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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 7, 2026 has been entered.
In the Amended Claims of January 7, 2026, Claims 95-99 and 103-141 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 following must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
Claim 119 recites four elementary godets. This is not shown in the drawings.
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 Objections
A series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim.
A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n).
The language used in the claims renders their dependency indefinite or unknown.
For example Claim 114 recites “A case in loaded state (sic), loaded with a content of a product forming a solid mass…. which comprises a case in assembled situation according to claim 112 except not being in empty state (sic) of content….”
Therefore, it is unclear to what extent Claim 114 depends from Claim 112 EXCEPT NOT being empty. Claim 114 also does not appear to positively claim the content in the preamble, but does identify a content (singular) in section b.
Similar issues exist with Claim 133 which identifies the product of Claim 95, but bringing it into final manufacturing conformation. It is unclear how Claim 133 has dependency from Claim 95 as the preamble appears to identify the manufacturing step of closing the case recited in Claim section d.
Additionally, Claim 141 recites a process claim which depends from a product claim in Claim 95.
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 95-99 and 103-141 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
In past correspondence, the Examiner repeatedly emphasized the necessity for drafting entirely new claims and carefully re-wording the Specification. Applicant has not re-drafted the claims according to standard US drafting practice.
Claim 95 recites that the transversal free face (27b) of the lower terminal portion (17a) of the peripheral cover wall and the transversal free face (27b) of a first recess (25) of the bottom are adjusted to form the joint plane (28) of the case. This language is not fully understood.
Paragraph 0096 discusses how such free faces are “… adjusted to form, on one hand, a blocking at the end of the pivoting closing movement to the closed configuration and, on the other hand, the joint plane (28) of the case 1.”
It is unclear from the language of the claim and Specification Paragraph 0096 how such free faces are “adjusted” to form the joint plane of the case. It may be that such free faces meet at the joint line separating the two halves of the case, or that they are sized to form a ‘blocking’ (possibly a closed sealing surface?). Alternatively, the dimensions of the recess (25) and lower terminal portion (17) may be configured to have certain dimensions ensuring the case is entirely closed. However, the meaning of the passage and the claim is unclear.
PNG
media_image1.png
1193
1261
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 95-99 and 103-141 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 95-99 and 103-141 rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
The following claims are reprinted for Applicant’s benefit as examples of indefinite, ungrammatical, or unclear language.
PNG
media_image2.png
1741
995
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1616
960
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 95 recites “the transversal free face” twice. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these terms.
Claim 95 recites the limitation "the joint plane of the case" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither a joint plane nor a case was previously recited in the claim.
Claims 134 and 141 recites the limitation "the process to manufacture the case". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as there is no process in Claims 95 or 96.
The Examiner cannot identify every deficiency of the claims, but total revision of all claims is required.
As discussed above, Claim 95 recites that the transversal free faces are adjusted to form the joint plane of the case. This is not enabled, as it is unclear how such an “adjustment” is made.
For the purposes of Examination, it will be assumed that such transversal free faces are formed to abut each other when the component is closed at a joint plane of the component.
All dependent claims are rejected based on the rejection of independent claim 95.
For the purposes of Examination, only Claim 95 will be considered in depth.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 95-99 and 103-141 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelli (US 3442414) in view of Dumons (US 1370294).
Regarding Claim 95, Pelli discloses a component (1) of a make-up compact comprising an integrally molded plastic body comprising a rigid bottom (5), a rigid cover (3), a flexible living hinge (6) connecting said bottom and cover (Col. 1 Lines 38-40 and 63-68, Claim 4). Pelli also discloses a closure means (20, 21) to maintain said compact in a closed configuration.
While Pelli discloses the bottom, the cover, and the hinge are molded in an intermediate manufacturing process, Pelli does not disclose it is fully opened flat at 180°. However, a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize and find obvious that the molding configuration may be selected to ensure proper formation of the final component.
Pelli also discloses the hinge is deformable as a whole, provides a pivot axis space, and is capable of a pivoting movement occurring over an extent in the pivot axis space.
The bottom and the cover are so designed that the hinge registers substantially in an envelope formed by exterior faces of a peripheral bottom wall (2a) and a peripheral cover wall (2) as shown in Figure 6. Please note that in Pelli the hinge is recessed and would similarly not cause any damage to a user or the hinge.
PNG
media_image4.png
363
869
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The hinge is connected to the peripheral bottom wall within a second recess (defined between 13 and 14) and to the peripheral cover wall within a third recess in a similar recess within circular projection 22 as shown in Figure 4.
A transversal free face of a lower terminal portion of the peripheral cover wall (at wall 4) and the transversal free face of a first recess of the bottom (at inset of wall 5) are form a joint plane of the case when the case is closed.
PNG
media_image5.png
662
1436
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Pelli discloses the bottom comprises a transversal bottom opening and an aperture (9) which enables the insertion of a compact insert (8). Pelli discloses that the bottom (2a) is press-fit into the lower ring bottom to secure the compact in place. Pelli does not disclose the bottom comprises a first attachment means and the insert comprising a second attachment means configured to mate with the first attachment means of the bottom to maintain said insert within the body.
Dumons discloses a similar compact for paste or powders with a body (a) having a bottom opening and an inserted pan (g) with a first attachment means (f) on the container body and a second mating attachment means (h, j) on the insert. Pelli and Dumons are analogous inventions in the art of containers for powdered products for personal use with replaceable powder holders inserted through an apertured bottom .
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify compact and insert of Pelli with the attachment means of Dumons in order to firmly but removably retain the product insert in place (Page 1 Line 106-Page 2 Line 3).
Regarding Claims 96-99 and 103-141, the limitations of these claims are generally known in the art as discussed in previous office actions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 95 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GIDEON R. WEINERTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5121. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM 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, Orlando Aviles can be reached at (571) 270-5531. 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.
/GIDEON R WEINERTH/Examiner, Art Unit 3736