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
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) 1-2, 7-9, and 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aries (FR 2259560) in view of Conklin (US 2891301).
Regarding claim 1, Aries teaches an apparatus for applying a consumable preparation (3) comprising: a solid consumable preparation (3) fixedly connected to at least an exterior surface of a core (4); wherein the solid consumable preparation comprises a formulation that sluffs off as it is applied to a user's skin (lipstick or ointment, see the last paragraph of page 9).
Aries does not teach an applicator assembly including a handle, an arm; the arm having a first portion longitudinally extending from one end of the handle to an arm end, the arm having a second portion extending and projecting substantially orthogonally from the arm end, and a third portion extending from an end of the second portion in a direction substantially parallel to the first portion, the third portion having a third portion end; and an axle fixedly connected to the arm at the third portion end, projecting laterally from the arm, and longitudinally spaced from the handle and the second portion, so as to be supported only from the third portion; a roller assembly including a unitary core having a first end cap configured to rotatably receive the axle at a first end of the roller assembly and a second end cap disposed at a second, opposed end of the roller assembly, configured to rotatably receive the axle, the axle extending through an entire length of the core, each end cap having an opening for receiving and directly supporting the axle therein, the core extending transversely from the at least one end cap, and wherein the roller assembly is secured to the axle without a separate fastener; and wherein the roller assembly is interchangeable on the applicator assembly
Conklin teaches an applicator assembly including a handle (12), an arm; the arm having a first portion (13) longitudinally extending from one end of the handle to an arm end, the arm having a second portion (between 13 and 15) extending and projecting substantially orthogonally from the arm end, and a third portion (15) extending from an end of the second portion in a direction substantially parallel to the first portion, the third portion having a third portion end; and an axle (14) fixedly connected to the arm at the third portion end, projecting laterally from the arm, and longitudinally spaced from the handle and the second portion, so as to be supported only from the third portion (Fig. 1); a roller assembly including a unitary core (23) having a first end cap (19) configured to rotatably receive the axle at a first end of the roller assembly and a second end cap (18) disposed at a second, opposed end of the roller assembly, configured to rotatably receive the axle, the axle extending through an entire length of the core (Fig. 1), each end cap having an opening (through hubs 21) for receiving and directly supporting the axle therein, the core extending transversely from the at least one end cap, and wherein the roller assembly is secured to the axle without a separate fastener (via 26 and 17, also see col. 2, ll. 10-30); and wherein the roller assembly is interchangeable on the applicator assembly (col. 2, ll. 43-44).
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 device of Aries to use the applicator assembly of Conklin for the purpose of providing a roller assembly that can be quickly assembled and disassembled (Conklin, col. 1, ll. 18-19) and enabling the replacement of the roller (Conklin col. 2, ll. 43-44).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Aries and Conklin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the core is generally cylindrical in shape (Conklin Fig. 1), and the solid consumable preparation projects radially outward from the exterior surface of the core (Aries Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Aries and Conklin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the solid consumable preparation projects radially outwards from the exterior surface of the core such that the solid consumable preparation has a generally cylindrical shape (Aries Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Aries and Conklin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach that the solid consumable preparation projects outwards from the exterior surface of the core such that the solid consumable preparation has a generally spherical shape.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to changed the shape of the solid consumable preparation of Aries to be generally spherical because Applicant has not disclosed that the particular shape of the preparation 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 the combination and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the generally elliptical shaped preparation taught by Aries or the claimed generally spherical preparation because both preparations are equally capable of being applied to a user.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the shape of the preparation of Aries to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Aries and Conklin.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Aries and Conklin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the solid consumable preparation has a generally elliptical shape when viewed in cross section along a longitudinal axis of the roller assembly (Aries Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Aries and Conklin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the roller assembly is removable and replaceable on the handle assembly (Conklin col. 2, ll. 43-44).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Aries and Conklin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach that a distance from the first end of the roller assembly and the second, opposed end of the roller assembly is at least equal to a radius of the assembly.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to changed the size of the roller such that a distance from the first end of the roller assembly and the second, opposed end of the roller assembly is at least equal to a radius of the assembly because Applicant has not disclosed that the proportions of the roller provide an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the combination of Aries and Conklin and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the roller taught by Aries or the claimed roller with a distance from the first end of the roller assembly and the second, opposed end of the roller assembly is at least equal to a radius of the assembly because both rollers are equally capable of applying a substance to a surface.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proportions of the roller of Aries to obtain the invention as specified in claim 22 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Aries and Conklin.
Regarding claim 23, Aries teaches a solid consumable preparation (3) fixedly connected to at least an exterior surface of a core (4); and wherein the consumable preparation comprises a formulation (lipstick or ointment, see the last paragraph of page 9) that sluffs off as it is applied to a user's skin.
Aries does not teach a roller assembly including a unitary core having a first end cap configured to rotatably receive an axle at a first end of the roller assembly and a second end cap disposed at a second, opposed end of the roller assembly, configured to rotatably receive the axle, the axle extending through an entire length of the core, each end cap having an opening for receiving and directly supporting the axle therein, the core extending transversely from the at least one end cap, wherein the roller assembly is secured to the axle without a separate fastener.
Conklin teaches a roller assembly including a unitary core (23) having a first end cap (19) configured to rotatably receive an axle (14) at a first end of the roller assembly and a second end cap (18) disposed at a second, opposed end of the roller assembly, configured to rotatably receive the axle, the axle extending through an entire length of the core (Fig. 1), each end cap having an opening (in hubs 21) for receiving and directly supporting the axle therein, the core extending transversely from the at least one end cap (Fig. 1), wherein the roller assembly is secured to the axle without a separate fastener (via 26 and 17).
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 device of Aries to include a roller assembly including a unitary core having a first end cap configured to rotatably receive an axle at a first end of the roller assembly and a second end cap disposed at a second, opposed end of the roller assembly, configured to rotatably receive the axle, the axle extending through an entire length of the core, each end cap having an opening for receiving and directly supporting the axle therein, the core extending transversely from the at least one end cap, wherein the roller assembly is secured to the axle without a separate fastener as taught by Conklin for the purpose of providing a roller assembly that can be quickly assembled and disassembled (Conklin, col. 1, ll. 18-19) and enabling the replacement of the roller (Conklin col. 2, ll. 43-44).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Aries and Conklin teaches the apparatus of claim 23, wherein the roller assembly is removable and replaceable on an applicator assembly (Conklin col. 2, ll. 43-44).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Aries and Conklin teaches the apparatus of claim 23, but does not teach that a distance from the first end of the roller assembly and the second, opposed end of the roller assembly is at least equal to a radius of the assembly.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to changed the size of the roller such that a distance from the first end of the roller assembly and the second, opposed end of the roller assembly is at least equal to a radius of the assembly because Applicant has not disclosed that the proportions of the roller provide an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the combination of Aries and Conklin and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the roller taught by Aries or the claimed roller with a distance from the first end of the roller assembly and the second, opposed end of the roller assembly is at least equal to a radius of the assembly because both rollers are equally capable of applying a substance to a surface.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the proportions of the roller of Aries to obtain the invention as specified in claim 25 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Aries and Conklin.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aries and Conklin as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Gueret (US 5301697).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Aries and Conklin teaches the apparatus of claim 2, but does not teach that the core is made from cardboard.
Gueret teaches forming a support for a cosmetic from carboard (col. 2, ll. 19-24).
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 made the core of Aries from cardboard as taught by Gueret, wherein doing so would merely be a matter of selecting a known material that is known to be useful as a support for a cosmetic.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aries and Conklin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Durliat (US 5813784).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Aries and Conklin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach that the core is perforated and fixed within the solid consumable preparation such that the core is disposed intermediate a radially exterior surface and a radially interior surface of the solid consumable preparation.
Durliat teaches forming a solid consumable preparation (D) on a perforated support (comprising 48, 50, 52, 54, 56, and 58) such that the support is disposed intermediate a radially exterior surface and a radially interior surface of the solid consumable preparation.
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 combination of Aries and Conklin such that the core is perforated and fixed within the solid consumable preparation such that the core is disposed intermediate a radially exterior surface and a radially interior surface of the solid consumable preparation in light of Durliat’s teaching that a perforated support provides better retaining of the solid consumable preparation.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Aries, Conklin, and Durliat teaches the apparatus of claim 4, wherein the core is made from recycled plastic (Durliat col. 1, ll. 25-29 and col. 2, ll. 33-35).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aries and Conklin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Connelly (US 5564851).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Aries and Conklin teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach that the handle includes one or more shafts connected so as to telescopically extend between a first length and a second length.
Connelly teaches a handle (27) that includes one or more shafts connected so as to telescopically extend between a first length and a second length (col. 4, ll. 25-30).
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 combination of Aries and Conklin such that the handle includes one or more shafts connected so as to telescopically extend between a first length and a second length as taught by Connelly for the purpose of making it easier for a user to access hard to reach places (Connelly col. 4, ll. 25-30).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments against the MacKey and Schiaparelli references are moot, as neither reference is being relied upon for the rejection of any present claims.
Applicant argues that paint rollers are not analogous to the claimed invention.
Examiner disagrees. Both paint rollers and the claimed invention are handheld tools for applying a substance by moving a roller over the surface. Paint rollers are therefore within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that Durliat is not analogous to the claimed invention.
Durliat and the claimed invention are both directed to applicators for solid consumable preparations. As such, they are within the same field of endeavor.
Applicant argues that Durliat does not teach a perforated support that is fixed within the solid consumable preparation such that the core is disposed intermediate a radially exterior surface and a radially interior surface.
Examiner disagrees. Durliat teaches a support with openings therethrough (perforated) and the support is disposed between an exterior surface and an interior surface of the solid consumable preparation. One of ordinary skill could apply this teaching to the support of Aries to arrive at the invention of claim 4.
PNG
media_image1.png
321
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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