Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/887,303

MASCARA

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 12, 2022
Examiner
ASQIRIBA, KARIM
Art Unit
3772
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
LG Household & Health Care Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
137 granted / 236 resolved
-11.9% vs TC avg
Strong +46% interview lift
Without
With
+45.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
257
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
50.9%
+10.9% vs TC avg
§102
24.1%
-15.9% vs TC avg
§112
20.8%
-19.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 236 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 . Response to Amendment The amendments filed on August 20, 2025, have been entered. The previously raised claim objections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment submitted by the Applicant on August 20, 2025. 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 14, 16, 18 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh (US 6009884 A hereinafter “Suh”) in view of Pires et al (US 20170164718 A1, Pires). Regarding claim 14. Suh discloses a mascara applicator (abstract and Fig 1-2b) comprising: a handle (annotated Fig 2a, A); a brush rod (annotated Fig 2a, B) extended from a side of the handle; a tip member (annotated Fig 2a, C) provided at an end of the brush rod; and heating element (annotated Fig 2a, D. heating wire) configured to heat the tip member (Col 1 lines 57-67) wherein the tip member comprises a base part having a shape of a pillar (annotated Fig 2a, E) and a plurality of protruding parts (Fig 2a, 21) protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the base part (Fig 2b), wherein the heating element is not disposed inside the tip member, and is disposed in the handle (annotated Fig 2a, D is disposed in the handle A and not the tip C). PNG media_image1.png 703 404 media_image1.png Greyscale Suh is silent to wherein each of the plurality of protruding parts, the base part, and the brush rod comprises a metal material; wherein a heat generated from the heating element is transferred to the plurality of protruding parts through the brush rod and the base part. Pires teaches a mascara applicator (abstract and Fig 1-4B) including a handle (Fig 3, 20); a brush rod (Fig 3, 10) extended from one side of the handle; a tip member (Fig 3, 30) provided at one end of the brush rod, wherein the tip member includes a base part shaped like a pillar (Fig 3, support 32), and a plurality of protruding parts (Fig 3, application elements 34a and 34b) protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the base part (Fig 3), the base part (32) is made from metal material (¶0029), the protruding parts are made of a metal material (¶0050, application elements molded from metal) to prevent unwanted damage or breakage of the cosmetic applicator and extend its life span in order to meet the user’s needs and preference. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to specify the material of the protruding part and the base part of the mascara applicator of Suh’s device to be made of metal material, as taught by Pires, to prevent unwanted damage or breakage of the cosmetic applicator and extend its life span in order to meet the user’s needs and preference. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to specify the material of the brush rod of the combination of Suh and Pires device to be made of metal material. Thus, would allow the user to clean the metal rod easily and efficiently, which reduces clumping from old cosmetic product buildup and helps maintain hygiene. Thus, the heat generated from the heating element (heating wire D) is transferred to the plurality of protruding parts through the brush rod and the base part (since the protruding part, the base part and the brush rod are from made from conductive metal material). Regarding claim 16. Suh and Pires teach the invention of claim 16. Suh further teaches the plurality of protruding parts (21) are in a form of a coil connected to the brush rod surrounding the base part (Fig 2a and Fig 2b). Regarding claim 18. Suh and Pires teach the invention of claim 14. Suh further teaches the handle further comprises a power supply (Fig 2a, battery 12) configured to supply power to the heating element (Col 1 lines 58-67). Regarding claim 20. Suh discloses mascara applicator (abstract and Fig 1-2b) comprising: a handle (annotated Fig 2a, A); a brush rod (annotated Fig 2a, B) extended from a side of the handle; a tip member (annotated Fig 2a, C) provided at an end of the brush rod; and a heating element (annotated Fig 2a, D. heating wire) configured to heat the tip member, wherein the tip member comprises a base part (annotated Fig 2a, E) having a shape of a pillar and a plurality of protruding parts (Fig 2a, 21) protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the base part, wherein the base part comprises a non-metal material (Col 2 lines 1-2, made of plastic material), wherein the heating element is not disposed inside the tip member, and is disposed in the handle (annotated Fig 2a, D is