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 Arguments
First, the applicant argues that Pang does not disclose the claimed first receiving area and second receiving area because the examiner improperly maps Pang’s receiver (102) as the first receiving area and Pang’s interface (104) as the second receiving area. However, the examiner disagrees. The claims merely recite a first receiving area and a second receiving area and do not require that the receiving areas be separate housings or discrete structural components. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Pang’s receiver (102) includes multiple regions configured to receive different components. The receiver constitutes the claimed first receiving area, while the interface (104), which is configured to receive the cosmetic applicator assembly, constitutes the claimed second receiving area. The fact that the interface is located within the receiver does not preclude it from satisfying the claimed second receiving area.
Second, the applicant argues that the examiner’s mapping is internally inconsistent because Pang’s interface (104) is part of receiver (102), and therefore cannot constitute a separate receiving area. However, the examiner disagrees. The applicant is importing limitations into the claims that are not recited. The claims do not require the first receiving area and second receiving area to be separate structures. Rather, the claims broadly recite receiving areas. A receiving area may comprise a region within another structure. Pang’s interface is a distinct region configured to receive the adapter and applicator assembly and therefore reasonably corresponds to the claimed second receiving area.
Third, the applicant argues that Pang fails to disclose a lipstick tube having an attached universal adapter received within the claimed second receiving area. However, the examiner disagrees. Pang discloses an adapter (105) coupled to the cosmetic applicator (106), and the interface (104) is configured to receive that assembly. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the adapter disclosed by Pang corresponds to the claimed universal adapter, and the interface receives the lipstick assembly together with the attached adapter. Accordingly, Pang teaches the claimed relationship.
Fourth, the applicant argues that Murphy cannot remedy deficiencies in Pang because Murphy was cited only for the mechanism that rotates the lipstick tube. However, the examiner disagrees. The rejection relies upon each reference only for the particular teachings for which it was cited. Pang is relied upon for the receiving structure, Murphy for the powered lipstick rotation mechanism, Gerry for the gear transmission, and Petratou for additional limitations recited in the dependent claims. The applicant has not identified any limitation that is unsupported by the combined teachings of the references.
Fifth, the applicant argues that Gerry is not analogous art because it relates to a surface treating apparatus rather than a cosmetic applicator. However, the examiner disagrees. Gerry is not relied upon for its end-use application, but rather for its disclosure of a bevel gear transmission for transmitting rotary motion. The use of bevel gears to transfer rotational motion is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention, in particular transmitting rotational motion from a motor to rotate a lipstick tube. Accordingly, Gerry constitutes analogous art for the purpose for which it was cited.
Sixth, the applicant argues that the Office has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the cited references do not disclose every limitation of claim 1. However, the examiner disagrees. The applicant’s arguments address the references individually rather than the rejection as a whole. The rejection is based upon the combined teachings of Pang, Murphy, Gerry, and Petratou. As set forth in the Office action, Pang teaches the motion stabilizing device and receiving structure, Murphy the powered rotation mechanism, Gerry the bevel great transmission, and Petratou the additional dependent claim limitations. The combination of these references teaches or suggests all of the limitations of claim 1 and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the reasons previously stated in the Office action.
Drawings
The objections to the Drawings are overcome by the response dated February 24, 2026.
Specification
The amendments to the Specification dated February 24, 2026, are entered. The objections to the Specification are overcome by the same response.
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 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al (US 2020/0085168) in view of Murphy et al (US 7,629,757).
Regarding claim 1, Pang discloses an assistive stand configured to hold a motion stabilizing device that stabilizes an applicator in response to the motion caused by a user applicator (device 100), comprising:
a first receiving area (receiver portion 102) for holding the motion stabilizing device (para. 0035); and
a second receiving area (interface 104) that holds a lipstick tube (makeup applicator 106, para. 0044 disclosing that the makeup applicator is lipstick) with an attached universal adapter (adapter 105) (it is noted that: (1) the claim recites a first receiving area and a second receiving area, but does not require that these areas be separate housings, chambers, or physically isolated structures, under broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, a receiving area encompasses any region configured to receive a component, so multiple receiving areas may exist within a common receiver assembly; and (2) Pang’s receiver defines a first region configured to receive and support the motion stabilizing device, and within that receiver, interface 104 defines a separate region configured to receive the cosmetic applicator and adapter - these regions receive different components and therefore reasonably correspond to the claimed first and second receiving areas).
Pang is silent to wherein the second receiving area includes a mechanism that rotates the lipstick tube to a length. However, Murphy teaches a receiving area (interior of shell 212) includes a mechanism (electro-mechanical control mechanism 400) that rotates the lipstick tube to a length. The advantage of including Murphy’s mechanism that rotates the lipstick tube is to provide automated rotation of the lipstick product while maintaining the ergonomic support and stabilization proved by Pang. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the assistive stand to include an electro-mechanical control for extending the lipstick. In combination, the device advantageously allows for a device which is both automatic and ecologically friendly, allowing for replacement of the dispensable lipstick without replacing the dispenser (Murphy: col. 1 ll. 56-58).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device remains silent to a sensor that detects an amount that the lipstick is extended within the assistive stand. However, Murphy teaches a sensor that detects an amount that the lipstick is extended within the assistive stand (Murphy: col. 7 ll. 10-17, wherein the sensor can determine the position of the lipstick). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include a sensor for detecting the position of the lipstick, and thus the amount it is extended. In doing so, one can advantageously reduce overextension and conserve battery life (Murphy: col. 7 ll. 10-17).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al (US 2020/0085168) and Murphy et al (US 7,629,757), as applied in claim 1, further in view of Gerry (US 3,550,324).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, the already modified device further teaches wherein the mechanism that rotates the lipstick tube is a motor system (Murphy: col. 5 ll. 13-22) that includes a gear (Murphy: spiral tube 250 in conjunction with mating cup 220), a motor gear (Murphy: gearhead 420), and a motor (Murphy: DC motor 410), wherein the lipstick tube is inserted through the gear in the second receiving area (refer to fig. 4), the motor gear is in contact with the gear, and the motor controls the rotation of the motor gear (Murphy: col. 5 ll. 30-40), however, Pang in view of Murphy remains silent to a bevel gear. Gerry teaches a bevel gear (bevel gear 24). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include a bevel gear. In doing so, the mechanism that rotates is capable of transmitting power between intersecting shaft (Gerry: fig. 1) while also maintaining precise control over torque distribution (necessary to the function of the device disclosed by Murphy, (col. 5 ll. 23-30)).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pang et al (US 2020/0085168), Murphy et al (US 7,629,757), and Gerry (US 3,550,324), as applied in claim 2, further in view of Petratou (US 11,376,886).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 2, the already modified device teaches the bevel gear, the assistive stand, and lipstick rotates in conjunction with the bevel gear,
but, remains silent to a beveled seat gasket that controls the lipstick tube to be inserted a fixed amount into the assistive stand and grips the lipstick tube so that the lipstick rotates in conjunction with the bevel gear. Petratou teaches a beveled seat gasket (product carriage 4, fig. 2, wherein surface 41 indicates a bevel) that controls the lipstick tube to be inserted a fixed amount and grips the lipstick tube (col. 3 ll. 60-67). It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to include a bevel seal gasket for the purpose of securely holding the lipstick tube during retraction and extraction of the lipstick tube (col. 3 ll. 53-67).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-18 are allowed. Claims 5-7 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DAVID ANGWIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-3735. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00 EST. 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.
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.
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights