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 .
This office action is in response to the reply filed on 9/9/2025, wherein claims 1, 6 and 7 were amended; claim 5 was canceled; and claims 11-14 were added. Claims 1-4 and 6-14 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the peel-away substrate [claim 12] must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mills (US 2010/0132734).
Regarding claim 12, Mills discloses a kit (See Figs. 1-2), capable of being disposed, for applying makeup for a specific scenario event, the kit comprising: a container (at 14 in Fig. 2) having a plurality of walls (four sidewalls extending upward from the bottom wall) defining a compartment accessible by way of an opening (See rectangular opening in Fig. 2 that element 32 is accommodated) defined by the plurality of walls; a lid (at 36) pivotably connected to one of the walls and moveable between an open condition and a closed condition preventing access to the compartment by way of the opening; a plurality of sub-compartments (at 16 in Fig. 2) within the container, each sub-compartment containing a predetermined cosmetic product configured for single-use application associated with the specific scenario event; and a peel-away substrate (at 32 in Fig. 1, shown removed in Fig. 2) sealing off the sub-compartments.
Regarding claim 14, Mills discloses the container includes an integrated mirror (at 38).
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.
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills (US 2010/0132734) as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Rapp et al. (US 2022/0142386). As described above, Mills discloses the claimed invention except for the indicia. However, Rapp teaches a container comprising an indicia area providing an indicium of the specific scenario event (instructions on use/assembly of the container), the indicia area comprising a hyperlink to a video tutorial associated with the specific scenario event, for the purpose of providing the user with instructions on the use of the container (See [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the container of Mills with indicia as taught by Rapp in order to provide the user with instructions on the use of the makeup container. Regarding the specific location of the indicia, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the indicia on any location on the container such as on the outer or inner surface of the lid in order to provide information to the user in a convenient location. The indicia would perform the same function regardless of its location on the kit. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 1-4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills (US 2010/0132734) in view of Rapp et al. (US 2022/0142386).
Regarding claims 1 and 4, Mills discloses a kit (See Figs. 1-2) for applying makeup for a specific scenario event, the kit comprising: a container (at 14 in Fig. 2) having a plurality of walls (four sidewalls extending upward from the bottom wall) defining a compartment accessible by way of an opening (See rectangular opening in Fig. 2 that element 32 is accommodated) defined by said plurality of walls; a lid (at 36) pivotably connected to one of the plurality of walls so as to be moveable between an open condition and a closed condition preventing access to the compartment by way of the opening. Mills discloses the claimed invention except for the indicia. However, Rapp teaches a container comprising an indicia area providing an indicium of the specific scenario event (instructions on use/assembly of the container), the indicia area comprising a hyperlink to a video tutorial associated with the specific scenario event, for the purpose of providing the user with instructions on the use of the container (See [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the container of Mills with indicia as taught by Rapp in order to provide the user with instructions on the use of the makeup container. Regarding the specific location of the indicia, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the indicia on any location on the container such as on the outer or inner surface of the lid in order to provide information to the user in a convenient location. The indicia would perform the same function regardless of its location on the kit. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, Mills discloses a plurality of makeup components associated with the specific scenario event, wherein the plurality of makeup components is housed in the compartment.
Regarding claim 3, Mills discloses a reflective surface (at 38) along an inner surface of the lid.
Regarding claim 6, Mills discloses the compartment is divided into a plurality of sub-compartments (20,22,24, etc.) by way of divider walls (walls between makeup compartments 20,22,24, etc.).
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mills (US 2010/0132734) in view of Rapp et al. (US 2022/0142386) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Yi-Hung (US 2004/0129599).
Regarding claims 7-9, Mills-Rapp discloses the claimed invention except for the specific contents of the kit. However, Yi-Hung teaches it is well known in the art to provide compartments of a makeup case with makeup components such as pencils or brushes ([0019]) in pencil and brush blocks (at 20 in Fig. 5) having pencil and brush slots (at 26” in Fig. 5) for the purpose of providing the user with implements for applying makeup. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the sub compartments of Mills-Rapp with makeup components in blocks as taught by Yi-Hung in order to apply desired makeup.
