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 .
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
Figure 8 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2, line 2 please change “a plate shape” to - -the plate shape- - since a plate shape was already set forth in claim 1, line 2. Claim 2, line 3, please change “formed concavely formed” to - -formed concavely- -. 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.
Claims 1-3 are 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.
Claim 1, line 8, “the upper surface” lacks a prior antecedent.
Claim 2, lines 1-2, states “a bottom surface of the base is flat so as to have the plate shape”; lines 2-3 then states “the bottom surface of the base is formed concavely from an edge toward a center’. It is unclear how the bottom surface can be flat and concave. Clarification is required.
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) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaga (JP 3200010 U) in view of Chien (US 2007/0012330).
Claim 1, Yamaga discloses a rod for perming eyelashes, the rod comprising a base (2) formed in a plate shape having a length corresponding to a width of an eye, and a width corresponding to a length of an eyelash (see Figure 3), the base having an upper surface formed curvedly (3); and a plurality of guide convex portions (4) formed in a comb pattern perpendicular to a longitudinal direction of the base and disposed in parallel on the upper surface of the base so as to be spaced apart from one another at preset intervals (see Figures 1 and 2), wherein two opposite ends of the guide convex portion are formed to converge in an awl shape, and wherein an interval between main regions of the guide convex portions adjacent to the main region between the two opposite ends of the guide convex portion is smaller than an interval between the two adjacent opposite ends (see Figures 1 and 2). Yamaga does not disclose the base is formed so that a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction has a semi- elliptical shape. Chien teaches an eyelash perm rod having the base is formed so that a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction has a semi- elliptical shape (see Figures 3) to create the desired curl. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the base of Yamaga be made with a semi-elliptical shape as taught by Chien to create the desired curl.
Claim 2, the combination of Yamaga and Chien disclose (see Figure 2b of Yamaga) a bottom surface of the base is flat so as to have a plate shape, the bottom surface of the base is formed concavely from an edge toward a center thereof. The combination does not disclose the bottom surface of the base is formed concavely so that a depth of a most concave region is 1 mm or less. However, one having ordinary skill in the art would find the parameters of the concavity to be deemed matters of design choice, will within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Claim 3, the combination of Yamaga and Chien disclose the base is formed such that a cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction has a semi-elliptical shape, and one side horizontal surface and the other side horizontal surface have different curvatures (see Figure 3-5 of Chien).
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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
7/30/2025