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
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.
Claims 1-11, 14, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN210726988U) in view of Murphy (WO2014128494) and Seo (KR20180095384A).
Regarding claim 1, Hu disclose a makeup palette case (not labeled, but is the case best shown in Figure 1), comprising:
at least one applicator cleaner receptacle (403 + 404 + 405 + 406 + 407 + 408; AND 6 as best shown in Figures 3-5) disposed within the makeup palette case (best shown in Figure 2), the applicator cleaner receptacle including an applicator-cleaning element (404, 407, and 408; and/or 603 and 601) received within the applicator cleaner receptacle (best shown in Figure 2; additionally refer to Paragraph [0030] which states “excess eye shadow powder will be scraped off by the first scraper 404” and “the thickness of the second scraper…is slightly smaller than that of the first scraper 404, so the scraping effect is better” and “When the eye shadow pen is deeply cleaned…the eye shadow pen need to be placed on the cleaning plate 6…and the sponge 601 vibrates…and the vibration is transmitted to the…pen to dissipate excess”), the applicator cleaner receptacle having a friction element (first scraper, 404; second scraper, 406; OR third scraper, 603); and
a makeup composition (eye shadow, 402) disposed within the makeup palette case (best shown in Figures 1 and 2).
Hu does not disclose wherein the applicator cleaner receptacle is replaceable/removable or wherein the applicator cleaner receptacle is reciprocal between a closed state and an open state, the applicator-cleaning element being isolated from the makeup composition when the applicator cleaner receptacle is in the closed state or that the friction element has two or more protrusions extending in a zig-zag pattern, each of the two or more protrusions extending continuously in a zig-zag pattern, wherein the zig-zag pattern of one of the two or more protrusions is different than the zig-zag pattern of another of the two or more protrusions. Rather, Hu’s applicator cleaner receptacle is depicted as being integral/non-removable from the makeup palette case and the applicator cleaner receptacle is configured to only be in an open state and the friction element is depicted as being rectangular.
Murphy discloses a makeup palette case (10, Figures 1-11) comprising a plurality of receptacles (50A, 50B) that are removably (“removed and replaced”, refer to Page 11, lines 24) attached to the palette, and are therefore replaceable, wherein each of the receptacles comprises a lid (54), which permits the receptacle to reciprocate between a closed state (referring to Figure 3, receptacle 50A is in the closed state, i.e. lid 54 is closed) and an open state (referring to Figure 3, receptacle 50B is in the open state, i.e. lid, 54 is open), wherein during the closed state, the contents of the receptacle are isolated from the remainder of the makeup palette case.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hu’s makeup palette case such that the applicator cleaner receptacle is removable from the makeup palette and is therefore replaceable, as taught by Murphy, since it had been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill; additionally, such a modification provides the advantage of permitting a user to change the configuration of the pallet by detaching the cleaners and placing into another location within the pallet.
It would have additionally been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Hu’s applicator cleaner receptacle to comprise a lid, as taught by Murphy, thereby providing the applicator cleaner receptacle being reciprocal between a closed state and an open state, the applicator-cleaning element being isolated from the makeup composition when the applicator cleaner receptacle is in the closed state since such a modification provides the advantage of increasing the available work space on the palette surface, thereby permitting a user to stage cosmetic tools or other cosmetic accessories atop the closed lid when the receptacle is not in use; additionally, Hu’s applicator cleaner receptacle is integral with the cosmetic material and providing a lid over the receptacle may additionally help to preserve the cosmetic material.
The combination of Hu and Murphy does not disclose that the friction element has two or more protrusions, each of the two or more protrusions extending in a zig-zag pattern, wherein the zig-zag pattern of one of the two or more protrusions is different than the zig-zag pattern of another of the two or more protrusions.
Seo discloses a device for cleaning a cosmetic applicator (Figures 1-9) comprising a friction element (see third full paragraph of Page 4 of the translation which states that protrusions may be formed on a contact surface of the cleaner, these protrusions are in place to increase frictional force between the brush and the contact surface so that remaining cosmetic material on the brush can be more effectively removed) the shape of the frictional element may be any number of shapes including a zig-zag shape (see Figure 5 wherein the lower right quadrant shows protrusions arranged in a zig-zag shape), wherein the different shaped protrusions are in place so that the “brush cleaning…effect can be varied” (refer to fourth full paragraph on Page 4 of the translation), wherein the zig-zag shaped protrusions include two or more protrusions, and each of the two or more protrusions extend continuously in a zig-zag pattern, wherein the zig-zag pattern of one of the two or more protrusions is different than the zig-zag pattern of another of the two or more protrusions (refer to the cropped and annotated Seo Figure 5 below, wherein different rows of the zig-zag protrusion differ in their designs at a right-most side thereof, wherein some rows of zig-zag patterned protrusions have an upward facing line and some rows of the zig-zag patterned protrusions have a downward facing line, thereby providing the patterns of the rows of the protrusions to be different, at least at their right-most ends). Therefore 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 device of the combination of Hu and Murphy such that the friction element has two or more protrusions, each of the two or more protrusions extending continuously in a zig-zag pattern, wherein the zig-zag pattern of one of the two or more protrusions is different than the zig-zag pattern of another of the two or more protrusions, as taught by Seo, since such a modification would have involved a change in shape of a component of an invention, where a change in shape is considered to be within the level of ordinary skill; additionally such a modification provides the advantage of providing a variance in the cleaning effect.
PNG
media_image1.png
200
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo discloses the makeup palette case of claim 1, as applied above. Per the modification addressed in claim 1, Hu’s applicator cleaner receptacle was modified to be removable from the makeup palette/replaceable and to comprise a lid, as taught by Murphy, wherein Murphy’s receptacle comprises a lid (54) rotatably coupled (refer to Figures 6-7 wherein the lid is depicted as being rotated about an axis at a rear wall of the base) to a base (53). Thus, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo discloses all the limitations of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo disclose the makeup palette case of claim 2, as applied above. Per the modification addressed in claim 1, Hu’s applicator cleaner receptacle was modified to be removable from the makeup palette/replaceable and to comprise a lid, as taught by Murphy. Wherein Murphy’s receptacle includes a first locking feature (not labeled, refer to cropped and annotated Murphy Figure 3, below), and the base includes a second locking feature (not labeled, refer to cropped and annotated Murphy Figure 3, below), wherein the receptacle is reciprocal between an open state and a closed state (refer to Murphy Claim 3 which states that the receptacle “is adapted to be operable between an open configuration and a closed configuration”). Murphy discloses that the receptacle reciprocates between an open state and a closed state but does not explicitly disclose that the first and second locking features are the structure that permits the receptacle to releasably maintain the receptacle in the closed state and therefore does not explicitly disclose that the first locking feature is configured to engage the second locking feature to releasably maintain the replaceable applicator cleaner receptacle in the closed state; however, the first and second locking features are depicted in the figures (refer to annotated Murphy Figure 3, below) as an extremely well known means for cooperating to form a complete lock/latching means. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the makeup palette of the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo such that the first locking feature is configured to engage the second locking feature to releasably maintain the replaceable applicator cleaner receptacle in the closed state, as taught by Murphy, since this is a well-known configuration for maintaining a lid and case in the closed configuration.
