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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 1/15/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group II directed to a method of tattooing, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/15/2026.
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 is rejected under 102(a1) as anticipated by Dunlap-Harris (US 6,161,554) or, in the alternative, under 35 USC 103(a) as obvious over Dunlap-Harris (US 6,161,554).
Regarding claim 1, Dunlap teaches a tattoo stencil comprising:
at least one flexible sheet (12) configured to be applied over at least one body part of a user (see Figures), the at least one flexible sheet including:
a realistic design (10a, 10b) printed thereon with stencil ink (Col. 4 ll. 1-10), the realistic design of at least one body part feature corresponding to the at least one body part (see Figures; such that they correspond to the eyebrows), the stencil ink able to be transferred to the at least one body part of the user when the at least one flexible sheet is applied thereover (Col. 4 ll. 1-48), thereby transferring the realistic design to the at least one body part for use as a stencil during tattooing of the at least one body part (the transferred design is fully capable of being used in such application (i.e., as a stencil/guide for permanent tattooing).
Dunlap discloses each and every structural element of the stencil set forth in claim 1 – see Fig 1 (etc.- map claim elements). The claimed phrase “printed thereon” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the stencil is made by printing. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113. Thus, even though Dunlap is silent as to the process used to make the stencil, it appears that the product in Dunlap would be the same or similar as that claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select printing to make the design of the tattoo stencil because it is a well-known technique that allows automation of the design process, as compared to free handing, which would be advantageous for complex designs and enhanced accuracy.
Regarding claim 4, Dunlap teaches the tattoo stencil of claim 1 (see rejection above), wherein the at least one body part is at least one eyebrow region (see Figures), and wherein the realistic design is of at least one eyebrow having a hair stroke pattern (see Figures).
Claim(s) 2-3, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunlap-Harris (US 6,161,554), in view of Blette (US8,545,613 B2), and further in view of Cridoz (NPL; 2021; Amazon.com : Tattoo Transfer Paper, Cridoz 35 Sheets Stencil Transfer Paper for Tattooing, A4 Size : Beauty & Personal Care).
Regarding claims 2-3, Dunlap teaches the tattoo stencil of claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to explicitly wherein the at least one flexible sheet includes thermal carbon paper or wherein the stencil ink is carbon ink.
Blette teaches a tattoo transfer pattern for transferring a design onto a body portion (see abstract and Fig. 4). Bletter discusses that a tattoo design can be printed on thermal paper such that the dye can be transferred ultimately to the skin (Col. 1 ll. 14-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the paper layer of the stencil to be a thermal paper, as taught by Blette, because it would be suitable for use with a thermal copier or printed. Using a printer would give the ability to use digital design and automatic production instead of free handing, which would be advantageous for complex design and increased accuracy.
Cridoz teaches tattoo transfer paper for stencil transfer for tattooing and the paper including a carbon layer and teaches that it can be used in a thermal copier (see about this item section of listing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thermal paper to specifically include a carbon sheet, as disclosed by Cridoz, because it is well known in the art for tattoo stencil transfer.
Regarding claim 16, Dunlap teaches a tattoo stencil comprising:
at least one flexible sheet (12) configured to be applied over at least one body part of a user (see Figures), the at least one flexible sheet including:
a realistic design (10a, 10b) printed thereon with ink (Col. 4 ll. 1-10), the realistic design of at least one body part feature corresponding to the at least one body part and chosen from the group consisting of an eyebrow (see Figures; such that they correspond to the eyebrows), a nipple-areola complex, and a hair follicle, the ink able to be transferred to the at least one body part of the user when the at least one flexible sheet is applied thereover (Col. 4 ll. 1-48), thereby transferring the realistic design to the at least one body part for use as a stencil during tattooing of the at least one body part (the transferred design is fully capable of being used in such application (i.e., as a stencil/guide for permanent tattooing).
Dunlap discloses each and every structural element of the stencil set forth in claim 1 – see Fig 1 (etc.- map claim elements). The claimed phrase “printed thereon” is being treated as a product by process limitation; that is, that the stencil is made by printing. As set forth in MPEP 2113, product by process claims are NOT limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only to the structure implied by the steps. Once a product appearing to be substantially the same or similar is found, a 35 U.S.C. 102/103 rejection may be made and the burden is shifted to applicant to show an unobvious difference. See MPEP 2113. Thus, even though Dunlap is silent as to the process used to make the stencil, it appears that the product in Dunlap would be the same or similar as that claimed. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to select printing to make the design of the tattoo stencil because it is a well-known technique that allows automation the design process, as compared to free handing, which would be advantageous for complex designs and enhanced accuracy.
