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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/30/2024 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 03/06/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
• “the base closure comprising a means for removably engaging the peripheral wall with the inner surface of the inner wall of the compact base when inserting the cosmetic pan”, in claim 1 and “means for manipulating the removable engagement of the base closure with the compact base between an engaged position and a disengaged position”, in claim 4 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Based on a review of the specifications, it appears that “means for removably engaging the peripheral wall with the inner surface of the inner wall of the compact base” and “means for manipulating the removable engagement of the base closure with the compact base” refers to an elongated slot formed through the floor of the base closure, for insertion therein and rotation thereof with a straight-edged article or tool between the disengaged position and the engaged position, or a pair of depressions formed into the outside surface of the floor of the base closure, each depression spaced substantially opposite the center of the base closure and toward the peripheral wall, for accommodating the fingertips of a user for exerting a torque force sufficient to rotate the base closure between the disengaged position and the engaged position ([0009]).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 7 is/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 2 recites “the lower base”; there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites “the lower base”; there is a lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102
and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory
basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and
the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim (KR 101744491 B1, see translation attached and the PTO 892 form) in view of Koga (US 7451877 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Yim discloses a compact case (Figure 7) comprising: i) a compact base (110) having a peripheral body (Annotated Figure 4, below) having an inner ledge (Annotated Figure 7) forming a shaped opening (111), and a lower wall comprising a lower rim and an inner wall, wherein the inner ledge and the inner wall form a lower pocket, and the lower rim forms a lower opening of the lower pocket (Annotated Figure 7), ii) a compact cover (130) attachable to the compact base (110), iv) a base closure (200) comprising a peripheral wall (210) and a floor (250) to form a pan cavity for placement therein of the cosmetic pan (the Examiner notes that the base closure 200 has all the necessary structures to be configured to form a pan cavity for placement therein of a cosmetic pan), the base closure comprising a means for removably engaging the peripheral wall with the inner surface of the inner wall of the compact base when inserting the cosmetic pan into the lower pocket of the compact base with the upper peripheral rim of the cosmetic pan engaged with the under side of the inner ledge of the compact base (see groove 250a in Figure 9 and [0108]). However, Yim fails to disclose “iii) a replaceable cosmetic pan comprising a peripheral wall and a floor configured to contain a cosmetic material, the peripheral wall having an upper peripheral rim that forms a pan opening, the cosmetic pan configured to fit into the lower pocket of the compact base with the upper peripheral rim of the cosmetic pan contacting an under side of the inner ledge of the compact base”.
Koga discloses a refill compact case (Figure 1) comprising: a container defining a cavity, the cavity of the container adapted to removably couple with a compact base (2) having a first opening and a replaceable cosmetic product pan (21) adapted to retain a cosmetic product, the cosmetic product pan adapted to be at least partially disposed within the compact base (2) (col 5, lines 49-56); wherein the replaceable cosmetic pan comprising a peripheral wall and a floor configured to contain a cosmetic material (Figure 1), the peripheral wall having an upper peripheral rim (groove 22 on the upper part of the pan has a rim shape, since it goes around the circumference of the pan) that forms a pan opening (there is a pan opening from the upper peripheral rim, groove 22, upwards), the cosmetic pan configured to fit into the lower pocket of the compact base (2) with the upper peripheral rim of the cosmetic pan (groove 22) contacting an under side of the inner ledge (4) of the compact base (2) (since the upper peripheral rim 22 is engaged with the inner ledge 4 in a manner in which the upper peripheral rim contacts an under side of the inner ledge; see this overlapping manner in Figure 2 and col 7, lines 5-15). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Yim compact case in order to add a replaceable cosmetic pan, as taught by Koga, since it may be advantageous to be able to easily replace the pan, and not the refill itself (i.e. the base closure), to allow for interchangeability between cosmetic products (e.g. to allow for easy changes in cosmetic color without having to clean the base closure and simply changing the cosmetic pan).
[AltContent: textbox (Figure 1. Annotated Figure 4.)]
PNG
media_image1.png
571
1173
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Yim and Koga, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Yim discloses wherein a seal lid (formed by members 400, 300 and 500) attached with a hinge to an upper peripheral portion of the lower base (110) (Figure 6, [0116]).
Regarding claim 3, Yim and Koga, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Yim discloses wherein the means for removably engaging comprises two or more inner slots (119a) formed into the inner surface of the lower wall of the compact base (110), and two or more pins (230) extending from the outer surface of the peripheral wall of the base closure (200), the two or more pins engaging the two or more inner slots (119a) when the base closure is engaged with the cosmetic base (Figure 7, [0105]).
Regarding claim 4, Yim and Koga, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Yim discloses further including a means (270a) for manipulating the removable engagement of the base closure with the compact base between an engaged position and a disengaged position ([0110]).
Regarding claim 7, Yim and Koga, as combined above, discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Yim discloses further including a seal lid (members 400, 300 and 500) having a hinge formed along an upper peripheral portion of the lower base, and pivotable about the hinge from an open position to a closed position in confronting engagement with an upper portion of the inner ledge of the lower base (Figure 6, [0116]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim in view of Koga, further in view of Habatjou (FR 2867037 A1, see translation attached and the PTO 892 form).
Regarding claim 5, Yim and Koga, fail to discloses wherein the means for manipulating the base closure with the compact base includes an elongated slot formed through the floor of the base closure, for insertion therein and rotation thereof with a straight-edged article or tool between the disengaged position and the engaged position (since Yim discloses a square shape groove 250a).
Habatjou discloses a compact case (Figure 1) having a base closure (6) including an elongated slot (19) formed through the floor of the base closure (Figure 4), for insertion therein and rotation thereof with a straight-edged article or tool between the disengaged position and the engaged position ([0011]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Yim/Koga’s means for manipulating the base closure, to make it including an elongated slot for insertion therein and rotation thereof with a straight-edged article or tool between the disengaged position and the engaged position, as taught by Habatjou, since such modification would be a case of simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e. changing a square shape groove for an elongated slot) to obtain predictable results (i.e. engaging with an object such as a coin or a key).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yim in view of Koga, further in view of Zhan (US 20190021468 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Yim and Koga, fail to discloses “wherein the means for manipulating the base closure with the compact base includes a pair of depressions formed into the outside surface of the floor of the base closure, each depression spaced substantially opposite the center of the base closure and toward the peripheral wall, for accommodating the fingertips of a user for exerting a torque force sufficient to rotate the base closure between the disengaged position and the engaged position” (since Yim discloses a square shape groove 250a).
Zhan discloses a compact case (Figure 1) comprising: compact base (100) with a base closure (210), wherein the means for manipulating the base closure (210) with the compact base includes a depression (211) formed into the outside surface of the floor of the base closure (210), the depression for accommodating the fingertip of a user for exerting a torque force sufficient to rotate the base closure (210) between the disengaged position and the engaged position (Figure 3, [0034]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the application, to modify Yim/Koga’s means for manipulating the base closure, to make it including a depression formed into the outside surface of the floor of the base closure for accommodating the fingertip of a user for exerting a torque force sufficient to rotate the base closure, as taught by Zhan, since such modification would be a case of simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e. changing a square shape groove for a depression for accommodating a fingertip) to obtain predictable results (i.e. engaging the base closure to rotate it).
Yim, Koga and Zhan, as combined above, fail to discloses “a pair of depressions, each depression spaced substantially opposite the center of the base closure and toward the peripheral wall, for accommodating the fingertips of a user for exerting a torque force”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to further modify Yim/Koga/Zhan’s means for manipulating the base closure to make it comprising a pair of depressions, each depression for accommodating the fingertips at the desired location, since such modification would merely require a duplication of known parts, which has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (see MPEP 2144).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUIS MIGUEL RUIZ MARTIN whose telephone number is (571)270-0839. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 Am - 5 PM (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, Eric Rosen can be reached on (571) 270-7855. 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.
/LUIS RUIZ MARTIN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772