a portion of the exterior outer surface of the closing plate for attaching the closing plate to a case.
Applicant further argues that none of the other applied references make up for the deficiency of Lazzarini / Lazzarini as modified.
This is not found to be persuasive because…
While examiner agrees that the previous mapping of the vanes or ribs 113, now not reading on the feature of the perimeter edge and the edge of the at least one opening configured to protrude from an inner surface of the closing plate toward the cosmetic product. Barish et al. (US 4728210 A, hereinafter Barish) is still found to teach the newly amended features. In particular, Barish on (Col. 3, lines 6 – 19) teaches that the cover 12 may be removably connected to the container 11 by any of a variety of means, such as, for example, a snap fit. Similarly, the gripper plate 15 may be connected to cover 12 by any of a variety of means; for example, the cover and gripper plate may be attached by a snap fit. As illustrated in (Fig. 2) and provided within, the cover 12 is found to act as applicant’s a closing plate, the cover 12 comprises a fill hole 21. The fill hole 21 is shown to have a perimeter edge and at least one opening having an edge, such that the perimeter edge and the edge of the at least one opening is configured to protrude from an inner surface of the closing plate toward the cosmetic product. Furthermore, Barish goes on to state on (Col. 3, lines 6 – 19) that the cover 12 may be removably connected to the container 11 by any of a variety of means, such as, for example, a snap fit. Similarly, the gripper plate 15 may be connected to cover 12 by any of a variety of means; for example, the cover and gripper plate may be attached by a snap fit. (Col. 2, lines 62 – 66) teaches that the gripper plate 15 includes a plurality of openings or holes 16 through which the solid product 14 extends, whereby the solid product 14 partially fills the space 15 A between cover 12 and plate 15 and overlies surface 17 thereof. As such, the gripper plate 15 is provided on an exterior outer surface, opposite from the inner surface, of the closing plate having one or more cavities or recesses for distributing the adhesive material across a portion of the exterior outer surface of the closing plate for attaching the closing plate to a case. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the gripper plate 15 being connected to cover 12. The case law for making integral may be recited. Where, The use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214.
This is unpersuasive because as explained above there was not found to be deficiency in Lazzarini / Lazzarini as modified.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
A.) Claim(s) 1, 4 – 5, 7, & 10 – 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazzarini et al. (US 20080143018, hereinafter Lazzarini) in view of Barish et al. (US 4728210 A, hereinafter Barish) and in further view of Rossi et al. (FR 2956833 A1, hereinafter Rossi)Regarding claim 1,
A mould for a cosmetic product comprising:
an adhesive material;
a closing plate including a perimeter edge and at least one opening having an edge,
the perimeter edge and the edge of the at least one opening configured to protrude from an inner surface of the closing plate toward the cosmetic product,
an exterior outer surface, opposite from the inner surface, of the closing plate having one or more cavities or recesses for distributing the adhesive material across a portion of the exterior outer surface of the closing plate for attaching the closing plate to a case;
a hollow body having a concave chamber delimited by a wall with a moulding surface and
an access opening,
the wall having a bowl-shape to form the concave chamber,
said concave chamber being adapted to receive the cosmetic product in liquid form;
a positioning edge having (i) a first section that extends radially from a top of the hollow body, and
(ii) a second section that extends vertically from the first section,
the positioning edge configured to receive the closing plate;
a margin that extends radially from a top of the second section of the positioning edge,
the margin having a depth that is less than a depth of the hollow body; and
a perimeter support component,
wherein at least the hollow body is made of a polymer material, and
wherein at least the hollow body is configured to deform inward toward the access opening responsive to an outer surface of the wall receiving a force,
the inward deformation of the bowl- shaped hollow body causing the cosmetic product to be removed from the hollow body without fragmenting
Lazzarini teaches the following:
([0035]) teaches that there is provided the introduction of the cosmetic product 1 within a final container 5 to which it is adhered by sticking or by contact with a heat source. As such, the cosmetic provides for an adhesive material.
