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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein a tip of the applicator deviates from an extension of an axis of the base part”. It is unclear whether this is referring to another axis in a different direction of the base part or to the longitudinal axis of the base part recited in claim 1. For examining purposes, it was understood as “wherein a tip of the applicator deviates from the longitudinal axis of the base part”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dunton et al. (US 2005/0109365 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dunton et al. teaches a cosmetic applicator (10) comprising:
a fixed part (see annotated Figure below);
a base part extending in a rod shape from the fixed part (see annotated Figure below),
a longitudinal axis of the base part being coaxial with a longitudinal axis of the fixed part (see annotated Figure below),
a tapered part extending further from the base part while reducing in diameter (see Figures 2-3); and
an application surface (30) formed so as to have a slant cut shape (see Figures 2-3), wherein the slant cut shape extends continuously from a side surface of the base part to a side surface on an opposite side of the tapered part (see Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
583
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 (as best understood), Dunton et al. teaches the cosmetic applicator according to claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein a tip of the applicator deviates from the longitudinal axis of the base part toward a side surface on a side opposite to the application surface (see Figure 2).
PNG
media_image2.png
583
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Dunton teaches the cosmetic applicator according to claim 1 (See rejection above), wherein an outline on a base part side of the application surface is formed into a U-shape (see outline of base part in Figure 3), and an outline on a tapered part side of the application surface is formed into a V-shape that bends into a circular arc in a vicinity of the tip (see outline in Figure 2 and [0025]; the tip end is rounded).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunton et al. (US 2005/0109365 A1), in view of Gueret (US 2008/0317542 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Dunton teaches the cosmetic applicator according to claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein a slant angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the base part is in a range of 8 to 20 degrees.
Gueret teaches a cosmetic applicator having a longitudinal axis (X) and a tapered part with an application surface (E) having an angle α between the longitudinal axis (X) and the application surface (see Figures 2 and 16). Dunton teaches α is between α is between 5° to 45° and in figure 16, α can be less than 10° ([0080], [0090]). Gueret teaches the applicator aims to make makeup application both easier, quicker and more precise ([0022]) and said angle range contributes to making the applicator more ergonomic ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the applicator of Dunton to have an angle between the slant application surface and the longitudinal axis being between 5° and 45°, as taught by Gueret, as it would provide an ergonomic applicator that is easy quick and precise for cosmetic uses.
Regarding claim 5, Dunton teaches the cosmetic applicator according to claim 1 (See rejection above), but is silent to wherein an angle between the application surface of the applicator and a slope surface of the tapered part is in a range of 15 to 35 degrees in a side view.
Gueret teaches a cosmetic applicator having a longitudinal axis (X) and a tapered part with an application surface (E) having a bevel being of angle (β) lying in the range 6° to 65° ([0030] and see Figure 2). Gueret teaches the applicator aims to make makeup application both easier, quicker and more precise ([0022]) and the applicator angles contribute to making the applicator more ergonomic ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the applicator of Dunton to have an angle of the beveled surface being between 6° to 65°, as taught by Gueret, as it would provide an ergonomic applicator that is easy quick and precise for cosmetic uses.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunton et al. (US 2005/0109365 A1), in view of Limongi (WO2018/115605).
Regarding claim 4, Dunton teaches cosmetic applicator according to claim 1 (see rejection above), but does not teach wherein a radius of curvature of the tip of the applicator is in a range of 0.2 to 0.9 mm in a front view.
Limongi teaches an applicator in the same field of endeavor of cosmetic applicators (abstract). Limongi teaches the applicator has an application part with a tip 20a that has a radius of curvature between 0.5 mm and 50 mm (see page 6 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the tip to have a radius of curvature between 0.5 mm and 50 mm, as taught by Limongi, as it would provide proper dimension for a rounded tip depending on the cosmetic use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
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 LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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 at (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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/THOMAS C BARRETT/ SPE, Art Unit 3799