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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 3rd, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on September 3rd, 2025, have been entered.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe et al (US 7955014 B2, hereinafter “Thorpe”) in view of Godin et al (US 20200138177A1, hereinafter “Godin”) and Frymire (US 9820552 B2, hereinafter “Frymire”).
Regarding claim 1. Thorpe discloses a cosmetic applicator (abstract and Fig 1-11) comprising: a wand (102) having a central reservoir (Fig 4a, 106 (a) and 110); a brush head (116) mounted to a base of said wand (Fig 7a-7b); wherein said reservoir is replenishable and stores a cosmetic (Col 3 lines 26-28); wherein said reservoir and said brush head are coupled through a shaft (Fig 1, pipes inside 112) for dispensing said cosmetic from said reservoir to said brush head (Fig 4a-4b); wherein said wand is actuated to dispense said cosmetic onto said plurality of bristles (Col 3 line 62- Col 4 line 9); and wherein said cosmetic applicator is a makeup brush for applying the cosmetic to a skin of a user (Col 6 lines 4-8); and wherein the wand is a ridged wand (annotated Fig 1, A. The Examiner notes that the term “ridge” is being interpreted by “an elevated body part or structure” according to its definition found in https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ridge. The tip threaded structure of the wand is an elevated structure relative to the bottom of the wand).
PNG
media_image1.png
818
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thorpe is silent to said brush head includes a plurality of bristles; wherein said plurality of bristles extend radially outwards from said base of said wand; wherein the plurality of bristles are recessed bristles; wherein the plurality of bristles are dyed; and a door in the wand for accessing the central reservoir.
Godin teaches a cosmetic brush head includes a plurality of bristles (Fig 1,124) with opening therethrough (Fig 1, 152), wherein said plurality of bristles extend radially outwards from said base of said wand (Fig 1), wherein the plurality of bristles (124) are recessed bristles (¶0048, grooves to receive ends of bristles 124) to provide one of more applicator channels 150 formed therein, and each of the applicator channels 150 can generally extend from the free ends 128 of the brush fibers 124 to the ferrule 112. Each of the applicator channels 150 can define an opening 152 located at the application end 130 of the cosmetics applicator 122 to allow access to the corresponding applicator channel 150 (¶0053).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the applicator head of Thorpe’s device with the recessed bristles, as taught by Godin, to provide access to the pipes of the cosmetic dispenser and dispense the cosmetic material efficiently to meet the users’ needs and preferences.
In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of bristles of the combination of Thorpe and Goldin to be dyed. In this instance, this would allow family members users to identify their own brush applicator and help prevent using someone’s brush.
Furthermore, the instant disclosure describes the bristles being dyed as merely preferable [0032,“The bristles 104 can be made out of plastic, nylon, or other synthetic fibers, and may be dyed.”] and does not describe it as contributing any unexpected result to the cosmetic applicator. As such, the selection of the bristles being dyed is deemed matters of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Thorpe further discloses an end cap (Fig 1, 104) to access the central reservoir (Fig 1 and 4b and Col 3 lines 35-36); and that 106(a) may be constructed as a separate piece from the reservoir (Col 3 lines 28-30).
Frymire teaches a cosmetic beauty wand including compartment to store cosmetic material which is closed by a swivel door (Fig 2A, 25 and Col 2 lines 41-44) to provide a swivel door to access the stored cosmetic material inside the wand.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the end cap of the combination of Thorpe and Godin device with the swivel door, as taught by Frymire, to provide an alternative access such as the swivel door to access the reservoir inside the wand to meet the user’s needs and preference.
Regarding claim 2.Thorpe, Godin and Frymire teach the invention of claim 1. Godin further teaches each of said plurality of bristles comprise an opening therethrough for dispensing said cosmetic (Fig 1, opening 152).
Regarding claim 3.Thorpe, Godin and Frymire teach the invention of claim 1. Godin further teaches said plurality of bristles are uniform in thickness and uniform in height for applying said cosmetic onto a skin surface of a user (Fig 13).
Regarding claim 4.Thorpe, Godin and Frymire teach the invention of claim 1. Thorpe further discloses said cosmetic is selected from a group consisting of a liquid, a solid, a powder, an aqueous solution (Col 3 lines 9-13).
Regarding claim 5.Thorpe, Godin and Frymire teach the invention of claim 4. Godin further teaches said plurality of bristles are comprised of a material selected from a group consisting of a nylon (¶0047).
Regarding claim 6.Thorpe, Godin and Frymire teach the invention of claim 4, but silent to said plurality of bristles comprise an animal hair selected from a group consisting of a squirrel, a badger, a mink, a kolinsky sable and a weasel. However, Thorpe further discloses plurality of bristles comprise sable hair (Col 3 lines 2-3).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the Sable hair bristles of the combination of Thorpe, Godin and Frymire with kolinsky sable hair to provide the user with alternative soft bristles for fine detailing and precise cosmetic application on the user’s face.