& c.) ([0012]) teaches an outer surface of a small plate 6 (closing plate) provided with holes or of a small cup also provided with holes (one opening having an edge). As shown in (Figs. 6-7) the small plate 6 is provided with a perimeter edge configured to protrude from a surface of the closing plate toward the cosmetic product.
([0035]) teaching that the introduction of the cosmetic product 1 within a final container 5 to which it is adhered by sticking. ([0039]) teaches that the mixture 7 solidifies during the second step (not shown) and adheres to the small plate 6 so as to become integral therewith. ([0040]) teaches that the small plate 6 represents an ideal support for the sticking to the final container 5, as it is rigid. As shown in (Fig 6), the small plate 6 has a plurality of holes 6c (an exterior of the closing plate having one or more cavities or recesses). Highlighting, on ([0038]) it teaches that one of the holes 6c is configured to introduce mixture 7 into mould. As illustrated in (Fig. 7) the small cup 6 is shown to be placed on the mold and filled with the mixture, with the rear portion of the plate having the mixture 7 protruding between the holes 6c, and thus the mixture 7 touching the final container 5.
& h.) (Abstract) teaches the invention disclosed provides for a first step of dosing a liquid state mixture of a cosmetic product 7 within a shaped mould 2. As illustrated in (Figs. 6-7) the mold 2 is provided as a chamber being adapted to receive the mixture 7 in liquid form.
([0038]) teaches that the use of a small, perforated plate 6 placed as a lid of the mould 2 is provided. The nozzle 3C of the doser 3 is placed at a hole 6C of the small plate 6 in order to introduce the mixture 7 in the mould 2. As illustrated the mold 2 is provided with a chamber in which cosmetic product in liquid form 7 is received via the cavity’s open end which acts as applicant’s access opening.
PNG
media_image1.png
206
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As illustrated in (Fig. 6) and reproduced here the mold 7 comprises a positioning edge (lower arrow and upper arrow) having a first section (lower arrow) that extends radially from a top of the hollow body.
& k.) As illustrated in (Fig. 6) and reproduced here the mold comprises a positioning edge (lower arrow and upper arrow) with a second section (upper arrow) that extends vertically from the first section, as illustrated the second section of the position edge is provided such that it can receive the small plate 6.
([0046]) teaches that the mould 2 may be made of silicone, metal or different material. Highlighting, silicone also known as polysiloxane is a polymer. As such, the walls are understood to have a degree of elasticity.
Regarding Claim 1, Lazzarini is silent on implementing a closing plate comprising at least one opening having an edge protrude from a surface of the closing plate toward the cosmetic product and the chamber being concave having a wall with a bowl-shape. In analogous art for the production of a cosmetic product that comprises a container with a cavity, the container comprises holes utilized to fill the containers cavity with the cosmetic product, Barish suggests details regarding the chamber being concave having a wall with a bowl-shape and a closing plate comprising at least one opening having an edge protrude from a surface of the closing plate toward the cosmetic product, and in this regard Barish teaches the following:
(Col. 3, lines 20 – 25) teaches that container 11 may be provided with a fill hole and plug for introducing and forming the solid product in package 10. In this manner, the solid in molten form, is introduced into the package 10 through the container 11, rather than through the cover 12.
PNG
media_image2.png
560
984
media_image2.png
Greyscale
& c.) (Col. 3, lines 6 – 19) teaches that the cover 12 may be removably connected to the container 11 by any of a variety of means, such as, for example, a snap fit. Similarly, the gripper plate 15 may be connected to cover 12 by any of a variety of means; for example, the cover and gripper plate may be attached by a snap fit. As illustrated in (Fig. 2) and provided within, the cover 12 is found to act as applicant’s a closing plate, the cover 12 comprises a fill hole 21. The fill hole 21 is shown to have a perimeter edge and at least one opening having an edge, such that the perimeter edge and the edge of the at least one opening is configured to protrude from an inner surface of the closing plate toward the cosmetic product.
