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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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. Lee (KR 20200121091) is no longer relied upon in the rejection of claim 1. Lee is still relied upon to teach limitations in dependent claim 5, but no argument was presented against that ground of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Son (KR 101841178 B1) in view of Favre (US 5,906,212).
Regarding Claim 1, Son teaches a cosmetic container (Figure 1; first paragraph of Background Art section) comprising:
a lower case (lower case 110 with contents storage part 120) including a case bottom (flat bottom of storage part 120 below contents 130) and an inner rim (support protrusion 121) and forming an internal space (where contents 130 are shown in Figures);
an upper case (sealing member 300) rotatably coupled to the lower case (sealing member 300 is directly connected via a hinge to intermediate case 200 which screws onto lower case 110, therefore sealing member 300 is rotatably coupled to the lower case by the hinge which enables the sealing member to open and close and by the screw mechanism of the intermediate case which enables the sealing member being rotated about the lower case when the intermediate case is put on or taken off) and configured to cover a top of the lower case (Figure 2);
a securing ring (fixation tube or fixing pipe 600) configured to couple the cosmetic to the lower case (Figure 2; translation page 4 third paragraph),
wherein the lower case (lower case 110 with contents storage part 120) includes an outer rim (first sealing protrusion 122), the outer rim being formed with a particular gap from a circumference of the inner rim (Figure 2 shows insertion groove 123 between inner and outer rims into which fixing pipe 600 is inserted),
wherein the securing ring (fixing pipe 600) includes a ring flange (fixing jaw 610; translation page 4 third paragraph) and a ring rim (part extending down from fixing jaw 610), the ring flange having an annular shape (Figure 1), the ring rim extending from the ring flange (Figure 1),
wherein the ring rim is inserted into an insertion groove formed between the inner rim and the outer rim to contact an outer perimeter of the inner rim (Figure 2; translation page 4 third paragraph),
wherein the outer rim is extended upward from a lower end of the inner rim (Figure 2 shows first sealing protrusion 122 is connected to support protrusion 121 as the base of support protrusion 121), and
wherein a radial width of the ring flange is less than a height of the ring rim (Figures 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
348
735
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 from Son.
While Son does not explicitly state the relationship between the radial width of the flange and the height of the ring rim, Figure 2 does depict the height of the wall of the fixing pipe as being substantially more than the radial width of the fixing jaw. Furthermore, it would be obvious to keep the radial width small to maintain as much access to the cosmetic contained within as possible.
Son does not explicitly teach a protective tray or the details of such a tray.
However, cosmetic containers containing the cosmetic within a pan or protective tray is well known in the art. Favre, in the same field of endeavor of makeup containers (abstract), teaches a protective tray (dish 4) configured to be inserted in the internal space (internal cavity to cup 40) and including a tray rim and a tray bottom (see annotated Figure 4 below), wherein an outwardly protruding detent protrusion is formed at an upper end portion of the tray rim (see annotated Figure 4) and is positioned on an upper end of the inner rim of the lower case (see annotated Figure 4).
PNG
media_image2.png
380
574
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Favre teaches that the makeup can be in a tray in the bottom case or can be directly molded into the case, if the bottom case is of a suitable material for such (col 5 lines 50-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cosmetic container as taught by Son to also include a protective tray with the detent protrusion as taught by Favre. The addition of the protective tray to hold the makeup rather than the makeup being directly molded into the lower case would have been obvious to try, as Favre teaches a compact with or without a tray. Furthermore, as Favre specifies that the makeup can only be added directly to the bottom case if it is of a suitable material to contain the makeup directly, utilizing a protective tray allows for the use of materials for the bottom case that may not be suitable for containing the makeup alone.
By adding the protective tray with the detent protrusion at the upper end of the inner rim to the cosmetic container as taught by Son, the resulting structure will necessitate where the detent protrusion is pressed down by the lower surface of the ring flange (by positioning the outward protrusion at the top end of the tray rim and the inner rim, it is positioned at the location where the ring flange presses down on the tray rim and inner rim of the bottom case by the ring flange in order to maintain the tray in the bottom case cavity). The detent protrusion of the protective tray would sit right at the top of the inner rim (as seen in Favre Figure 4), therefore it would be pressed down by the lower surface of the ring flange taught by Son, as the lower surface of the ring flange of Son presses down on the top of the inner rim (see Son Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 3, Lee and Favre teach the cosmetic container of claim 1, as presented above. Favre further teaches wherein the tray rim has a same height as the inner rim (Figure 4).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee Son (KR 101841178 B1) and Favre (US 5,906,212) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGrath (US 2020/0121054).
Regarding Claim 2, Son and Favre teach the cosmetic container of claim 1, as presented above.
Favre teaches the protective tray can be of metal or a synthetic material (col 4 lines 46-49) and that the material contacting the makeup must be of a suitable material to preserve the makeup (col 3 lines 56-59; col 5 lines 50-52).
Favre does not explicitly teach the material of the protective tray being polyethylene terephthalate.
However, McGrath, in the same field of endeavor of cosmetic containers (abstract), teaches wherein the protective tray (tray 10) is fabricated from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (¶ 0084).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the protective tray of the cosmetic container taught by Lee and Favre out of PET as taught by McGrath. Favre teaches the tray could be made of a suitable synthetic material, and McGrath teaches that PET is a suitable material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.07.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee Son (KR 101841178 B1) and Favre (US 5,906,212) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of (Lee KR 20200121091 A; translation provided with a previous office action)
Regarding Claim 5, Son and Favre teach the cosmetic container of claim 1, as presented above. Son may teach a coupling groove on the outer perimeter of the inner rim that cooperates with a ring protrusion on the ring rim (see Figure 2 where the surface between the two components is not flat), however such an arrangement is not explicitly stated.
However, Lee, in the same field of endeavor of cosmetic containers (first paragraph under Background Art heading), teaches a cosmetic container (sealed container 100) with a lower case (main body 130) with an inner rim (inner circumferential surface 134) and an outer rim (main body circumferential surface 140) and a securing ring (stopper ring 150) inserted into an insertion groove formed between the inner and outer rims so as to contact an outer perimeter of the inner rim (Figure 2 or further magnified in Figures 7-10; translation page 5, 8th paragraph), wherein a coupling groove (locking groove 136) is formed in an outer perimeter of the inner rim (inner circumferential surface 134; Figure 7), and a ring-coupling protrusion (locking protrusion 158) configured to be inserted in the coupling groove is formed on an inner perimeter of the ring rim (Figure 7; translation page 4 eighth paragraph). Lee teaches this coupling groove and protrusion to lock the ring onto the lower case and secure the contents.
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 cosmetic case as taught by Son with the protective tray as taught by Favre to further include the coupling groove on the outer perimeter of the inner rim and the cooperating protrusion on the securing ring as taught by Lee. This is a simple combination of the securing ring taught by Son that inserts around the inner rim with the coupling grooves and protrusions of such a relationship as taught by Lee which would be motivated to make to secure the ring onto the lower case.
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 Jennifer P. Connell whose telephone number is (703)756-1169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 3 pm 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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571)270-5614. 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.
/JENNIFER P CONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights