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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/30/2026 has been entered.
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 1-10 and 12-20 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. The specification does not disclose “the cambered design of the core is configured such that a curvature of an outer peripheral surface of the core along a longitudinal direction at a rotation end position is greater than a curvature along the longitudinal direction at a rotation start position, when the core is rotated about the roll axis” therefore, the new limitation is new matter.
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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wyatt (US 2006/0272667) in view of Gueret (US 8,783,268).
Wyatt discloses a mascara applicator comprising a bristle-bearing core (stem axis 32) with bristle belts (bristles that are arranged in the disc-shaped pattern, para. 60), each bristle belt consisting of a plurality of bristles arranged in succession along a belt line extending along the periphery of the core (see figure 2-4), a completely bristle-free space between immediately adjacent belt lines of the plurality of bristle belts have a difference course, (disc- shaped pattern means spaces in between) the bristle-bearing core bine of a cambered design such that an area of a vertical cross-section through the core decreases from a largest vertical cross-section area of the core towards both distal and proximal ends of the core (paragraph 66). Furthermore, figure 4 discloses that two belt lines have a different course, i.e. they are oriented at different oblique angles as defined in feature F6, see also para. 60. Wyatt does not disclose the cambered design of the core is configured such that a curvature of an outer peripheral surface of the core along a longitudinal direction at a rotation end position is greater than a curvature along the longitudinal direction at a rotation start position, when the core is rotated about the roll axis. Gueret teaches a cosmetic applicator having a camber design and the cambered design of the core is configured such that a curvature of an outer peripheral surface of the core along a longitudinal direction at a rotation end (12) position is greater than a curvature along the longitudinal direction at a rotation start position (9b), when the core is rotated about the roll axis (Fig. 61-64). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the cambered design of Wyatt be made with a rotation end surface be greater than the curvature of the start positions as taught by Gueret to allow for different mascara applications positions.
Regarding claim 2, Wyatt further discloses an imaginary core cut surface (any cross section), which includes a belt line along which bristles are arranged one behind the other, forms an imaginary swash plate which, when the core is rotated about the roll axis, performs a tumbling movement about the roll axis (see Figure 4, different cross-sections would create different swatch plates). Regarding claim 3, the several pluralities of belt lines along which bristles are arranged one behind the other form imaginary swash plates which are configured to tumble differently (see Figure 4). Regarding claim 4, the several plurality of belt lines along which bristles are arranged one behind the other form two groups of swash plates, namely a first group of immediately adjacent swash plates which are configured to wobble in a direction towards ta distal end of the core upon rotation of the core about the roll axis, and a second group of immediately adjacent swash plates which are configured to wobble in a direction towards a proximal end of the core upon rotation of the core about the roll axis (see Figure 4). Regarding claim 5, the plurality of belt lines form at least one imaginary plate that separate the first and second groups of imaginary swash plates (group 34 and 36), the belt line of are separated by at least one imaginary plate whose belt line, along which bristles (44) are positioned one behind the other, spans another swash plate whose having a central axis that is parallel to the roll axis of the core or whose central axis has a that has a tilt angle with respect to the roll axis of the core which is smaller than a tilt angle of all other central axes of the first and second groups of imaginary swash plates with respect to the roll axis of the core (see Figure 4). Regarding claim 6, the first and second groups of imaginary swash plates all or predominantly form a flat imaginary surface (see Figure 4). Regarding claim 7, the first and second groups of imaginary swash plates all or predominantly form a curved imaginary surface (see Figure 4). Regarding claim 8, the plurality of bristles predominately have a longitudinal axis that is completely straight (see Figure 4). Regarding claim 9, the plurality of bristles includes bent bristles or and/or kinked bristles are present in an area where the plurality of several belt lines have a smallest distance between each other (Figures 83A-83C teach bent bristles). Regarding claim 10, a radially outermost third or a radially outermost quarter of the kinked bristles is bent (see Figures 83A-83C). Regarding claims 11 and 18, the bristle-bearing core is of a cambered design such that an area of a vertical cross-section through the core decreases from a largest vertical cross-sectional area of the core towards both the distal and proximal ends of the core (stem variations paragraphs 66-68). Regarding claims 12 and 19, the plurality of bristles predominately, have a conical shape (see Figure 1). Regarding claims 13 and 20, the plurality of bristles forms at least one bristle row which is composed of bristles each having a bristle longitudinal axis substantially parallel to one each other bristle longitudinal axis or in which a distance between the bristle longitudinal axes of the bristles in the at least one bristle row is exactly or substantially identical or whose bristle longitudinal axes are exactly or substantially orthogonal to the roll axis (see Figure 4). Regarding claim 14, wherein the tilt angle of the central axis of a respective imaginary swash plate of the first and second groups of imaginary swash plates increases in amount relative to the roll axis with decreasing distance both towards a respective end of a distal and a proximal end of the core (see Figure 4). Regarding claim 15, the at least one bristle row is one bristle row of a plurality of bristle rows and with an increasing vertical distance of the plurality of bristle rows which are composed of bristles having bristle longitudinal axes parallel to one another or in which a distance from the bristle longitudinal axis is substantially identical or the bristle longitudinal axes are orthogonal to the roll axis, a distance of bristle tips of bristles lying on a respective bristle row increases or at least remains the same relative to one another (see Figure 4). Regarding claim 16, the plurality of bristles predominately have a longitudinal axis that is completely straight (see Figure 1). Regarding claim 17, the plurality of bristles include bent bristles or kinked bristles in an area where the plurality of belt line have a smallest distance between each other (see variations in Figures 83).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL RUNNING STEITZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1917. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:30pm 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, Eric Rosen can be reached at 571-270-7855. 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.
/RACHEL R STEITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights