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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartholomew (U.S. Publication 2001/0047309).
Regarding claim 1, Bartholomew teaches an apparatus to make nail polish from one or more ink colors (figures 1 and figure 9), comprising: a housing unit (item 102 housing); an ink retention unit configured to hold or store one or more ink storage containers (paragraph 61 teaches item 100 includes a dispensing device including fluid chambers); wherein, the one or more ink storage containers store each of the one or more ink colors separately (paragraph 20 teaches each of items 14 holds different shades, tints, or hues of colors or pigments); an ink deposit component disposed in the housing unit (item 12 shown in the figure 1 schematic is taught as a dispenser, paragraph 61 teaches item 100 in figure 9) the ink deposit component being mechanically coupled to the ink retention unit (all the elements in item 100 are considered mechanically coupled in figure 9 including the dispenser and containers); wherein, the ink deposit component includes an actuator to control or regulate ink that is released from the ink retention unit (paragraph 20 item nozzles 16); a nail polish holder area under the ink deposit component configured to receive the ink released from the ink deposit component (item 116 support surface is considered reading on a nail polish holder area since the dispensed nail polish is held in a container on item 116 as shown in figure 1).
Regarding claim 2, Bartholomew teaches a power component formed in the housing unit (paragraph 67 teaches a power supply); a display coupled to the power component (paragraph 62 teaches a touch screen, input device item 106 which would inherently require power from the power supply taught in paragraph 67) herein the display is integrated into the housing unit and formed on a visible surface of the housing unit (item 106 is integrated into item 102 on a visible surface on the outside of the housing).
Regarding claim 3, Bartholomew teaches wherein the display includes a touch screen (paragraph 62 teaches a touch screen).
Regarding claim 6, Bartholomew teaches one or more ink storage cartridges are rotated or screwed into the ink retention unit (see threaded configuration in figure 8A, proximate item 78 which would inherently require rotation in order to be screwed into place).
Regarding claim 10, Bartholomew teaches wherein the ink deposit container includes a funnel adapted to direct ink flow to the nail polish holder area (paragraph 41 teaches nozzle tips that converge to a relatively small region which is considered reading on a funnel shape, and item 16 directs material to the container below).
Regarding claim 11, Bartholomew teaches a nail polish holder device arranged to hold or receive a nail polish bottle to receive and store the ink released to the nail polish holder area (paragraph 21 teaches a mounting stage 22 on which item 20 is placed, paragraph 22 teaches a member for holding a receptacle which is considered reading on a nail polish holder device).
Regarding claim 19, Bartholomew teaches a processor (paragraph 10 teaches a computer system which would inherently have a processor); a memory unit coupled to the processor (paragraph 24 memory with database stored in the memory), the memory unit having stored thereon instructions which when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: receive a request create or make the nail polish (paragraph 24 teaches the user selecting a shade); activate the ink deposit component to release the ink to flow to the nail polish holder area (paragraph 25 teaches dispensing the appropriate amount of ingredients to the receptacle 20).
Regarding claim 20, Bartholomew teaches a system to make nail polish of a given color (paragraph 24 teaches a system of the present invention, paragraph 9 teaches a custom cosmetic including nail polish), the system, comprising: a network interface (paragraph 10 teaches a remote communication system communicating with the internet which is considered reading on a network interface); a processor coupled to the network interface (paragraph 10 teaches a computer which inherently has a processor in order to function); a memory unit coupled to the processor (paragraph 24 teaches a memory ), the memory unit having stored thereon instructions (paragraph 24 teaches a database stored in the memory including specific proportions) which when executed by the processor, causes the processor to: receive a request create or make the nail polish of the given color (paragraph 24 teaches producing a specific color using mathematical integration based on user input); release and regulate ink flow from one or more ink storage containers to a nail polish holder area (paragraph 25 teaches the computer communicating with a controller to dispense ingredients into the receptacle 20); wherein, regulation of amount of the ink flow from the one or more storage containers is determined based on the given color (see figure 1 items 14); activate a motor to rotate the nail polish holder area to mix the ink flow received from the one or more storage containers to create the nail polish of the given color (paragraph 21 teaches a stepper motor for rotational motion).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartholomew (U.S. Publication 2001/0047309) in view of Bacallao (U.S. Publication 2018/0207595).
Regarding claim 12, Bartholomew teaches a nail polish holder device is mechanically coupled to the housing unit in a mixing area (paragraph 22 teaches a member for holding a receptacle which is considered reading on a nail polish holder device and would inherently be housed in item 102 where item 116 support surface is located) and teaches a vibrator shaker or other mixer reciprocally drives a member for holding the receptacle (paragraph 22). Regarding claim 12, Bartholomew is silent to the mixer specifically providing a tilting motion. Regarding claim 12, Bacallao teaches a custom product machine (paragraph 30 item 100) with a housing (item 3 paragraph 30 teaches a kiosk, paragraph 30 teaches customizable product including paint) with the mixer providing a tilting motion (paragraph 48 teaches displacing the container in multiple directions including inverting the container which requires tilting the container). Regarding claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Bartholomew with the multiple degrees of mixing motion of Bacallao in order to obtain the desired degree of mixing.