Furthermore, the instant disclosure describes the selection of the bristles hair as merely preferable [0032, Alternatively, the bristles 104 can be made from squirrel, badger, mink, kolinsky sable, or weasel hairs; lesser-grade fibers include goat- and pony- bristle blends.] and does not describe it as contributing any unexpected result to the cosmetic applicator. As such, the selection of the bristles hair is deemed matters of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Regarding claim 7.Thorpe, Godin and Frymire teach the invention of claim 1. Thorpe further discloses said wand comprises a hollow ergonomic handle for holding said cosmetic applicator (Fig 1, hollow structure of 102 which is capable to be used as handle for the cosmetic applicator).
Regarding claim 8.Thorpe, Godin and Frymire teach the invention of claim 1, but silent to said brush head is selectively removable from said wand for accessing said reservoir.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the brush head removable from the wand of the combination of Thorpe, Godin and Frymire device, since it had been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill. In this instance, making the brush head removable would allow the user to switch defective brush head and replace it with a new brush head to meet the user’s needs.
Claims 9-11 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thorpe et al (US 7955014 B2, hereinafter “Thorpe”) in view of Godin et al (US 20200138177A1, hereinafter “Godin”), Frymire (US 9820552 B2, hereinafter “Frymire”) and Cavazzuti et al (US 20190125058 A1, hereinafter “Cavazzuti”).
Regarding claim 9.Thorpe discloses a cosmetic applicator (abstract and Fig 1-11) comprising: a wand (102) having a central reservoir (Fig 4a, 106 (a)); an attachment seat connector (Fig 1, 110 and 111 with attachment seat 112) having a central shaft therethrough (pipes inside 112) for connecting said wand with a brush head (Fig 1); wherein said reservoir is replenishable and stores a cosmetic (Col 3 lines 26-28); wherein said reservoir and said brush head are coupled through said shaft for dispensing said cosmetic from said reservoir to said brush head (Fig 1 and Fig4A-4B); wherein said wand is actuated to dispense said cosmetic onto said plurality of bristles by rotation of said connector (Col 3 line 62-line 4 line 8); and further wherein said cosmetic applicator is a makeup brush for applying the cosmetic to the skin of a user (Col 6 lines 4-8); wherein the wand (102) is a wood or ceramic ridged wand (Col 5 lines 29-32. The Examiner notes that the term “ridge” is being interpreted by “an elevated body part or structure” according to its definition found in https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ridge. The tip threaded structure of the wand is an elevated structure relative to the bottom of the wand).
Thorpe is silent to a threaded connector; said brush head includes a plurality of bristles; wherein said plurality of bristles extend radially outwards from said base of said wand; and wherein said plurality of bristles are weasel hair bristles; a door in the wand for accessing the central reservoir; wherein the wand is a ceramic or glass ridged wand; and wherein said cosmetic is an emulsion.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the attachment seat of the connector of Thorpe’s device to be a threaded attachment, since applicant has not disclosed that a threaded connector solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with the attachment seat connector. In this instance, an ordinary skilled in the art would recognize changing the attachment seat of the connector of Thorpe’s device to be a threaded connector, as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art in order to provide the user with an alternative securing mechanism to allow the user to remove and /or replace the brush head to meet the user’s needs.
Godin teaches a cosmetic brush head includes a plurality of bristles (Fig 1,124) with opening therethrough (Fig 1,152); wherein said plurality of bristles extend radially outwards from said base of said wand (Fig 1); and wherein said plurality of bristles are sable hair bristles (¶0047) to provide one of more applicator channels 150 formed therein, and each of the applicator channels 150 can generally extend from the free ends 128 of the brush fibers 124 to the ferrule 112. Each of the applicator channels 150 can define an opening 152 located at the application end 130 of the cosmetics applicator 122 to allow access to the corresponding applicator channel 150 (¶0053).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the applicator head of Thorpe’s device with the recessed bristles, as taught by Godin, to provide access to the pipes of the cosmetic dispenser and dispense the cosmetic material efficiently to meet uses’ needs and preferences.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the Sable hair bristles of the combination of Thorpe and Godin with weasel hair bristles to provide the user with alternative soft bristles for fine detailing and precise cosmetic application on the user’s face.