Dunlap does not teach the stencil including carbon ink. Blette teaches a tattoo transfer pattern for transferring a design onto a body portion (see abstract and Fig. 4). Bletter discusses that a tattoo design can be printed on thermal paper such that the dye can be transferred ultimately to the skin (Col. 1 ll. 14-62).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the paper layer of the stencil to be a thermal paper, as taught by Blette, because it would be suitable for use with a thermal copier or printed. Using a printer would give the ability to use digital design and automatic production instead of free handing, which would be advantageous for complex design and increased accuracy.
Cridoz teaches tattoo transfer paper for stencil transfer for tattooing and the paper including a carbon layer and teaches that it can be used in a thermal copier (see about this item section of listing).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the thermal paper to specifically include a carbon sheet, as disclosed by Cridoz, because it is well known in the art for tattoo stencil transfer.
Regarding claim 17, Dunlap in view of Blette and Cridoz teaches the tattoo stencil of claim 16 (see rejection above). Dunlap further teaches the at least one body part is at least one eyebrow region (see Figures), and wherein the realistic design is of at least one eyebrow having a hair stroke pattern (see Figures).
Claim(s) 5-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunlap-Harris (US 6,161,554), in view of Aresvns (NPL; 2020; https://www.amazon.com/Godefroy-MyBrows-Lasting-Transfers-12-Pairs/dp/B0734DQMQ8?th=1).
Regarding claims 5-11, Dunlap teaches the tattoo stencil of claim 4 (see rejection above). Dunlap is silent to specifically wherein the hair stroke pattern includes natural upward strokes and an early transition into a body of the at least one eyebrow, creating a soft tail end of the at least one eyebrow, or wherein the hair stroke pattern includes dense natural upward strokes and an early transition into a body of the at least one eyebrow, creating a soft tail end of the at least one eyebrow, or wherein the hair stroke pattern includes clusters of upward hair strokes, creating a fluffy eyebrow, or wherein the hair stroke pattern includes upward strokes of evenly spaced groupings of hair, creating a light feathered effect, or wherein the hair stroke pattern includes upward and outward individual strokes or wherein the hair stroke pattern includes upward strokes starting at a head of the at least one eyebrow, slightly curving into a rainbow configuration through a body of the at least one eyebrow and into a downward tail, or wherein the hair stroke pattern includes natural upward strokes that transition into a downward waterfall tail.
Aresvns teaches eyebrow tattoo transfer stickers including a plurality and variety of hair stroke patterns (see Figure 3 in listing). Aresvns shows different styles and colors and different tail configurations. Reviewers of said product have mentioned that they look natural (see reviews summary).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the hair stroke pattern of the eyebrow sticker to be natural, fluffy, dense, feathered, lifted, straight or any other desirable configuration/pattern, as taught by Aresvns, because Aresvns indicates that it is well known in the art to include different shapes and sizes as to be suitable for different people. Additionally, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify the stroke patterns since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change is shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04 IV B). One would be motivated to do so, as to achieve a desirable result that is specifically suitable for the user.
Claim(s) 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunlap-Harris (US 6,161,554), in view of Weir (US 2019/0053918 A1).
