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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to Application filed June 30, 2023, in which claim(s) 1-11 is/are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
Claim(s) 1-11 is/are pending of which Claim(s) 1 is/are presented in independent form.
All references relied up on and not cited in the current Form 892 may be found in previous 892's or IDS'.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s First Argument: The prior art does not disclose/teach the claims as currently amended.
Examiner’s Response:
Applicant's arguments filed July 31, 2025 have been reviewed. Arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-11 have been considered but are moot because an updated search has been conducted and new prior art has been applied to the amended claims.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: amendments made to Claim 1 regarding “integrally/integrated” construction is not found in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Montoli (USPN 5,638,839).
Regarding Claim 1, Montoli discloses a cosmetic case (Figs. 1-6) comprising: a case bottom (16) including a bottom plate (shown in all Figs cutaway in Figs. 2-4) and a wall plate upward extending from a periphery of the bottom plate (shown in all Figs cutaway in Figs. 2-4), with a pivot slot formed in the wall plate (Figs. 5 and 6, rear portion of bottom plate where lid connects), with the periphery of the bottom plate provided with inwardly inclined (part 54 has inclined surfaces) at least one guiding surface at a position corresponding to the pivot slot (Figs. 2-4); an intermediate layer (12) detachably combined in the case bottom and including an annular enclosure (col. 3, lines 11-19; round), wherein the enclosure is provided with at least one abutting arm (60) which abuts against the at least one guiding surface of the case bottom (Figs. 2-4), wherein the at least one abutting arm is integrally formed with the enclosure as a one-piece integrated construction (shown in all figures but most clearly seen in Fig. 4); and a lid (10) pivotally fitted over the case bottom and including an annular wallboard (specifically shown pivoting in Figs. 3 and 4), wherein the wallboard is provided with a pivot block (generally 74 but considered to be the entire back piece which hinges the lid) which is held in the pivot slot of the case bottom (at least Fig. 2), wherein when the lid is covered on the case bottom, the pivot block is spaced from the at least one abutting arm of the intermediate layer (Fig. 2), wherein when the lid is opened at an angle, the at least one abutting arm is in contact with the pivot block (Figs. 3 and 4) and movable upward relative to the case bottom under the guidance of the at least one guiding surface of the case bottom to allow the intermediate layer to be disassembled from the case bottom (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 3, Montoli further discloses wherein the abutting arm (60) includes a bottom end abutting on the guiding surface of the case bottom (Fig.3), and a protrusion (70) extends outwardly from the bottom end of the abutting arm, wherein when the lid is opened at the angle, the protrusion of the abutting arm is in contact with an outer surface of the pivot block (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 4, Montoli further discloses wherein the lid is pivotally fitted over the case bottom with at least one pivot (20) in the pivot block, wherein when the lid is covered on the case bottom (Fig. 2), the at least one pivot (20) in the pivot block is located above the bottom end of the abutting arm in a height direction (Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
324
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 6, wherein the enclosure has an inverted L-shaped cross-section (at least Figs. 2-4), and the abutting arm extends downward from an upper portion of the enclosure (at least Fig. 4), with a gap formed between the abutting arm and the enclosure so that the abutting arm has elasticity (Figs. 2-4; plastic col. 2, line 54; col. 4, lines 45-56; abutting arm has at least a degree of elasticity by virtue of the cam action described).
Regarding Claim 8, Montoli further discloses wherein the periphery of the bottom plate of the case bottom is provided with an upwardly protruding guide block (54) at the position corresponding to the pivot slot (Figs. 2-4), and the at least one guiding surface is provided on the guide block (Figs. 2-4).
Regarding Claim 9, Montoli further discloses wherein the lid further includes a cover plate (Fig. 2; top), with the wallboard downward extending from an edge of the cover plate (Fig. 2), wherein when the lid is lifted and the cover plate is turned over about 180 degrees, the pivot block is in contact with the abutting arm of the intermediate layer (Fig. 4).
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montoli (USPN 5,638,839).