PNG
media_image2.png
444
726
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo discloses the makeup palette case of claim 1, as applied above. Per the modification addressed in claim 1, Hu’s applicator cleaner receptacle was modified to be replaceable/removably secured, as taught by Murphy wherein Murphy’s receptacle is replaceable due to its being releasably secured to the case (“snap fit parts 61, which are adapted, in use, to retain container 50B…The snap fit parts 61 comprise resiliently deformable protruding parts which deform, in use”, refer to Page 12 line 33 – Page 13, line 2). Thus, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo disclose the makeup palette case of claim 4, as applied above. Per the modification addressed in claim 1, Hu’s applicator cleaner receptacle was made to be replaceable/removable from the makeup palette case as taught by Murphy. Murphy’s receptacle is replaceable/removable due to cooperating locking features on the palette and the receptacle. Murphy’s makeup palette case comprises a first locking feature (61, Murphy Figure 8), and the receptacle includes a second locking feature (52, refer to Murphy Figure 9 and Murphy Page 13, lines 1-4), the first locking feature being configured to engage the second locking feature to selectively couple the replaceable applicator cleaner receptacle to the makeup palette case (refer to Murphy Page 13, lines 1-4). Thus, the combination discloses all the limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo disclose the makeup palette case of claim 5, as applied above. Per the modification addressed in claim 1, Hu’s applicator cleaner receptacle was made to be replaceable/removable from the makeup palette case as taught by Murphy, wherein Murphy’s receptacle is replaceable/removable via first and second locking features, wherein the first locking feature is a flexible locking tab (the first locking feature is a “resiliently deformable protruding part”, refer to Murphy Page 13, line 1; additionally refer to Murphy Figure 8), and the second locking feature is a protrusion (“lip 52”, refer to Murphy Page 13, line 2; additionally refer to Murphy Figure 9). Thus the combination discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo discloses the makeup palette case of claim 6, as applied above. Per the modification addressed in claim 1, Hu’s applicator cleaner receptacle was modified to be replaceable/removable, as taught by Murphy, wherein Murphy’s first locking feature has a first engagement surface, and the second locking feature includes a second engagement surface, the first engagement surface engaging the second engagement surface to retain the replaceable applicator cleaner receptacle within the makeup palette case (“The snap fit parts 61 comprise resiliently deformable protruding parts which deform, in use, to allow a lip 52 of container 50B to pass and then return towards their undeformed configuration once the lip 52 has passed to retain the lip 52 and thus container 50B in position”, refer to Murphy Page 13, lines 1-4; thus, a surface of the first locking feature that engages and retains the receptacle/container in the palette defines a first engagement surface and the outer circumference of the receptacle/container defines the second engagement surface).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo discloses the makeup palette case of claim 6, wherein the first locking feature is a flexible locking tab (the first locking feature is a “resiliently deformable protruding part”, refer to Murphy Page 13, line 1; additionally refer to Murphy Figure 8).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo discloses the makeup palette case of claim 6, as applied above. The combination does not thus far disclose wherein the second locking feature [of the replaceable applicator cleaner receptacle] is a flexible locking tab. Rather, the second locking feature is a protrusion (52, refer to Murphy Figure 9; additionally refer to Murphy Page 13, lines 1-4) that engages with a flexible locking tab disposed on the makeup palette case. However, it is known to reverse mating components of a locking mechanism and therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the makeup palette case of the combination of Hu, Murphy and Seo such that the receptacle comprises the flexible locking tab and the palette comprises the protrusion, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo discloses the makeup palette case of claim 1, as applied above. Hu further discloses wherein the applicator-cleaning element comprises a sponge (“sponge”, 601; refer to Hu Paragraph [0030] and Hu Figure 3).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo discloses the makeup palette case of claim 1, as applied above. Hu further discloses wherein the applicator-cleaning element comprises a porous element (“sponge 601”, refer to Hu, Paragraph [0030]; additionally refer to Hu Figure 3, wherein a sponge is a porous element). The combination does not explicitly disclose that the porous element is cleaning-composition free; however, the combination does not disclose that the porous element/sponge has any cleaning composition therein. Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the makeup palette case of the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo such that the sponge/porous element is cleaning-composition free since such a modification would have involved choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, those predictable solutions being providing a sponge with a cleaning solution or providing a sponge without a cleaning solution, with a reasonable expectation of success of adequately cleaning a makeup applicator.