disposed in the handle A and not the tip C), wherein the plurality of the protruding parts (21) have a form of a coil (Fig 2a and Fig 2b), and wherein a heat generated from the heating element is transferred to the plurality of protruding parts (21) directly connected to the brush rod (Fig 2a-2b). PNG media_image1.png 703 404 media_image1.png Greyscale Suh is silent to each of the plurality of protruding parts and the brush rod comprises a metal material. Pires teaches a mascara applicator (abstract and Fig 1-4B) including a handle (Fig 3, 20); a brush rod (Fig 3, 10) extended from one side of the handle; a tip member (Fig 3, 30) provided at one end of the brush rod, wherein the tip member includes a base part shaped like a pillar (Fig 3, support 32), and a plurality of protruding parts (Fig 3, application elements 34a and 34b) protruding from an outer circumferential surface of the base part (Fig 3), the protruding parts are made of a metal material (¶0050, application elements molded from metal) to prevent unwanted damage or breakage of the cosmetic applicator and extend its life span in order to meet the user’s needs and preference. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to specify the material of the protruding part of the mascara applicator of Suh’s device to be made of metal material, as taught by Pires, to prevent unwanted damage or breakage of the cosmetic applicator and extend its life span in order to meet the user’s needs and preference. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to specify the material of the brush rod of the combination of Suh and Pires device to be made of metal material. Thus, would allow the user to clean the metal rod easily and efficiently, which reduces clumping from old cosmetic product buildup and helps maintain hygiene. Regarding claim 21. Suh and Pires teach the invention of claim 20. Suh further teaches the handle further comprises a power supply (Fig 2a, battery 12) configured to supply power to the heating element (Col 1 lines 58-67). Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh (US 6009884 A hereinafter “Suh”) in view of Pires et al (US 20170164718 A1, Pires) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Shimzu et al (US 20130098386 A1, hereinafter “Shimzu”). Regarding claim 19. Suh and Pires teach the invention of claim 14, but silent to the tip member is rotatable. Shimzu teaches similar heated hair shaping device (abstract and Fig 1-7) including a tip member (14) is rotatable (¶0021) so that the head can come into contact with hair while said head is rotated. Thus, the hair shaping device can improve the ability to shape hair, and then can improve the work efficiency (¶0010). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tip member of the combination of Suh and Pires device to be rotatable, as taught by Shimzu, so that the head can come into contact with hair while said head is rotated. Thus, the hair shaping device can improve the ability to shape hair, and then can improve the work efficiency. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh (US 6009884 A hereinafter “Suh”) in view of Pires et al (US 20170164718 A1, Pires) as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Shimzu et al (US 20130098386 A1, hereinafter “Shimzu”). Regarding claim 22. Suh and Pires teach the invention of claim 20, but silent to the tip member is rotatable. Shimzu teaches similar heated hair shaping device (abstract and Fig 1-7) including a tip member (14) is rotatable (¶0021) so that the head can come into contact with hair while said head is rotated. Thus, the hair shaping device can improve the ability to shape hair, and then can improve the work efficiency (¶0010). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the tip member of the combination of Suh and Pires device to be rotatable, as taught by Shimzu, so that the head can come into contact with hair while said head is rotated. Thus, the hair shaping device can improve the ability to shape hair, and then can improve the work efficiency. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 14,16 and 18-22 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 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 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 /RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 12, 2022
Application Filed
May 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 20, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 31, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599212
METHOD FOR TREATING THE HAIR
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599213
HAIR TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599219
APPLICATORS AND CASES FOR ARTIFICIAL LASH EXTENSIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12588744
HAIRDRESSING AND STYLING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12582184
WIG BASE, WIG AND MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR WIG BASE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+45.9%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 236 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