Regarding Claim 2, Montoli disclose(s) the invention as claimed above. Montoli does not disclose wherein an inclination angle of the guiding surface relative to a horizontal plane of the bottom plate is 45-85 degrees. However, it would be obvious from the drawings that an incline and angle does exist on the guiding surface (Figs. 2 and 3). Additionally, one of ordinary skill would be able to determine workable ranges of the incline.
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 made the guiding surface between 45-85 degrees as claimed because the drawings in Montoli show an angle with a guiding surface. Given the general conditions in the prior art, the level of experimentation would be low to one having ordinary skill to find workable degree inclinations within the claimed range. Lastly, “relative to a horizontal plane” is broad and attention is brought to the compact’s structure (Figs. 2-4) which includes at least two possible horizontal planes of the bottom plate.
Regarding Claim 10, Montoli further discloses wherein the abutting arm (60) includes a bottom end abutting on the guiding surface of the case bottom (Fig.3), and a protrusion (70) extends outwardly from the bottom end of the abutting arm, wherein when the lid is opened at the angle, the protrusion of the abutting arm is in contact with an outer surface of the pivot block (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montoli (USPN 5,638,839) in view of Zinnbauer et al. (hereinafter Zinn) (USPN 5,353,947).
Regarding Claims 5 and 11, the prior art disclose(s) the invention as claimed above. They do not disclose wherein two opposite coupling grooves are provided in an inner face of the wall plate and located at two sides of the pivot slot, with an extension arm extending downwards from the enclosure on each of two sides of the abutting arm, with a joint portion provided on a top of each extension arm and located in one of the coupling grooves of the case bottom. However, Zinn teaches a cosmetic case having an intermediate insert (Fig. 4) with multiple extension arms (72) having joints (flange “on top” of the arm – examiner is using BRI for “on a top” inasmuch as currently claimed) for placement into a bottom portion (Fig. 3) having corresponding grooves (35).
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 added extension arms and grooves as claimed around the annular intermediate layer of Montoli as taught by Zinn; because Zinn teaches this arrangement is known in the art (Figs. 3 and 4) and is beneficial for securing two parts of a cosmetic case together (at least col. 3, lines 41-44). It is further obvious that providing this type of arrangement would ensure that the intermediate layer did not become easily unattached from the base. Though Zinn shows the arrangement in a rectangular case, it would be obvious and is well known in the art to use this type of arm/groove fastener when attaching pieces together of any shape such as the circle as claimed.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Montoli (USPN 5,638,839) in view of Suzuki et al. (hereinafter Suzuki) (USPUB 2004/0123426).
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art disclose(s) the invention as claimed above. They do not explicitly disclose wherein the periphery of the bottom plate is provided with two spaced guiding surfaces at a position corresponding to the pivot slot, and two spaced abutting arms are provided on the enclosure of the intermediate layer, wherein a bottom end of each abutting arm of the intermediate layer abuts on a corresponding guiding surface of the case bottom. However, Suzuki teaches that a single block may have a space (Figs. 5 and 6) between two pivot blocks to pivot the lid of a cosmetic case – thus providing two spaced guiding surfaces as claimed.
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 included a space in the block if so desired for aesthetic or design purposes as taught by Suzuki; because Suzuki teaches that this arrangement is known in the art (Figs. 5 and 6). Furthermore, it is well known in the cosmetic container arts that aesthetics of compacts is tailored toward the end user, it would be obvious alone to add a space is so desired by the manufacturer for this design or theme aspect. Examiner notes that the product of Suzuki is a square case with a larger space, however, the overall design taught and relied upon is spacing between multiple pivot blocks, larger or smaller than shown in Figs. 5 and 6 and also that going from a single block as in Fig. 1 to multiple blocks as in Figs. 5-6 is known in the art.
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.
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 ANNA K KINSAUL whose telephone number is (571)270-1926. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am-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, Edward Lefkowitz can be reached at 571-272-2180. 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.
/ANNA K KINSAUL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3731