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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to include the limitation “wherein the lower surface of the ring flange includes a recess in which the detent protrusion of the tray rim is inserted”. However, the lower surface of the ring flange including a recess is not explicitly supported in the specification. Applicant points to Figure 2 as supporting the amended claim. However, it is not clear in Figure 2 that ring flange 132 necessarily includes a recess. Nor is a recess in the ring flange addressed anywhere in the text of the specification. The figures are not necessarily drawn to scale. Figure 2 may include the ring flange and the detent overlapping or some other arrangement, but a recess is not clearly taught and therefore the application does not convey that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time of the application.
Claims 2-3 and 5 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1.
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 3-5 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20200121091 A) in view of Favre (US 5,906,212).
Regarding Claim 1, Lee teaches a cosmetic container (sealed container 100) comprising:
a lower case (main body 130) including a case bottom (flat bottom of 130 as seen in Figure 2; labeled as 124 in Figure 5) and an inner rim (inner circumferential surface 134) and forming an internal space (filling space 132);
an upper case (cover 110) rotatably coupled to the lower case (via cover hinge 126 connected to main body hinge 149; translation page 4 fifth paragraph) and configured to cover a top of the lower case (Figures 1 and 2 show the cover 110 covering the top of main body 130; translation page 3 second paragraph);
a securing ring (stopper ring 150) configured to couple the contents (160) to the lower case (main body 130; translation page 5 fifth paragraph),
wherein the lower case (main body 130) includes an outer rim (main body circumferential surface 140), the outer rim formed with a particular gap from a circumference of the inner rim (coupling groove 138),
wherein the securing ring (stopper ring 150) includes a ring flange (upper portion of stopper ring 150 that extends over inner circumferential surface 134 and edge of filling space 132 / contents 160) and a ring rim (coupling portion 156 of stopper ring 150 that is perpendicular to upper portion and that extends down into coupling groove 138), the ring flange having an annular shape (translation page 5 fifth paragraph), the ring rim (coupling portion 156) extending from the ring flange (Figure 2 or further magnified in Figures 7-10),
wherein the ring rim is inserted into an insertion groove formed between the inner rim and the outer rim so as to contact an outer perimeter of the inner rim (Figure 2 or further magnified in Figures 7-10; translation page 5 eighth paragraph),
wherein the lower surface of the ring flange includes a recess (see annotated Figure 7 below; the protrusion on the lower surface of the ring flange results in a recess relative to the protrusion and the ring rim, into which the inner rim of the lower case sits).
PNG
media_image1.png
353
732
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lee does not explicitly teach a protective tray or the details of such a tray.
However, cosmetic containers containing the cosmetic within a pan 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 Lee 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 Lee, 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 inserted into the recess of the ring flange as taught by Lee (see annotated Figure 7 above; once the protective tray as taught by Favre, which follows the inner rim exactly, is inserted into the cavity the detent protrusion at the top of the protective tray would also be inserted into the recess in the ring flange as the top of the inner rim is).
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).
Regarding Claim 5, Lee and Favre teach the cosmetic container of claim 1, as presented above. Lee further teaches 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).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR 20200121091 A) and Favre (US 5,906,212) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGrath (US 2020/0121054).
Regarding Claim 2, Lee 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Lee does not teach a recess into the lower surface of the ring flange. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The lower surface of the ring flange includes the protrusion that extends downward as shown in Figure 7. Therefore the area located between the protrusion and the ring rim is recessed compared to the protrusion portion of the lower surface of the ring flange. Once the protective tray of Favre is added, which is shown in Figure 4 of Favre to follow the side and top of the inner rim, the detent at the top of the protective tray side would be located in this recess where the inner ring is located.
Conclusion
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 - Thursday 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 on (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