DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 6 March 2024 was filed before the mailing of an Office action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 1-9 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 instant claims refer to numbers and letters in parenthesis. The numbers and letters are not necessary and it is unclear if they refer to the drawings. Claims should be complete and clear on their own and should not refer back to the Specification or drawings.
The term “substantially” in claims 1, 3, 5 and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the support" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 4 depends from claim 1, which does not include a support.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lattanzi et al. (WO 2022/195339 A1) in view of Guizzetti ‘561 (EP 3 909 561 A1) and Guizzetti ‘794 (EP 4 062 794 A1).
Lattanzi et al. teach throughout a cosmetic product having a surface decoration consisting of images with a dynamic effect, this term meaning the capacity to show separate images which can vary with the angle of the observation point.
Regarding instant claims 1-2, Lattanzi et al. teach a cosmetic product made of pressed, or melted and baked, or extruded powder or in the form of a rod or stick, such as a lipstick, having a body with a visible surface consisting of a plurality of protruding stripes with triangular section, each having an upper vertex, a first inclined side decorated with a portion of a first image, and a second inclined side decorated with a portion of a second image (pg. 1, ln. 16-21; Claim 1).
Lattanzi et al. do not explicitly disclose a plurality of three-dimensional elements mutually placed side by side, characterized in that each three-dimensional element is defined by a first, a second, and a third face, the three faces being squares arranged as three faces of a regular cube with a vertex in common.
Guizzetti ‘561 teach a make-up product (1) comprising at least one visible surface (2) on which at least a plurality of basic three-dimensional elements (B) and a plurality of modified three-dimensional elements (M) are obtained (Abstract; Claim 1).
Guizzetti ‘794 teach a make-up product (1) comprising a transfer surface (2), at least a part (3) of said transfer surface (2) having a surface finish with parallel grooves (S), so as to define a plurality of elements (P) in relief, each with at least a first (A) and a second face (B) facing the free surface of said part (3) of the transfer surface, each first face (A) facing in a direction substantially opposite to the direction in which each second face (B) is facing, at least some of the first faces (A) presenting cavities (20) or reliefs arranged so as to form a first figure (4), at least some of the second faces (B) presenting cavities (20) or reliefs so as to form a second figure (5) so that, by tilting the make-up product (1) so that the first faces (A) are mainly visible, the first figure (4) is visible, while tilting the make-up product (1) so that the second faces (B) are mainly visible, the second figure (5) is visible (Abstract; Claim 1). Guizzetti ‘794 teach that advantageously, the cavities 20 have a concave pyramidal surface with a triangular base, preferably with the base of the pyramid exposed on the surface. In this regard, see the detail in Fig. 10. Another possible conformation of the cavities 20’ is a triangular prism with one face exposed on the surface, like the one shown in Figs. 13-16, and more specifically in Fig. 17 ([0035]-[0036]). Obviously, it is possible that some cavities (or reliefs) can have a dot-like conformation while others, also on the same face of the prismatic elements, have an oblong conformation, just as in Fig. 11. This depends on the final effect you wish to achieve. The concept is to essentially have a series of long wedges (prismatic elements) which are preferably parallel and have a triangular cross-section. On a series of parallel oblique faces of the wedges, incisions are made (i.e. the cavities or reliefs) which may be prismatic, curved, or any shape that can cause the light to be reflected in such a way as to create a shaded area, where you wish, causing a word or image to appear. The cross-section of the wedges considered is triangular, but there is nothing to prevent it having a cross section formed of two curves or with another shape. What matters is the creation of two series of faces (with a linear or curved cross-section) that are opposite one another so that they can be machined as described above. In the series of mutually opposing faces, engravings (or reliefs) are created with the same concept of creating a shaded area that can cause the desired second word or image to appear ([0038]-[0041]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare a makeup product according to Lattanzi et al. wherein the surface of the product comprises multiple planar surfaces, including three planar surfaces, such that viewing the product from different angles reveals multiple different decorations. Such would have been obvious because Guizzetti ‘561 and Guizzetti ‘794 both teach a plurality of three-dimensional elements, including pyramid shapes having three faces. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare various different three dimensional shapes to achieve multiple planar faces displaying different decorations depending on the angle viewed.
Regarding instant claims 3-6 and 8, Lattanzi et al. teach inserting the cosmetic plate 1 into the box-like base 10 of a packaging case 9 with a hinged cover 11 provided with a mirror. It is possible, with the cover open, to observe separately the image 7 inside the base 10 and the image 8 reflected in the mirror 12. Likewise, it is possible to obtain a package, such as that in figure 7, which has a first visible image 13 on the surface of a cosmetic product 14 inserted into the base 15 of a case 16 with hinged cover 17 and mirror 18 and a second image 19 reflected in the mirror 18. It is also possible to shape the surface of the cosmetic product with stripes not parallel to one another, which are wavy or converging or diverging, whereby the images can also be seen separately by simply rotating the plate or wafer to the right or to the left, not necessarily by using a mirror (pg. 3, ln. 21 to pg. 4, ln. 9; Fig. 6-7). Lattanzi et al. depicts both drawings and writings on the makeup product, either viewable in the mirror or from different angles (Fig. 6-7).
Regarding instant claims 7 and 9, Lattanzi et al. teach a cosmetic product made of pressed, or melted and baked, or extruded powder or in the form of a rod or stick, such as a lipstick (pg. 1, ln. 7-8 and 16-18; pg. 2, ln. 21-27; pg. 4, ln. 10-19; Claims 3-4; Fig. 1-8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan W Schlientz whose telephone number is (571)272-9924. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571) 272-5539. 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.
/N.W.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616