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 § 102
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) 14-15 and 18-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Bardonneche (US 11,478,061).
De Bardonneche discloses an applicator device for applying a product of fluid or pasty type to keratin fibers or to the skin, comprising an elongate central core, the elongate central core (1) extending along a longitudinal axis XX, and at least one row of elongate spikes (2) comprising a first end (22) embedded in the elongate central core and a free second end (col. 4, lines 58-60), wherein the spikes and the elongate central core are made in one piece, wherein at least one of the spikes (2) is delimited by a first flat face (200) which coincides with a longitudinal plane passing through the longitudinal axis XX of the central core, referred to as joint plane, and by a second flat face (210) forming a first angle with said first flat face of between 120° and 150° (col. 4, lines 50-55), and wherein the arrangement of the first and second flat face delimiting a reservoir volume V for cosmetic product (see Figures 4-13). Claim 15, the at least one of the face (200, 210) includes a third flat face forming a second angle with the first flat face of between 1° and a value complementary to 180° of the first angle minus 1°, the third flat face delimiting the reservoir volume V for cosmetic product that takes the form of a longitudinal groove (see Figures 10A, 10B; col. 5, lines 45-55). Claim 18, the at least one spike (2) has first and second parts superposed, over some of each of their heights, one on the other along a longitudinal axis of the at least one spike, the first part being delimited by the first and second flat faces (200, 210), the second part protruding from the first part (see Figures 4-13). Claim 19, the second part has an overall shape which is mirror-symmetrical in relation to the first part (see Figures 4-13). Claim 20, the second part is superposed entirely over some of the height of the first part, between ends of the first part (see Figures 4-13). Claim 21, the at least one spike (3) has a third part superposed on the second part over some of each of their heights, one on the other along a longitudinal axis of the spike, the third part protruding from the second part (see Figures 4-13). Claim 22, the at least one spike (2) has elements protruding from an outer surface of the at least one spike. Claim 23, the at least one spike has elements (24) that are extending recessed from an outer surface of the spike (see Figures 4-13). Claim 24, at least two of the spikes making up a row and including the at least one spike have an identical orientation (see Figures 4-13). Claim 25, at least two of the spikes making up a row and including the at least one spike have a different orientation (see Figure 14). Claim 26, the distance measured along the axis XX between two successive spikes of the at least one row is zero or positive (see Figures 4-13). Claim 27, the distance measured along the axis XX between two successive spikes of the at least one row is less than approximately 2 millimeters (claim 5).
Claim 28, De Bardonneche discloses an applicator device for applying a product of fluid or pasty type to keratin fibers or to the skin, comprising an elongate central core, the elongate central core (1) extending along a longitudinal axis XX, and at least one row of elongate spikes (2) comprising a first end (22) embedded in the elongate central core and a free second end (col. 4, lines 58-60), wherein the spikes and the elongate central core are made in one piece, wherein at least one of the spikes (2) is delimited by a first flat face (200) which coincides with a longitudinal plane passing through the longitudinal axis XX of the central core, referred to as joint plane, and by a second flat face (210) forming a first angle with said first flat face of between 120° and 150° (col. 4, lines 50-55), and wherein the arrangement of the first and second flat face delimiting a reservoir volume V for cosmetic product that has a “V” shape cross-section form the first end to the free second end of each of the spikes (see Figures 4A-5B). Claim 29, the reservoir volume delimited by the arrangement of the first and second flat face is of an angle complementary at 180 degrees to the first angle (see Figures 4a-5b).
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) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Bardonneche (US 11,478,061) in view of Berhault (US 11,375,803).
Claims 16 and 17, De Bardonneche discloses the claimed invention except for the at least one spike has a frustoconical shape. Berhault teaches a spike having an overall frustoconial shape (col. 4, lines 25-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the spikes of DeBardonneche be made with an overall frustoconial shape as taught by Berhault to allow for more flexibly through the wiping element.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that De Bardonneche does not disclose a second flat face forming a first angle with said first flat face between 120 degrees and 150 degrees and therein the arrangement of the first and second flat faces delimiting from the first end to the second free end of each of the spikes a reservoir volume V for the cosmetic product is not persuasive. De Bardonneche teaches col. 4, lines 50-55 “the spikes 2 are also defined and delimited by a second flat face 210 forming with the first flat face 200 an angle of between approximately 10 degrees and 180 degrees” further col. 4, lines 60-65 “may have various forms, as illustrated in particular but not exhaustively by the accompanying figures”. One having ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching and description of De Bardonneche would have concluded the first angle can be of 120 and 150 degrees, as claimed.
Conclusion
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 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
1/12/2026