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo discloses the makeup palette of case claim 1, as applied above. Hu further discloses wherein the applicator-cleaning element comprises a reusable sponge (“sponge 601”, refer to Hu Paragraph [0030] and Hu Figure 3; the limitation “reusable” is interpreted as an intended use limitation, that is the sponge is fully capable of being used more than one time, i.e. a user may run a dirty applicator across the element one time and then repeat for a second time, thereby providing a reusable sponge).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo discloses the makeup palette case of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more protrusions has a tapered cross-section (per the modification addressed in claim 1, the zig-zag shaped protrusions of Seo were incorporated into the device of the combination of Hu and Murphy, wherein Seo’s zig-zag shaped protrusions have a tapering cross-section as best shown in the detail view of the lower right quadrant of Seo Figure 5). Thus, the combination discloses all the limitations of claim 16.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo discloses the makeup palette case of claim 1, as applied above. The combination does not disclose wherein each of the two or more protrusions has a flat top surface. Rather, per the modification addressed in claim 1, the zig-zag patterned protrusion of Seo was incorporated into the makeup palette of the combination of Hu and Murphy, wherein the zig-zag pattern of Seo comprises rounded top surfaces (refer to the detail view at a lower right of Seo Figure 5). While Seo discloses a rounded top surface of the protrusion, Seo does disclose that “it is needless to say that….the shape of the protrusions may be changed variously” (refer to Page 4 of the Seo translation) and further discloses different top surface profiles for other protrusions including a pointed top (see upper left detail view of Seo Figure 5) and a flat top surface (see upper right detail view of Seo Figure 5) and further discloses “features, structures…and the like illustrated in the embodiments…can be combined and modified” (refer to Page 10 of the translation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the zig-zag shaped protrusions such that their top surface is flat, since Seo explicitly states that the shape of the protrusions can be changed, that flat topped protrusions are one of a known profile shape disclosed in another embodiment and that features of the embodiments may be combined, as a matter of design choice to achieve a desired cleaning effect to the makeup brush.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of TechUnite (https://www.amazon.com/Cleaner-Removal-Foundation-Make-up-Removals/dp/B07QXC9YN4?th=1).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo discloses the makeup palette case of claim 1, as applied above, wherein the applicator-cleaning element comprises a reusable (the limitation “reusable” is interpreted as an intended use limitation, that is the applicator-cleaning element may be used more than one time and is therefore reusable) porous sponge (Hu discloses the applicator-cleaning element being a sponge, refer to Hu Paragraph [0030], where sponges are porous). The combination does not disclose wherein the reusable porous sponge is made from one or more abrasive textured materials. Per Oxford Languages, abrasive is defined as “capable of…cleaning a hard surface by rubbing”.
TechUnite discloses a reusable (“repeat to use”, refer to Page 1) porous sponge (not labeled, refer to annotated figure below) disposed within a receptacle (not labeled, refer to annotated Figure below), wherein the porous sponge is textured (refer to annotated Figure below wherein the surface of the sponge is depicted as having a plurality of broken cells/pores thereby defining a textured surface) and wherein the sponge is used to clean a makeup brush by rubbing against a surface of the brush (refer to step 1, step 2, and step 3 as depicted in Page 3) and is therefore abrasive, per the definition provided by Oxford Languages. Therefore 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 makeup palette case of the combination of Hu, Murphy, and Seo such that the reusable porous sponge is made from one or more abrasive textured materials, as taught by TechUnite, since such a modification would have involved simple substitution of one known sponge material (Hu’s reusable porous sponge) for another known sponge material (TechUnite’s abrasive textured sponge) to obtain the predictable result of removing cosmetic material from an applicator/cleaning an applicator.
PNG
media_image3.png
777
1021
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant's arguments filed 09/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the zig-zag pattern of one of the two or more protrusions of Seo is not different from another of the two or more protrusions. As indicated in the rejection to claim 1 above, due the difference in length of the rows of zig-zags in Seo, the pattern is different since a right-most end of a particular zig-zag row may be an upward facing line or may be a downward facing line, depending on the row, thereby providing the pattern to be different, at the right-most end thereof.
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 SARAH WOODHOUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-5635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ERIC ROSEN can be reached on 571-270-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARAH WOODHOUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/THOMAS C BARRETT/SPE, Art Unit 3799