Furthermore, the instant disclosure describes the selection of the weasel hair bristles as merely preferable [0032, Alternatively, the bristles 104 can be made from squirrel, badger, mink, kolinsky sable, or weasel hairs; lesser-grade fibers include goat- and pony- bristle blends.] and does not describe it as contributing any unexpected result to the cosmetic applicator. As such, the selection of the weasel hair bristles is deemed matters of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Thorpe further discloses an end cap (Fig 1, 104) to access the central reservoir (Fig 1 and 4b and Col 3 lines 35-36); and that 106(a) may be constructed as a separate piece from the reservoir (Col 3 lines 28-30).
Frymire teaches a cosmetic beauty wand including compartment to store cosmetic material which is closed by a swivel door (Fig 2A, 25 and Col 2 lines 41-44) to provide a swivel door to access the stored cosmetic material inside the wand to meet the user’s needs.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the end cap of the combination of Thorpe and Godin device with the swivel door, as taught by Frymire, to provide an alternative access such as the swivel door to access the reservoir inside the wand to meet the user’s needs and preferences.
Cavazzuti teaches a cosmetic applicator device (abstract and Fig 1) including an applicator (Fig 1, applicator 3) with reservoir (Fig 1, inside container 10) containing cosmetic emulsion (¶0009) to provide compositions which at the same time provide very good coverage of the lips, as a precise deposit, which does not migrate, and for which the tacky nature has been virtually dispensed with (¶0008). Thus, would also provide the users’ skin with efficient moisture during cosmetic application, and protect the skin or the users’ lips from environmental damage and irritants.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the cosmetic composition of the combination of Thorpe, Godin and Frymire with cosmetic emulsion, as taught by Cavazzuti, to provide compositions which at the same time provide very good coverage of the lips, as a precise deposit, which does not migrate, and for which the tacky nature has been virtually dispensed with. Thus, would also provide the user’s skin with efficient moisture during cosmetic application, and protect the skin or the users’ lips from environmental damage and irritants.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the material of the wand of the combination of Thorpe, Godin, Frymire and Cavazzuti to be made of ceramic or glass. Thus, would provide users with an aesthetically pleasing cosmetic device and provide an alternative material to meet different users’ preferences.
Furthermore, the instant disclosure describes the selection of the material of the wand as merely preferable [0034, The wand 110 can be made of any appropriate material known in the art, such as, but not limited to, wood, plastic, polymer, ceramic, glass, metal, or a combination thereof.] and does not describe it as contributing any unexpected result to the cosmetic applicator. As such, the selection of the material of the wand is deemed matters of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Regarding claim 10. Thorpe, Godin, Frymire and Cavazzuti teach the invention of claim 9. Godin further teaches said plurality of bristles include openings therethrough for dispensing said cosmetic (Fig 1, opening 152).
Regarding claim 11. Thorpe, Godin, Frymire and Cavazzuti teach the invention of claim 9. Godin further teaches said plurality of bristles are uniform in thickness and uniform in height for applying said cosmetic onto a skin surface of a user (Fig 13).
Regarding claim 15. Thorpe, Godin, Frymire and Cavazzuti teach the invention of claim 9. Thorpe further discloses said wand includes a hollow ergonomic handle for holding said cosmetic applicator (Fig 1, hollow structure of 102 which is capable to be used as handle for the cosmetic applicator).
Regarding claim 16. Thorpe, Godin, Frymire and Cavazzuti teach the invention of claim 9, but silent to said brush head is selectively removable from said wand for accessing said reservoir.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made to make the brush head removable from the wand, since it had been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill. In this instance, making the brush head removable would allow the user to switch defective brush head and replace it with a new brush head to meet the user’s needs.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 3rd, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remark and argument: The Applicants alleges that Thrope does not appear to teach or suggest a ridged wand.
In response: The Examiner disagree with the Applicant assertion. The Examiner notes that the term “ridge” is being interpreted by “an elevated body part or structure” according to its definition found in https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ridge. The tip threaded structure of the wand 102 , as shown in the annotated Fig 1 above, is an elevated structure relative to the bottom of the wand.
Applicant’s remark and argument: The Applicants alleges that Thrope, Godin, and Frymire appear to be silent to as to dyed bristles.
In response: The Examiners notes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the plurality of bristles of the combination of Thorpe and Goldin to be dyed. In this instance, this would allow family members users to identify their own brush applicator and help prevent using someone’s brush. Furthermore, the instant disclosure describes the bristles being dyed as merely preferable [0032,“The bristles 104 can be made out of plastic, nylon, or other synthetic fibers, and may be dyed.”] and does not describe it as contributing any unexpected result to the cosmetic applicator. As such, the selection of the bristles being dyed is deemed matters of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 9-11 and 15-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Additional references were also reviewed during the examination of this application and listed for your reference in the notice of reference cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIM ASQIRIBA whose telephone number is 571- 270-3416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 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, 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARIM ASQIRIBA/Examiner, Art Unit 3772