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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 19, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in view of the rejection set forth below addressing the amendments to the claims.
In response to applicant’s argument that Li’s spoon presses top-down through a hole and does not glide or applies pressure gently from below, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Therefore, since the spoon of Li can be glided over the skin and pressed sufficiently around the pore to inherently apply pressure from the pore below and remove debris from the pore in a single movement, the prior art meets the limitations. It is the examiner’s position the rounded open curve of Li would be capable of performing this operation on at least smaller pores.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US 5431665) in view of Rosenburg et al (US. 5910147).
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses method and a device comprising an extractor tool for removing debris from a pore, the extractor tool comprising: a shaft (handle) texture that facilitates fine movement of a tip (see image below); and the tip coupled to the shaft (figure 1), wherein the tip forms a rounded open curve (22, 21, 131) operable to glide over skin and to press on skin around the pore to apply pressure to the port from below and remove debris from the pore in a single movement (C:1, L: 9-20, downward pressure can be applied even with injury; C:2, L:38-47; it is further noted recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim). Li does not specifically disclose the device comprises a hash pattern. However, Rosenburg et al (hereafter Rosenburg) teaches it was well known in the art at the time of the invention to include a hash pattern texture (20, figure 5) on the surface of a handle (or shaft) in order to improve grip for the thumb and forefinger (C:4, L:40-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include a hash pattern texture on to the device handle of Li, as taught as well known in the art at the time of the invention by Rosenburg, in order to improve grip for the thumb and forefinger when using the device.
Regarding claims 2-7, Li in view of Rosenburg teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 1, wherein the tip is operable to press on skin around the pore to apply pressure to the pore from below (Li, figure 4, as long as the prior art meets the structural requirements in the claims and is capable of performing the recited functions, the prior art meets the limitations. The hooks can be pushed around the pimple from below) and to press on skin around the pore to extract debris from the pore, wherein the debris comprises comedone, skin, sebum, whitehead or blackhead (Li, C:2, L:38-50). Functional limitations are not given full patentable weight. As long as the prior art meets the structural requirements of the claim and is capable of performing the recited function, the prior art meets the limitations. In the instant case, the tip of the device of Li in view of Rosenburg would be capable of pressing on skin around the pore to extract debris from the pore, wherein the debris could be comedone, sebum, dead skin, comprises a blackhead or whitehead.
Regarding claim 8-9, Li in view of Rosenburg teaches all of the limitations set forth in Claim 1, wherein Rosenberg further teaches that stainless steel is a known suitable material for blemish extractors at the time of the invention (C:1, L:30-40; C:5, L:5-10) to endure endless sterilizations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further make the shaft and tip in the method of Li in view of Rosenberg out of stainless steel in order to endure endless sterilizations, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claims 10-12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkovich (US 5935380) in view of Kang (US 20060155306).
Regarding claim 10, Berkovich discloses a method of extracting debris from a pore, the method comprising: pinching skin around the pore (depressing skin); and applying force to the pore from below using an extractor tool (depressing skin and forcing blackhead up out of pores), wherein the extractor tool comprises: a rod shaped shaft (10) that facilitates fine movement of a tip (12); and the pointed tip coupled to the shaft, wherein the tip comprises a rounded open curve (20, 14; C:2, L:43-50) operable to glide over skin and to press on skin around the pore to apply pressure to the pore from below and remove debris from the pore in a single movement (C:2, L:25-36). Berkovich further teaches the shaft can have serrations or grooves to aid in grasping, but does not specifically disclose the serrations or grooves comprise a hash pattern texture. However, Kang teaches a method of extracting debris from a pore using an extractor tool, wherein the extractor tool comprises a rod-shaped shaft comprising a hash pattern texture (102) as an art-recognized equivalent gripping structure to aid in grasping at the time of the invention, such that handle can be grasped well in a hand (paragraph 0034). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the grooves and serrations of the shaft of Berkovich comprise a hash pattern texture, as taught as known in the art by Kang, as an art-recognized equivalent handle texture pattern for pore debris extractors at the time of the invention in order to make the handle easily graspable in a hand and it has been held that mere substitution of art-recognized equivalents at the time of the invention involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11, Berkovich in view of Kang teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 10, wherein Berkovich teaches the tip is operable to press on skin around the pore to apply pressure to the pore from below a follicle of the pore (C:2, L:25-36).
Regarding claim 12, Berkovich in view of Kang teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 11, Berkovich further teaches the tip is further operable to press on skin around the pore to extract debris from the pore (C:2, L:31, depressing skin).
Regarding claim 13, Berkovich in view of Kang teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 12, wherein the debris comprises comedone (C:2, L:55-60; acne).
Regarding claim 14-16, Berkovich in view of Kang teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 12, wherein the debris comprises sebum, dead skin, a blackhead, or whitehead (C:2, L:32, blackhead comprises dead skin and sebum).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berkovich (US 5935380) in view of Kang (US 20060155306), as applied to claims 10 above, and further in view of Forrest (US 20130144308).
Regarding claims 17-18, Berkovich in view of Kang teaches all of the limitations set forth in claim 10, wherein Berkovich further teaches the device made from metal, such as that used in dental, for safe contact with the skin and strong enough it will not break, but does not specifically disclose the shaft and the tip are made from a surgical steel. However, Forrest teaches that stainless steel is a suitable material for blemish extractors at the time of the invention (claim 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further make the shaft and tip in the method of Li in view of Kang out of stainless steel, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANH TIEU DANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3221. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (9am-4pm 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Darwin Erezo can be reached at (571) 272-4695. 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.
/ANH T DANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771