Regarding claim 10, Mills discloses the lid provides a lift slot (See Fig. 1) along an edge of the lid opposite a pivotable connection.
Regarding claim 11, Mills discloses a set of instructions (at 40) housed in the container, wherein the instructions demonstrating application of the plurality of makeup components contained within the plurality of sub-compartments to effectuate a full face of makeup associated with the specific scenario content.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacelli, Jr. (US 5,092,354) in view of Rapp et al. (US 2022/0142386).
Regarding claim 1, Pacelli discloses a kit (See Fig. 1) for applying makeup for a specific scenario event, the kit comprising: a container (at 10) having a plurality of walls (four upward extending walls of 10) defining a compartment accessible by way of an opening defined by said plurality of walls; a lid (at 12) pivotably connected (at 18) to one of the plurality of walls so as to be moveable between an open condition and a closed condition preventing access to the compartment by way of the opening; and wherein the lid has an outer surface. Pacelli discloses the claimed invention except for the outer surface of the lid having an indicia area providing an indicium of the specific scenario event, wherein the indicia area provides a hyperlink to a video tutorial associated with the specific scenario event. However, Rapp teaches a container comprising an indicia area providing an indicium of the specific scenario event (instructions on use/assembly of the container), the indicia area comprising a hyperlink to a video tutorial associated with the specific scenario event, for the purpose of providing the user with instructions on the use of the container (See [0046]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the container of Pacelli with indicia as taught by Rapp in order to provide the user with instructions on the use of the makeup container. Regarding the specific location of the indicia, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the indicia on any location on the container such as on the outer or inner surface of the lid in order to provide information to the user in a convenient location. The indicia would perform the same function regardless of its location on the kit. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Claims 2-4 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacelli, Jr. (US 5,092,354) in view of Rapp et al. (US 2022/0142386) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yi-Hung (US 2004/0129599).
Regarding claims 2-3 and 7-9, Pacelli-Rapp discloses the claimed invention except for the specific contents of the kit and the mirror. However, Yi-Hung teaches it is well known in the art to provide the inner surface of the lid with a reflective surface (mirror at 122) and compartments of a makeup case with makeup components such as pencils or brushes ([0019]) in pencil and brush blocks (at 20 in Fig. 5) having pencil and brush slots (at 26” in Fig. 5) for the purpose of providing the user with implements for applying makeup. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the sub compartments (40) of Pacelli-Rapp with makeup components in blocks as taught by Yi-Hung in order to apply desired makeup.
Regarding claim 4, Pacelli-Rapp-Yi-Hung discloses the claimed invention except for the specific location of the indicia. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have provided the indicia on the outer or inner surface of the lid in order to provide information to the user. The indicia would perform the same function regardless of its location on the kit. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 6, Pacelli discloses the compartment is divided into a plurality of sub compartments (at 40/40/40 in Fig. 1) by way of divider walls (walls between compartments 40).
Regarding claim 10, Pacelli discloses the lid provides a lift slot (slot between 14 and 12 in Fig. 1) along an edge of the lid opposite a pivotable connection.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pacelli, Jr. (US 5,092,354) in view of Rapp et al. (US 2022/0142386) and Yi-Hung (US 2004/0129599) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Mills (US 2010/0132734). As described above, Pacelli-Rapp-Yi-Hung discloses the claimed invention except for the instructions. However, Mills teaches it is well known in the art for a cosmetics kit to include a set of instructions (at 40) housed in the container for the purpose of providing the user with instructions on using the kit contents (See [0050]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the kit of Pacelli-Rapp-Yi-Hung with a set of instructions as taught by Mills in order to assist the user in using the contents of the kit.
Response to Arguments
In view of Applicant's amendment, the search has been updated, and new prior art has been identified and applied. Applicant's arguments have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 STEVEN A REYNOLDS whose telephone number is (571)272-9959. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached at (571) 272-4561. 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.
/STEVEN A. REYNOLDS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735