(Col. 3, lines 6 – 19) teaches that the cover 12 may be removably connected to the container 11 by any of a variety of means, such as, for example, a snap fit. Similarly, the gripper plate 15 may be connected to cover 12 by any of a variety of means; for example, the cover and gripper plate may be attached by a snap fit. (Col. 2, lines 62 – 66) teaches that the gripper plate 15 includes a plurality of openings or holes 16 through which the solid product 14 extends, whereby the solid product 14 partially fills the space 15 A between cover 12 and plate 15 and overlies surface 17 thereof. As such, the gripper plate 15 is provided on an exterior outer surface, opposite from the inner surface, of the closing plate having one or more cavities or recesses for distributing the adhesive material across a portion of the exterior outer surface of the closing plate for attaching the closing plate to a case. Highlighting, while no discrepancies are perceived to exist regarding the gripper plate 15 being connected to cover 12. The case law for making integral may be recited. Where, The use of a one-piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be obvious. It has been held to be within the general skill of one working in the art to make plural parts unitary or integral, In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 133 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965); In re Lockhart, 90 USPQ 214.
& g.) As illustrated in (Fig. 2-3) the base receptacle 11 comprises hollow body having a wall with a bowl-shape to form a concave chamber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing of a poured cosmetic product with a superficial relief. There are provided a first step of dosing a liquid state mixture of said cosmetic product within a shaped mould, the mold comprising silicone rubber, of Lazzarini. By modifying the cover plate to comprise a fill hole 21 with a perimeter edge and the edge of the at least one opening configured to protrude from an inner surface of the closing plate toward the cosmetic product,
an exterior outer surface, opposite from the inner surface, of the closing plate having one or more cavities or recesses for distributing the adhesive material across a portion of the exterior outer surface of the closing plate for attaching the closing plate to a case, as taught by Barish. Accordingly, one would be motivated to implement a cover plate to comprise a fill hole 21 with a perimeter edge and the edge of the at least one opening configured to protrude from an inner surface of the closing plate toward the cosmetic product, an exterior outer surface, opposite from the inner surface, of the closing plate having one or more cavities or recesses for distributing the adhesive material across a portion of the exterior outer surface of the closing plate for attaching the closing plate to a case as it provides for the solid product is introduced through the fill hole 21 in molten form to a level whereby the product extends into the open space 15 A and covers surface 17 of the plate 15. The product is solidified in the container. The hole 21 is closed by plug 22, (Col. 3, lines 13 – 19). Additionally, the case law for the change of shape may be recited. Where, the court held that the configuration of the claimed container was found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP 2143.Regarding claim 1, Lazzarini as modified by Barish is silent on the make up being an adhesive and removing the molding article via deformation of the silicone mold. In analogous art for production of a cosmetic product in a silicon mold, Rossi suggests details regarding the make up being an adhesive and removing the cosmetic product from the silicone mold via deformation, and in this regard, Rossi teaches the following:
& d.) (Pg. 2, lines 83-85) teaches that the solidified makeup product adheres to the cup, thus avoiding a subsequent packaging step. As such, the makeup is understood to acts an adhesive material for attaching the closing plate to a case.
& l.) As best illustrated in (Figs. 2A-E), Rossi comprises a second section that extends vertically from the first section, and that second section has a margin that extends radially from a top of the second section of the positioning edge. The second section is highlighted below.
PNG
media_image3.png
268
860
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As noted above Rossie teaches utilizing a mold comprising a second section that extends vertically from the first section. However, Rossi makes no limitation regarding the size of the margin having a depth that is less than a depth of the hollow body
As best illustrated in (Figs. 2A-E), Rossi comprises a perimeter support component. That holds the mold in place. The perimeter support component is highlighted below.
PNG
media_image4.png
265
860
media_image4.png
Greyscale
& q.) (Pg. 1, lines 32- End & Pg. 2, lines 1-2) teaches that the process of hot casting of flat makeup product, comprises placing a deformable flat mold on a support, pouring hot molten makeup product (70) in the deformable flat mold, solidifying the makeup product poured in the deformable flat mold to cool the product, and demolding the flat solidified make-up product by deformation of the flat deformable mold. (Pg. 2, lines 61-64) adds that the term “mold”, “deformable mold”, or “flat mold” will denote the flat deformable mold used in the method described above. The deformable mold can be made for example of silicone, of a silicone elastomer such as silicone ethylene butylene styrene (SEBS), or others. (Pg. 3, lines 116-118) teaches a deformation of the mold so as to release the solidified molded makeup product. (Pg. 5, lines 167-169) notes that deforming the mold 10, for example could be considered pulling its edge laterally and pushing the bottom 13 vertically upwards.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing of a poured cosmetic product with a superficial relief. There are provided a first step of dosing a liquid state mixture of said cosmetic product within a shaped mould, the mold comprising silicone rubber, of Lazzarini as modified by Barish. By further modifying the molding process such that the removal of the cosmetic article from the silicone mold was performed via deformation of the silicone and that the solidified makeup product adheres to the cup, as taught by Rossi. Accordingly, one would be motivated to remove a cosmetic product via deformation from a silicone mold provides a known means for removing a molded cosmetic product from a mold, (Pg. 3, lines 116-118 & Pg. 5, lines 167-169) and one would be motivated to include solidified makeup product such that it adheres to the cup as it provides for avoiding a subsequent packaging step, (Pg. 2, lines 83-85). Accordingly, the use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way and/or the application of a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results allows for the recitation of KSR case law, MPEP 2143(D). Where, "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)Furthermore, while Lazzarini as modified by Barish and Rossi makes no limitation regarding the size of the margin having a depth that is less than a depth of the hollow body. However, the case law for change of size may be recited. Where, the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, see In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim(s) 4 – 5 as applied to claim 1 and claim 4 respectively,
Wherein said polymer material is thermoformable or of a thermoplastic type.
Wherein said polymer material is chosen from polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene terephthalate-glycol, polyethylene, polycarbonate, polystyrene, silicone, or polyurethane
Lazzarini teaches the following:
& 5a.) ([0046]) teaches that the mould 2 may be made of silicone, metal or different material. Highlighting, due to the material(s) property limitations i.e., transparent and thermoformable or even of a thermoplastic type being dependent on the type of material(s) required. It is understood that the materials, i.e., polyethylene terephthalate-glycol, polyethylene, polycarbonate, polystyrene, silicone, or polyurethane are capable of those properties. As such, the silicone of Lazzarini is understood and found to be transparent and thermoformable or even of a thermoplastic type of materials as required. Accordingly, silicone is understood to be a transparent and thermoformable or even of a thermoplastic type of material. Accordingly, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Finally, the change in size case law may be recited regarding the size of polymer thickness implemented, where the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, see In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the perimeter support component is removably coupled to the hollow body.
Regarding Claims 7, Lazzarini as modified by Barish adding that the small plate 6 represents an ideal support for the sticking to the final container 5, as it is rigid, (Lazzarini, [0040]). Lazzarini as modified by Barish is silent on details regarding the perimeter support component is removably coupled to the hollow body. In analogous art as applied above in claim 1, Rossi suggests details regarding the perimeter support component is removably coupled to the hollow body, and in this regard, Rossi teaches the following:
(Pg. 4, lines 152-153) teaches that with reference to FIG. 1A, a deformable mold 10, preferably made of silicone, is placed on a support 11 for positioning the mold where the latter can be held by its edge 12, for example by resting on the edge of the support 11. As such, the perimeter support component is removably coupled / placed to the hollow body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing of a poured cosmetic product with a superficial relief. There are provided a first step of dosing a liquid state mixture of said cosmetic product within a shaped mould, the mold comprising silicone rubber, of Lazzarini as modified. By further modifying the mold to allow for the perimeter support component is removably coupled / placed to the hollow body, as taught by Rossi. Accordingly, one would be motivated to provide a perimeter support component that is removably coupled / placed to the hollow body as it provides and allows for positioning the mold, (Pg. 4, lines 152-153). Accordingly, the case law for making separable may be recited. Where, the claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "Press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of a holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose, see In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the moulding surface has at least one area on which a decorative element is traced.
