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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 recites the limitation “between 1,0 and 3,5 mm”. This should be “between 1.0 and 3.5 mm”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “And” in line 27 should not be capitalized.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 10, the word “preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Blin (US 2010/0028394).
Regarding claim 1, Blin discloses a cosmetic article comprising:- a first cosmetic product (“solid sheath”, ¶0105), in the form of a stick of substantially solid or pasty consistency at room temperature (¶0014), which defines at least one internal cavity (¶0020); and - a second cosmetic product (“liquid core”, ¶0037), liquid at room temperature (¶0016-0017), housed in at least one internal cavity (¶0020),the cavity providing a cross section with a shape configured to close itself mechanically during the use of the cosmetic article (the cavity of Blin is the same size as that of the claimed invention, and can be assumed to function the same as the claimed invention), minimizing or preventing a leak of the second cosmetic product from the cavity itself after the use of the cosmetic article (¶0020).
Regarding claim 3, Blin discloses the cosmetic article according to claim 1 wherein a maximum thickness of the cross section of the cavity is between 1.0 and 3.5 mm (2 mm, ¶0020).
Regarding claim 4, Blin discloses the cosmetic article according to claim 1 wherein the second cosmetic product (14) contains solid decorative elements (“particles of pyrogenic silica” are solid decorative elements, see ¶0094-0104), or fat-soluble dye (¶0216), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Blin discloses the cosmetic article according to claim 1, wherein the second cosmetic product comprises: i) up to 95% by weight of water (Example 1 has 0% water), based on the weight of the second product, ii) solid decorative elements (“particles of pyrogenic silica” are solid decorative elements, see ¶0094-0104 and Example 1), or fat-soluble dye (¶0216), or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 9, Blin discloses a process for the preparation of a cosmetic article comprising the steps of: i. providing a mold comprising a cavity, ii. insert a core in the cavity of the mold, so as to define a first casting cavity between the walls of the mold which define the cavity and the external perimeter of the core, iii. pour a first cosmetic product into the first casting cavity and wait for said first product to solidify, iv. once the first cosmetic product has solidified, extract the core, so that the portion of the first solidified product which housed the core defines an internal cavity which provides a cross-section with a shape configured to close itself mechanically during use of the cosmetic article, minimizing or preventing a leak of the second cosmetic product from the cavity itself after use of the cosmetic product, v. pour a second cosmetic product, in substantially liquid form even at room temperature into the internal cavity, vi. isolate the second product liquid inside the internal cavity; And vii. unmold the cosmetic article from the mould (¶0232).
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) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blin.
Regarding claim 11, Blin teaches the process of claim 9, but does not teach that the internal cavity has a cross section according to one of the following geometric figures: circle, ellipse, triangle, square, rectangle, heart- shaped, or star-shaped.
However, Blin does teach that the cavity has a “diameter” (¶0020), which implies that the cavity may have a circular section.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the device of Blin such that the internal cavity has a circular cross section, wherein doing so would merely be a matter of selecting the shape implied by the teachings of Blin.
Claim(s) 2, 5 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blin as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Anderson (US 2021/0244629).
Regarding claim 2, Blin teaches the cosmetic article according to claim 1 but does not teach that, at least at a first use, the cavity is totally surrounded by the first cosmetic product, or by one or more products having a substantially solid or pasty consistency at room temperature.
Anderson teaches a cavity (44) that is totally surrounded by a first product (42) as least at first use.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Blin such that at least at a first use, the cavity is totally surrounded by the first cosmetic product as taught by Anderson for the purpose of providing a user with varying experience over time (Anderson, ¶0029).
Regarding claim 5, Blin teaches the cosmetic article according to claim 1, wherein the cross- sectional area of said internal cavity being less than the area, in cross section, of said first product (¶0020).
Blin does not teach that said cavity extends for at least half the height of said stick.
Anderson teaches a cavity (44) that extends for at least half the height (Fig. 10) of a stick (42).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the stick of Blin such that said cavity extends for at least half the height of said stick, as taught by Anderson, for the purpose of providing a user with the liquid cosmetic product for more than half of the use life of the stick.
Regarding claim 10 as best understood, Blin teaches the process of claim 9, but does not teach that the second liquid product inside the cavity is isolated by pouring over it a product which assumes a substantially solid or pasty consistency at room temperature, preferably the first product heated up to a liquid consistency.
Anderson teaches a step of isolating a second product (44) by covering it with a first product (42, see Figs. 9-10).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the process of Blin by adding a step of isolating the second liquid product by pouring over it a product which assumes a substantially solid or pasty consistency at room temperature as taught by Anderson for the purpose of providing a user with varying experience over time (Anderson, ¶0029).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bui (US 2013/0171218).
Regarding claim 6, Blin teaches the cosmetic article according to claim 1, but does not teach that the first cosmetic product is transparent or translucent at room temperature, so as to make the contents of said internal cavity visible from the outside of the cosmetic article, to a user.
Bui teaches a first cosmetic product (sleeve) that is transparent or translucent (¶0009) at room temperature, so as to make the contents of an internal cavity (core) visible from the outside of the cosmetic article, to a user.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the stick of Blin such that the first cosmetic product is transparent or translucent at room temperature, so as to make the contents of said internal cavity visible from the outside of the cosmetic article, to a user as taught by Bui for the purpose of providing a desired aesthetic.
Regarding claim 7, Blin teaches the cosmetic article according to claim 1, but does not teach that said first cosmetic product comprises: - a matrix comprising one or more of: tridecyl trimellitate, hydrogenated polyisobutene or octyldodecanol, esters, waxes, film formers; - a gelling agent, comprising a mixture of dibutyl ethylhexanoyl glutamide and dibutyl lauroyl glutamide, dispersed in the lipid matrix.
Bui teaches a first cosmetic product that comprises a matrix comprising one or more of: tridecyl trimellitate, hydrogenated polyisobutene (¶0045) or octyldodecanol, esters, waxes, film formers; a gelling agent, comprising a mixture of dibutyl ethylhexanoyl glutamide and dibutyl lauroyl glutamide, dispersed in the lipid matrix (¶0018).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the first cosmetic of Blin comprising a matrix comprising one or more of: tridecyl trimellitate, hydrogenated polyisobutene or octyldodecanol, esters, waxes, film formers; - a gelling agent, comprising a mixture of dibutyl ethylhexanoyl glutamide and dibutyl lauroyl glutamide, dispersed in the lipid matrix as taught by Bui, wherein doing so would merely have been a matter of selecting a known composition suitable for use as a sleeve composition.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blin as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20140035633).
Regarding claim 12, Blin teaches the process of claim 9, but does not teach that the core is covered with a release agent before being inserted into the mold.
Kim teaches covering a core with a release agent before it is inserted into a mold (pg. 3, third paragraph).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have covered the core of Blin with a release agent before inserting into the mould as taught by Kim for the purpose of making it easier to separate the core and the first cosmetic product (Kim, pg. 3, third paragraph).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 ET.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/BRADLEY S OLIVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3754