Regarding claim 13, Bartholomew teaches the nail polish holder device is mechanically coupled to the mixing area through a motor operable to rotate the nail polish holder device (paragraph 21 teaches a motor which would inherently have to be mechanically coupled, paragraph 21 additionally teaches the rotational motion).
Regarding claim 14, Bartholomew teaches using a spring biasing member to parts of the mixing apparatus (paragraph 58). Regarding claim 14, Bacallao teaches a clamp (paragraph 48) and holding the container in a tilted position (paragraph 48 teaches displacing the container in multiple directions including inverting the container which requires tilting the container). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the mixer of Bartholomew with the clamping configuration of Bacallao in order to provide the desired degree of mixing.
Regarding claim 16, Bartholomew teaches the mixing area forms a portion of the housing unit and is co-located with the portion of the housing unit having the nail polish holder area (item 116 is considered co-located with the container under the dispensing unit inside of housing 102).
Regarding claim 17, Bartholomew teaches wherein the mixing area forms a second portion of the housing unit (paragraph 64 item 118 is considered in a second area at a second portion of the housing unit); wherein the second portion of the housing unit is distinct from the portion of the portion of the housing unit having the nail polish holder area (item 118 is spaced apart from an area proximate the container proximate item 116).
Regarding claim 18, Bartholomew teaches the mixing area as a physical component (item 118) which distinct from the nail polish holder area (proximate item 116). Regarding claim 18, Bartholomew is silent to the mixer being separate from the housing unit. Regarding claim 18, absent any unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the mixer separate from the housing in order to allow for easier maintenance of the mixer since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartholomew (U.S. Publication 2001/0047309) in view of Post (U.S. Publication 2014/0271231).
Regarding claim 4, Bartholomew teaches wherein the ink retention component is formed in the housing unit (paragraph 61, item 100 includes the dispenser). Regarding claim 4, Bartholomew is silent to the chambers being integral with the dispenser and the chambers being refillable. Regarding claim 4 Post teaches a paint delivery system with separate containers (paragraph 2) wherein the containers are refillable (paragraph 35). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ink retention component of Bartholomew with the refillable containers of Post in order to allow for fresh liquid after the containers become empty (see Post paragraph 35). Regarding claim 4, absent any unexpected results it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the containers and dispenser integral in order to allow for easier operation of the mixing apparatus since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claims 7, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartholomew (U.S. Publication 2001/0047309) in view of in view of Brandon (U.S. Publication 2019/0366285).
Regarding claim 7, Bartholomew teaches the use of pumps to dispense nail polish (paragraph 48). Regarding claim 7, Bartholomew is silent to specifically teaches peristaltic pumps. Regarding claim 7, Brandon teaches the use of peristaltic pumps (paragraph 38) for making nail polish (paragraph 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pump of Bartholomew with a peristaltic pump of Brandon in order to obtain the desired degree of pressure while pumping different materials (see Brandon paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 8, Bartholomew teaches a pump system including multiple pumps (paragraph 48 teaches multiple pumps, each of which are considered part of a pump system) mechanically coupled to and control of each of the one or more ink storage containers (paragraph 48 teaches using a pump to drive fluid from the fluid source of the container which is shown as part of item 100 in figure 9). Regarding claim 8, Bartholomew is silent to specifically teaches peristaltic pumps. Regarding claim 8, Brandon teaches the use of peristaltic pumps (paragraph 38) for making nail polish (paragraph 5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pump of Bartholomew with a peristaltic pump of Brandon in order to obtain the desired degree of pressure while pumping different materials (see Brandon paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 9, Bartholomew teaches one or more motors mechanically coupled to the pump system (paragraph 48 teaches multiple pumps and teaches a motor driving a pump) wherein the one or more motors are operable to drive the multiple pumps (paragraph 48 teaches using the motor to drive a pump and teaches multiple pumps). Regarding claim 9, Bartholomew is silent to the pumps being peristaltic and the motor operable to rotate the peristaltic pump. Regarding claim 9, Branon teaches a peristaltic pump (paragraph 38) in which a motor is used to drive the peristaltic pump and rotate the rollers in the pump (see paragraph 38 and figure 7 items 340, 331, and 347). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the pump of Bartholomew with a peristaltic pump of Brandon in order to obtain the desired degree of pressure while pumping different materials (see Brandon paragraph 38
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 5, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest an apparatus to make nail polish with the hinge system mechanically couples the one or more ink storage containers to the housing unit, and wherein the hinge system is operable by rotation to access the one or more ink storage containers for refill or removal.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art does not teach or fairly suggest an apparatus to make nail polish with the combination of the holder device configured to tilt the nail polish bottle and the ball joint configuration.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANSHU BHATIA whose telephone number is (571)270-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 11 a.m. to 7:30 p.m..
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, Walter Griffin can be reached at (571)272-1447. 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.
/ANSHU BHATIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774