Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/503,616

TRANSFER DEVICE AND PROCESS FOR MAKING UP KERATIN MATERIALS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Oct 18, 2021
Examiner
STEITZ, RACHEL RUNNING
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
L'Oréal
OA Round
4 (Final)
55%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 55% of resolved cases
55%
Career Allow Rate
654 granted / 1194 resolved
-15.2% vs TC avg
Strong +26% interview lift
Without
With
+25.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
62 currently pending
Career history
1256
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.3%
-38.7% vs TC avg
§103
46.1%
+6.1% vs TC avg
§102
26.2%
-13.8% vs TC avg
§112
20.2%
-19.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1194 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 § 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. Claims 1-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaHood et al. (US 2008/0053476) in view of Brown et al. (US 2008/0152681) and Abergel (WO 2006/128737). LaHood et al. disclose a process for making up, a process for manufacturing, an area of human keratin materials using a makeup device comprising a substrate (28) having at least one transfer surface, and a coat of cosmetic coloring ink (22; paragraph 18 see remarks section) borne by the transfer surface regarding the limitation “obtained by printing, using at least one printer” “digitally-printed”, 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). A cosmetic coating (22 (second cosmetic)), the cosmetic coating being borne by the transfer surface, the cosmetic coating being at least partially superposed on the coat of ink and laying above the coat of ink, the coat of cosmetic coloring ink is directly disposed onto the transfer surface and the cosmetic coating is spaced apart from the transfer surface with portion of the coat of cosmetic coloring ink position therebetween (see Figure 4), the process comprising the step of simultaneously transferring onto the area to be made up all or part of the coat of ink and all or part of the cosmetic coating superposed thereon (paragraph 8). LaHood et al. does not disclose the cosmetic coating of a cosmetic composition comprising an oil or the cosmetic coloring ink has a viscosity in a range from 1 to 10 millipascal-second at 25 degrees Celsius. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the parameters of the viscosity to be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results as evidence by Smith et al. that teaches a cosmetic/personal care composition with a viscosity within the claimed range (paragraph 47). Brown et al. teaches applying a colored base coating of cosmetic composition comprising a non-volatile oil (e.g. dimethyl polysiloxane; see table 3) onto an area of keratin material to be made up before applying a pigmented ink (see Fig. 5 and [0055]), the cosmetic composition being a foundation and forming a colored base coating on the keratin material (see [0066]-[0067], [0076], [0080]). Brown additionally discloses wherein the composition can or cannot comprise a pigment (see Table 3) can be used with or without a cosmetic colored top coat (see Figs. 4 and 5); is an emulsion (see Table 3); and also comprising at least one cosmetic additive chosen from film-forming polymers, waxes, pasty compounds, thickeners, surfactants, fragrances, preserving agents, sunscreens, fillers, dyestuffs, proteins, vitamins, provitamins, moisturizers, ceramides and pH regulators (see [0065], [0070], [0073], [0074]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention to modify the method of LaHood et al. to include Brown’s teaching of applying a cosmetic composition (foundation) comprising an oil as the cosmetic coating, as such modification would provide improved smoothing and wrinkle reduction of the skin, and result in improved make up application (see Brown, abstract, citations above and Figs. 4-5). Further the combination discloses ink and/or the cosmetic coating not being entirely dry at the time of transfer (i.e. to allow blending; paragraph 32). The coat of coloring ink being printed in a predefined pattern (paragraph 18). The printing of the coat of ink being performed on the transfer surface already partly covered with the cosmetic coating (see Figure 4). The cosmetic coating comprising a composition comprising an oil in an amount by mass ranging from 5% to 95% and preferably ranging from 10% to 80% relative to the total mass of the composition (see Brown et al). The composition also comprising at least one cosmetic additive chosen from film-forming polymers, waxes, pasty compounds, thickeners, surfactants, fragrances, preserving agents, sunscreens, fillers, dyestuffs, proteins, vitamins, provitamins, moisturizers, ceramides and pH regulators (see [0065], [0070], [0073], [0074]). The ink being aqueous; the cosmetic coating being colored (see [0066]-[0067], [0076], [0080]). The transfer surface being defined by all or part of: the outer surface of an applicator roller, the surface of an applicator pad, an element in sheet form, a patch, the surface of a porous foam, a sponge, a wipe (see Figure 1). The substrate comprising an indication regarding the nature of the keratin materials intended to be made up with the coloring ink and/or the substrate comprising at least one translucent or transparent area (see Figure 5; paragraph 23). A plurality of different devices, the devices differing by the chemical nature of the coat of coloring ink they bear and/or by the pattern thereby formed and/or by the cosmetic coating deposited on the transfer surface and/or by the form of the transfer surface intended to engage with the keratin materials (paragraph 18). Furthermore, LaHood et al. does not disclose printing being conducted by a digital printer. Abergel teaches a device for transfer to the user’s skin (page 14). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the ink be printed onto the substrate of LaHood et al. by a digital printer as taught by Abergel since Abergel lists screen printing and digital printing as known alternatives to coating a carrier with a cosmetic. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 8/1/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that LaHood is silent to a cosmetic coloring comprising a water-soluble dye is not persuasive. LaHood discloses in paragraph 18, “at least one cosmetic material 22 chosen from a group including a foundation having highlights and shadows, a concealer, a rouge or a blush, an eye-shadow 24, or a lip color 26. It should be understood that each of the cosmetic materials 22 includes a specific composition having several different ingredients, and that each of the cosmetic materials 22 is non-homogenous relative to the other cosmetic materials 22, regardless of the materials utilized in each composition. It is also contemplated that the cosmetic materials 22 may also include several different colors of a face paint, such as would be used for military camouflage, hunting camouflage, Halloween make-up, or theatrical make-up”. The use of water-soluble dyes in cosmetic materials is a common practice, as evidenced by patents (US 7,833,541; 7,030,985; 4,066,595) which claim their use in a variety of cosmetic formulations. These patents demonstrate that the cosmetic industry has long incorporated water-soluble dyes for specific functions, such as enabling visual confirmation of product application and providing color to aqueous-based formulations. Therefore; since LaHood discloses a wide known area of cosmetic materials it would have been well known in the art to have the cosmetic materials of LaHood contain a water-soluble dye. 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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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 8/25/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 18, 2021
Application Filed
May 10, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 04, 2024
Response Filed
Oct 02, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 12, 2024
Interview Requested
Dec 19, 2024
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Dec 19, 2024
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 04, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 28, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 01, 2025
Response Filed
Aug 26, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599215
HAIR CLIP CONVERTIBLE COMB
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12589020
CURETTE TOOL AND NAIL CARE METHOD USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588745
ROLLER STRUCTURE WITH ADJUSTABLE DIAMETER AND HAIR-TANGLING PREVENTION FUNCTION, AND HAIR CURLER THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588724
HAIR WEFT AND PREPARATION PROCESS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12569056
SPIRAL COSMETIC APPLICATOR WITH DOWNWARD FACING MICROCOMBS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
55%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+25.6%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1194 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month