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 .
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) 8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camille (FR 2936692 A1) in view of Marshall (US 20070098480 A1) and further in view of VisonPack (Aluminum VS Plastic Lip Gloss Containers, Which Type Of Containers Should I Use). Refer to the provided translation for Camille.
Regarding claim 8, Camille discloses a container (1) for a cosmetic or pharmaceutical product comprising (refer to Paragraph 34):
a main body (2) having a substantially tubular shape and internally defining a compartment for housing the cosmetic or pharmaceutical product (refer to Paragraph 36; the container (2) has a product reserve);
a closing body (6) having a substantially tubular shape and having an engagement opening configured to mate with an access opening to the compartment defined in said main body (2) (refer to Paragraph 38, Fig. 3, annotated Fig. 5 below; the gripping member (6) acts as a stopper for the container (2); further, Fig. 3 demonstrates the gripping member (6) and container (2) as an assembly, forming the device (1)) ;
a reversible closing device arranged in said engagement opening and in said access opening to connect and disconnect the closing body (6) with the main body (2) (refer to Paragraph 26, annotated Figs. 5 and 6 below; the applicator (4) is threaded onto the container (2))
said main body (2) comprising a neck (2B) defining said access opening to the compartment, said closing device (6) comprising a thread formed on an outer surface of the neck and on an inner surface of the closing body at the engagement opening (refer to Paragraph 26, annotated Figs. 5 and 6 below; the applicator (4) is threaded onto the container (2));
a rod (5) constrained to a bottom wall of the closing body (6) opposite to the engagement opening (refer to annotated Fig. 5 below);
said rod (5) extending at least partially inside the neck and having a cross-section (refer to annotated Fig. 3 below);
wherein the neck (2B) comprises an internal funnel shape defining an internal conical surface having a decreasing cross-section in a direction towards the main body (2) (refer to annotated Fig. 7 below);
said rod (5) further comprising a first section (5A) next to the closing body (6), a second section (5B) distal from the closing body (6) and a conical surface arranged between the first section and the second section (refer to annotated Fig. 4 below, zoomed in on the closing body (6));
said first section (5A) presenting a first cross-section greater than a second cross-section of the second section (5B) (refer to annotated Fig. 4 below, zoomed in on the closing body (6)); and
wherein the conical surface of said rod (5)defines an inclined wall matching the internal conical surface of the neck (2B) and further defines an annular contact point between the rod (5) and the neck (2B) to provide a fluid-tight closure (refer to Paragraph 38, annotated Fig. 3 below; in light of Fig. 3 of the specification, Examiner is interpreting matching of the conical surfaces, as mating to define an annular contact point; the gripping member (6) acts as a stopper for the container (2); by definition, a stopper acts as a plug or seal, preventing fluid flow).
PNG
media_image1.png
734
717
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
587
597
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
475
487
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
259
526
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
333
359
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Camille is silent to the rod (5) being constrained to a bottom wall of the closing body (6) by interference or threading (refer to Paragraph 38; such an arrangement is classic in itself).
Marshall discloses an apparatus for dispensing mascara in the same field of endeavor (refer to Paragraph [0005]), wherein the rod (26) is constrained to a bottom wall (28) of the closing body (16) by interference or threading (refer to Paragraph [0016], annotated Fig. 4 below; an elongated rod (26) is centrally attached to and extending from the inside surface (28)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the closing body (6) of Camille with the interference fit of the rod (26) and closing body bottom wall (28) as taught by Marshall, as this is a known method of assembling the closing body (16) for a mascara container.
PNG
media_image6.png
302
620
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Camille is also silent to wherein said closing body (6), said main body (2), said neck (2b) and said rod (5) are solely made of aluminum alloy.
Marshall further discloses all components of the mascara container (10), with the exception of the bristles, being made from metal, a rigid material (refer to Paragraph [0016]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the container (1) of Camille with metal as taught by Marshall to form a rigid mascara container, as Marshall demonstrates this material is known in the art for producing mascara containers (refer to Paragraph [0016]).
Marshall is silent to the metal being an aluminum alloy.
VisonPack discloses packaging for cosmetic products in the same field of endeavor(see Page 1, Paragraph 1), with aluminum materials for cosmetic packaging being beneficial due to ease of recycling (refer to Pros on Page 3). Although VisonPack does not disclose the aluminum being an aluminum alloy, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the aluminum to be an aluminum alloy, as it only involves adjusting the amount of other materials present in the aluminum material for its intended purpose, packaging. Applicant also states that other materials with equivalent recyclability can be used, with metal as a broad category meeting this requirement (refer to page 4, lines 12-23 of specification).
Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to substitute an aluminum alloy for an aluminum material since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use or purpose MPEP 2144.07.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the material of the container as taught by Camille and Marshall with an aluminum based material as taught by VisonPack in order to provide cosmetic packaging that can easily be recycled (refer to Pros on Page 3).
Regarding claim 12, Camille, Marshall and VisonPack disclose the container according to claim 8, with Camille further disclosing wherein said neck (2B) is engaged to the access opening of the main body (2) by mechanical interference or by threading (refer to Paragraphs 51-52, annotated Figs. 6, 7 above; the container (2) is made by assembling two unit parts, the neck (2B) being attached to the free upper end of the sidewall (2C) by an ultrasonic weld (15); an ultrasonic weld joins two material through friction, a type of mechanical interference).
Regarding claim 13, Camille, Marshall and VisonPack disclose the container according to claim 12, with Camille disclosing the container (2) further comprising a series of fibers (7A) engaged with a free end of the rod (5) opposite to said bottom wall (refer to annotated Fig. 5 above);
said fibers (7A) having a greater transverse extension than a passage section (entry of 3) of the neck (2B) (refer to Paragraph 41, Figs. 1, 3; the protrusions (7A) extend outward from the rod (5), where the rod (5) is approximately equal in diameter to the entry of the passage (3); therefore, the protrusions (7A) have a greater transverse extension than the entry to the passage (3)).
Response to Arguments
The outstanding claim objection of claim 8 is withdrawn in view of the newly submitted claim amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the argument that Camille does not disclose an annular contact point, Examiner notes that the contact point Applicant is referencing is not the same contact point Examiner references in the rejection. There are two contact points shown, one on the conical surface of the rod (5a) and another further down on the rod (5). Thus, Camille discloses the structure of this limitation.
Of note, the “Remarks” are not uploaded in color, thus the “red arrows” do not show up as such.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adriena J Webb Lyttle whose telephone number is (571)270-7639. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 10:00-7:00 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, Edelmira Bosques can be reached at (571) 270-5614. 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.
/ADRIENA J WEBB LYTTLE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772