Lazzarini teaches the following:
([0036]) teaches that at the end of the process, the cosmetic product 1 is arranged within the final container 5 with the overhanging decorative surface 1A and the support surface 1B. Alternatively, ([0003]) teaches that the mold forms an upper surface, which will hereafter be designated as “decorative surface”, which may either be smooth or have reliefs.
B.) Claim(s) 3 – 5 & 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazzarini in view of Barish and in further view of Rossi, and as evidenced by PhonTech (Transparent Thermoplastic Elastomers, 2018, hereinafter PhonTech)
Regarding claim 3 – 5 as applied to claim 1 and claim 4 respectively,
Wherein said polymer material is transparent.
Wherein said polymer material is thermoformable or of a thermoplastic type.
Wherein said polymer material is chosen from polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene terephthalate-glycol, polyethylene, polycarbonate, polystyrene,
Lazzarini teaches the following:
, 4a.) & 5a.) ([0046]) teaches that the mould 2 may be made of silicone, metal or different material.
Regarding Claims 3 – 5, Lazzarini as modified by Barish also teaching that the mould 2 may be made of silicone, metal or different material, (Lazzarini, [0040]). Lazzarini as modified by Barish is silent on details regarding the polymer material. In analogous art as applied above in claim 1, Rossi suggests details regarding the polymer material, and in this regard, Rossi teaches the following:
, 4a.) & 5a.) (Pg. 2, lines 63-65) teaches that the deformable mold can be made for example of silicone, of a silicone elastomer such as silicone ethylene butylene styrene (SEBS), or others. Highlighting, evidence from PhonTech (Introduction) which states that SEBS is a polystyrene known to be a transparent, flexible thermoplastic.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing of a poured cosmetic product with a superficial relief. There are provided a first step of dosing a liquid state mixture of said cosmetic product within a shaped mould, the mold comprising silicone rubber, of Lazzarini as modified by Barish. By further modifying the deformable mold to be a silicone ethylene butylene styrene (SEBS), as taught by PhonTech. Highlighting, implementing silicone ethylene butylene styrene (SEBS) as the material of deformable mold provides for a transparent, flexible material. Additionally, the case law for known material in art may be recited. Where, the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Additionally, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Furthermore, the change in size case law may be recited regarding the size of polymer thickness implemented, where the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, see In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 3,
Wherein the perimeter support component is removably coupled to the hollow body
Regarding Claims 18, Lazzarini as modified by Barish also teaches molding a cosmetic product in a silicon mold. Lazzarini adding that the small plate 6 represents an ideal support for the sticking to the final container 5, as it is rigid, (Lazzarini, [0040]). Lazzarini as modified by Barish is silent on details regarding the perimeter support component is removably coupled to the hollow body. In analogous art as applied above in claim 1, Rossi suggests details regarding the perimeter support component is removably coupled to the hollow body, and in this regard, Rossi teaches the following:
(Pg. 4, lines 152-153) teaches that with reference to FIG. 1A, a deformable mold 10, preferably made of silicone, is placed on a support 11 for positioning the mold where the latter can be held by its edge 12, for example by resting on the edge of the support 11. As such, the perimeter support component is removably coupled / placed to the hollow body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing of a poured cosmetic product with a superficial relief. There are provided a first step of dosing a liquid state mixture of said cosmetic product within a shaped mould, the mold comprising silicone rubber, of Lazzarini as modified by Barish. By further modifying the mold to allow for the perimeter support component is removably coupled / placed to the hollow body, as taught by Rossi. One would be motivated to provide the perimeter support component is removably coupled / placed to the hollow body of the mold as, it provides and allows for positioning the mold, (Pg. 4, lines 152-153). Accordingly, the case law for making separable may be recited. Where, the claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "Press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of a holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose, see In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961), MPEP 2144.