Regarding claims 12-14, Dunlap teaches the tattoo stencil of claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the at least one body part is at least one breast, and wherein the realistic design is of at least one nipple-areola complex, wherein the realistic design of the at least one nipple-areola complex further includes at least one Montgomery gland and at least one skin line, wherein the realistic design of the at least one a nipple-areola complex includes a diameter of between 1.5 - 2 inches. Dunlap contemplates the use of the tattoo for cosmetic, non-cosmetic or any other reason (Col. 4 ll. 49-57). Weir teaches a temporary tattoo having a design of a realistic human nipple-areola complex (abstract, [0002-0014]) and the design including Montgomery glands and skin tissue (see Figures and [0042-0059]). Weir further teaches the size and shape of the areola is highly variable and the average diameter of male areolae is around 28.0 mm (1.1 in). Sexually mature women have an average of 38.1 mm (1.5 in), but sizes range up to 100 mm (4 in) or greater ([0045-0046]). Weir discloses that a realistic design promotes body-positivity and encourage psychological healing ([0003-0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the temporary tattoo to be of a nipple-areola design, as taught by Weir, because it would be applicable for use in cases where a nipple/areola temporary tattoo is necessary or desired, such as for patients who have undergone medical treatment or have medical conditions in which they lost their hair, breasts, or other body parts.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunlap-Harris (US 6,161,554), in view of Listermann (WO 2022/060395 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Dunlap in view of Aresvns teaches the tattoo stencil of claim 1 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the at least one body part is a scalp, and wherein the realistic design is of a plurality of hair follicles.
Listermann teaches a device comprising a plurality of hair-follicle shaped ink-applying tips dimensioned and positioned in an arrangement mimicking a realistic density appearance of natural hair-growth length thereby creating an appearance enabling a disguise for a lack of hair growth on said scalp ([0028-0029]). Listermann contemplates permanent tattooing and surgical transplant solutions ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the temporary tattoo to be of a scalp hair follicles, as taught by Listermann, because it would be applicable for use in cases where the user is bald and a temporary tattoo is necessary or desired, such as for patients who have undergone medical treatment or have medical conditions in which they lost their hair, breasts, or other body parts.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunlap-Harris (US 6,161,554), in view of Blette (US8,545,613 B2), and further in view of Cridoz (NPL; 2021; Amazon.com : Tattoo Transfer Paper, Cridoz 35 Sheets Stencil Transfer Paper for Tattooing, A4 Size : Beauty & Personal Care), and further in view of Weir (US 2019/0053918 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Dunlap in view of Blette and Cridoz teaches the tattoo stencil of claim 16 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the at least one body part is at least one breast, and wherein the realistic design is of at least one nipple-areola complex including at least one of at least one Montgomery gland and at least one skin line.
Dunlap contemplates the use of the tattoo for cosmetic, non-cosmetic or any other reason (Col. 4 ll. 49-57). Weir teaches a temporary tattoo having a design of a realistic human nipple-areola complex (abstract, [0002-0014]) and the design including Montgomery glands and skin tissue (see Figures and [0042-0059]). Weir further teaches the size and shape of the areola is highly variable and the average diameter of male areolae is around 28.0 mm (1.1 in). Sexually mature women have an average of 38.1 mm (1.5 in), but sizes range up to 100 mm (4 in) or greater ([0045-0046]). Weir discloses that a realistic design promotes body-positivity and encourage psychological healing ([0003-0005]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the temporary tattoo to be of a nipple-areola design, as taught by Weir, because it would be applicable for use in cases where a nipple/areola temporary tattoo is necessary or desired, such as for patients who have undergone medical treatment or have medical conditions in which they lost their hair, breasts, or other body parts.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunlap-Harris (US 6,161,554), in view of Blette (US8,545,613 B2), and further in view of Cridoz (NPL; 2021; Amazon.com : Tattoo Transfer Paper, Cridoz 35 Sheets Stencil Transfer Paper for Tattooing, A4 Size : Beauty & Personal Care), and further in view of Listermann (WO 2022/060395 A1).
Regarding claim 19, Dunlap in view of teaches the tattoo stencil of claim 16 (see rejection above), but is silent to wherein the at least one body part is a scalp, and wherein the realistic design is of a plurality of hair follicles.
Listermann teaches a device comprising a plurality of hair-follicle shaped ink-applying tips dimensioned and positioned in an arrangement mimicking a realistic density appearance of natural hair-growth length thereby creating an appearance enabling a disguise for a lack of hair growth on said scalp ([0028-0029]). Listermann contemplates permanent tattooing and surgical transplant solutions ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the temporary tattoo to be of a scalp hair follicles, as taught by Listermann, because it would be applicable for use in cases where the user is bald and a temporary tattoo is necessary or desired, such as for patients who have undergone medical treatment or have medical conditions in which they lost their hair, breasts, or other body parts.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 attached to this office action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LINA FARAJ whose telephone number is (571)272-4580. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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.
/LINA FARAJ/ Examiner, Art Unit 3772 /EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772