C.) Claim(s) 3-5, & 18, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazzarini in view of Barish in view of Rossi, and as further evidenced by Wacker (Room Temperature Vulcanizing (RTV) Silicones, 2018, hereinafter Wacker)
Regarding claim 3 – 5 as applied to claim 1 and claim 4 respectively,
Wherein said polymer material is transparent.
Wherein said polymer material is thermoformable or of a thermoplastic type.
Wherein said polymer material is chosen from polyethylene terephthalate, polyethylene terephthalate-glycol, polyethylene
Lazzarini teaches the following:
, 4a.) & 5a.) ([0046]) teaches that the mould 2 may be made of silicone, metal or different material. Highlighting, due to the material(s) property limitations i.e., transparent and thermoformable or even of a thermoplastic type being dependent on the type of material(s) required. It is understood that the materials, i.e., polyethylene terephthalate-glycol, polyethylene, polycarbonate, polystyrene, silicone, or polyurethane are capable of those properties. As such, the silicone of Lazzarini is understood and found to be transparent and thermoformable or even of a thermoplastic type of materials as required. Accordingly, silicone is understood to be a transparent and thermoformable or even of a thermoplastic type of material. Highlighting evidence from Wacker (Pg. 15, Colorants) teaching that silicone rubber is generally transparent to opaque but can be colored according to customers’ requirements. Additionally, the case law for substantially identical process and structure may be recited, it has been held that where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or are produced by identical or a substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness will be considered to have been established over functional limitations that stem from the claimed structure. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977), In re Spada, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed products. In re Best, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). Finally, the change in size case law may be recited regarding the size of polymer thickness implemented, where the mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled, see In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 3,
Wherein the perimeter support component is removably coupled to the hollow body
Regarding Claims 18, Lazzarini as modified by Barish including molding a cosmetic product in a silicon mold. Lazzarini adding that the small plate 6 represents an ideal support for the sticking to the final container 5, as it is rigid, (Lazzarini, [0040]). Lazzarini as modified by Barish is silent on details regarding the perimeter support component is removably coupled to the hollow body. In analogous art as applied above in claim 1, Rossi suggests details regarding the perimeter support component is removably coupled to the hollow body, and in this regard, Rossi teaches the following:
(Pg. 4, lines 152-153) teaches that with reference to FIG. 1A, a deformable mold 10, preferably made of silicone, is placed on a support 11 for positioning the mold where the latter can be held by its edge 12, for example by resting on the edge of the support 11. As such, the perimeter support component is removably coupled / placed to the hollow body.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing of a poured cosmetic product with a superficial relief. There are provided a first step of dosing a liquid state mixture of said cosmetic product within a shaped mould, the mold comprising silicone rubber, of Lazzarini as modified by Barish. By further modifying the mold to allow for the perimeter support component is removably coupled / placed to the hollow body, as taught by Rossi. One would be motived to provide a perimeter support component is removably coupled / placed to the hollow body as it provides and allows for positioning the mold, (Pg. 4, lines 152-153). Accordingly, the case law for making separable may be recited. Where, the claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "Press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of a holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose, see In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961).
D.) Claim(s) 6, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazzarini in view of Barish in view of Rossi and in further view of Samain et al. (FR 2964305 B1, hereinafter Samain)
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 4,
Wherein the moulding surface is obtained by means of a thermoforming process of said a film.
Regarding Claim 6, Lazzarini as modified by Barish and Rossi also teaches that that the small plate 6 represents a support for the sticking to the final container 5, (Lazzarini, [0040]). Lazzarini as modified by Barish and Rossi is silent on obtaining the molding surface via a thermoforming process of the polymer film layer. In analogous art for the production of a mold utilized in the fabrication of cosmetic articles, Samain suggests details regarding means for producing a layer on a mold, and in this regard Samain teaches the following:
(Pg. 10, lines 374-376) teaches that the plating of the sheet material on the mold can be carried out by mechanical support, pressure of a fluid or vacuum. The temperature required for thermoforming is adapted to the material.(Pg. 4, lines 123-126) teaches that the mold can receive a layer of an antiadhesive compound, in particular a silicone or a powder such as a boron nitride, intended to facilitate the subsequent detachment of the coating, for example an anti-adhesive compound as such a silicone adhesive.(Pg. 9, lines 300-302) teaches a protective layer is preferably transparent. The protective layer can contain at least one wax or one polymer. This decorative layer can also be a film of thermoplastic material such as ABS or polystyrene
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing of a poured cosmetic product with a superficial relief. There are provided a first step of dosing a liquid state mixture of said cosmetic product within a shaped mould, the mold comprising silicone rubber, of Lazzarini as modified by Barish and Rossi. By utilizing a thermoformed silicone moulding surface, as taught by Samain. One would be motivated to use a thermoformed silicone moulding surface due to implementation of a thermoformed silicone moulding surface providing a means for detachment and/or protective coating, (Pg. 4, lines 123-126 & Pg. 9, lines 300-302).E.) Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lazzarini in view of Barish in view of Rossi and in further view of Baracat-Nasr et al. (US 20160030301 A1, hereinafter Baracat-Nasr)Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1,
Wherein the perimeter support component is made of metal.
Regarding Claim 9, Lazzarini as modified by Barish and Rossi also teaches that teaches that the small plate 6 represents a support for the sticking to the final container 5, ([0040]). Lazzarini as modified by Barish and Rossi is silent on the support component made of metal. In analogous art for a method a method of manufacturing a cosmetic article having a decorative embossed and/or debossed surface, based on at least one cosmetic product hot-poured into a container, Baracat-Nasr suggest details regarding implementing a support that comprises a metal, and in this regard Baracat-Nasr teaches the following:
([0026]) teaches that, if the closure member is made of a single piece, for example of metal, there can be a step of applying a layer of such a material having low adhesion to the poured cosmetic product onto the surface or surfaces, particularly the embossed and/or debossed surface, of the closure member which the poured cosmetic product will touch. Highlighting, that the closure frame supporting the moulding insert / surface is best seen in (Fig. 6a – 6c). Accordingly, the closure member is understood to act as applicant’s support.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the production method and apparatus for manufacturing of a poured cosmetic product with a superficial relief. There are provided a first step of dosing a liquid state mixture of said cosmetic product within a shaped mould, the mold comprising silicone rubber, of Lazzarini as modified by Barish and Rossi. By utilizing a support / closure member that is fabricated for metal, as taught Baracat-Nasr. One would be motivated to implement a support / closure member that is fabricated for metal provides for of applying a layer of such a material having low adhesion to the poured cosmetic product onto the surface or surfaces, particularly the embossed and/or debossed surface, of the closure member which the poured cosmetic product will touch. Additionally, the case law for known material in the art may be recited, where the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination, see Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), MPEP 2144.07.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ivy Sampson (US 2215480 A) – teaches in the (Abstract) a particular object of the invention is to provide a cosmetic case of the type specified, having a compartment for the powder puff, a separate compartment for the powder, and means for transferring the powder therefrom to the puff compartment in small quantities as required.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrés E. Behrens Jr. whose telephone number is (571)-272-9096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 7:30 AM-5:30 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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571)-270-7001. 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.
/Andrés E. Behrens Jr./Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/JaMel M Nelson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights