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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention II drawn to claims 1-14 in the reply filed on November 12, 2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 15-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on November 12, 2025.
Drawings
4. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84 (g) because Fig. 2-4 contain frames around the sight. The sheets must not contain frames around the sight (i.e., the usable surface), but should have scan target points (i.e., cross-hairs) printed on two cater-corner margin corners.
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.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 line 2 should read “without [[the]] an application of additional adhesive or glue”, since this is the first time the term “application” has been introduced. Correction is required to overcome this issue.
Claim 6 should read “wherein the second adhesive surface is curved to provide a curve to [[the]] a user’s eyelashes”, since this is the first time the term “user” has been introduced. Correction is required to overcome this issue.
Claim 9 should line 4 should read “wherein the at least one eyelash lift pad is temporarily secured to the backing material”, since the term “eyelash lift pad” is used instead of “eyelash lift”. Correction is required to overcome this issue.
Claim 11 should read “a tool to secure [[the]] a user’s eyelashes to the eyelash lift pad”, since this is the first time the term “user” has been introduced. Correction is required to overcome this issue.
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 5 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 lines 3-5, the terms “the second adhesive surface is covered with a mask material that is non-adhesive such that the user must apply an adhesive or glue to the mask material to secure to the user’s eyelashes without the application of additional adhesive or glue” renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear how the user must apply adhesive or glue material to a surface or a mask material, and at the same time without applying an additional adhesive or glue. It is unclear how the adhesive body is formed during manufacturing and also the second surface required a non-adhesive surface of the a mask material that requires applying adhesive or glue without applying additional adhesive or glue. In addition, it is unclear of the quantity and location of the adhesive material that must be applied and also the quantity and location where an additional adhesive must not be applied. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted as requiring “wherein the first adhesive surface is configured to secure to a user’s eyelid without an application of additional adhesive or glue and the second adhesive surface is covered with a mask material that is configured to secure the user’s eyelashes.”. Applicant is recommended to clarify to overcome this issue.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Chien (US 20070012330 A1, hereinafter “Chien”).
Claim 1. Chien discloses an eyelash lift pad (abstract and Fig 1-5) comprising:
an adhesive body (Fig 3 and ¶0038, body shown in fig 3 has double-faced adhesive) having at least one exposed adhesive surface (¶0038, eyelash-setting surface has an exposed adhesive surface).
The Examiner notes that “wherein the adhesive body is formed during manufacturing of the eyelash lift pad and prior to packaging of the eyelash lift pad” is being treated as a product by process limitation. Whether a product is patentable depends on whether it is known in the art or it is obvious, and is not governed by whether the process by which it is made is patentable. In re Klug, 333 F2d 905, 142 USPQ 161 (CCPA 1964). See MPEP 2113.
Claim 3. Chien discloses the invention of claim 1. Chien further discloses wherein the at least one exposed adhesive surface comprises a first adhesive surface (Fig 3, surface 3 and ¶0038, eyelid contact surface 3 has an adhesive tape) and a second adhesive surface (Fig 3, surface 2 and ¶0038. Eyelash-setting surface has an adhesive tape) opposite the first adhesive surface (Fig 3).
Claim 4. Chien discloses the invention of claim 1. Chien further discloses the first adhesive surface is configured to secure to a user’s eyelid without the application of additional adhesive or glue (¶0038. Eyelid contact surface 3 has an adhesive tape without additional glue) and the second adhesive surface is configured to secure to the user’s eyelashes without the application of additional adhesive or glue (¶0038 and Fig 4. Eyelash-setting surface 2 has an adhesive tape that is capable to secure to the user’s eyelash without additional glue).
Claim 5. Chien discloses the invention of claim 3. Chien further discloses the first adhesive surface is configured to secure to a user’s eyelid without an application of additional adhesive or glue (¶0038 and Fig 4. Eyelash-setting surface 2 has an adhesive tape that is capable to secure to the user’s eyelash without additional glue) the second adhesive surface (Fig 4, surface 2) is covered with a mask material (¶0045, covered with a glue layer or glue film) that is configured to secure the user’s eyelashes (Fig 4).
Claim 6. Chien discloses the invention of claim 3. Chien further discloses the second adhesive surface (surface of 2) is curved to provide a curve to the user’s eyelashes (Fig 4).
Claim 7. Chien discloses the invention of claim 1. Chien further discloses the adhesive body is configured to temporarily and removably secure the eyelash lift pad to a surface (Fig 4, ¶0038 and ¶0045, the double-faced tape is capable to temporarily and removably secure the eyelash lift pad to a surface).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien (US 20070012330 A1, hereinafter “Chien”) in view of Thiebaut (US20060162735A1, hereinafter “Thiebaut”).
Claim 2. Chien discloses the invention of claim 1, but silent to the adhesive body is polyurethane adhesive.
Thiebaut teaches a cosmetic applicator (abstract and Fig 1-15) including polyurethane adhesive (¶0054) so that polyurethane-based adhesive is applied at the rate of 400 g/m2. The applicator element 4 and the support 2 can also be assembled by using a double-sided adhesive material (¶0054) to provide an efficient attachment means, and an alternative attachment means in order to meet various users’ preferences. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the adhesive of Chien’s eyelash lift pad device and incorporate polyurethane-based adhesive, as taught by Thiebaut, to provide an efficient attachment means, and an alternative attachment means in order to meet various users’ preferences.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien (US 20070012330 A1, hereinafter “Chien”).
Claim 8. Chien discloses the invention of claim 1, but silent to wherein the eyelash lift pad is reusable. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to make the eyelash lift pad of Chien’s device reusable to reduce the user’s cost, and provide an environmentally sustainable eyelash lift pad to efficiently reduce waste in order to meet users’ needs and preferences.
Claims 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chien (US 20070012330 A1, hereinafter “Chien”) in view of Valucci (US20130247928 A1, hereinafter “Valucci”).
Claim 9. Chien discloses the invention of claim 1, but silent to a kit comprising a backing material, wherein the at least one eyelash lift is temporarily secured to the backing material with the at least one exposed adhesive surface.
Valucci teaches a kit of shield and guide for applying eye makeup (abstract and Fig 2B-2C) including a backing material (Fig 2C, backing material 24), wherein the at least one the shield (10) is temporarily secured to the backing material with the at least one exposed adhesive surface (adhesive inner surface 20) (¶0025-¶0026) so that the shield 10 may be provided in numerous sets of pairs on backing 24 or with peel-away backing strips (such as those used with a band-aid). Shield 10 may be reused by re-adhering it to backing 24 when no longer in use (¶0025).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the individual eyelash lift pad of Chien’s device in a form of a kit with a backing material, as taught by Valucci, to provide multiple eyelash lift pad in numerous set of pairs on a backing material of a kit. Thus, would efficiently improve the turnover between users, and meet users’ needs.
Claim 10. Chien and Valucci teach the invention of claim 9, but silent to the backing material is a polyethylene terephthalate thin film. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the backing material of the combination of Chien and Valucci kit to be made of a polyethylene terephthalate thin film. Such modification would provide an efficient stability and an efficient reliability of the kit in order to meet the users’ needs.
In addition, the instant disclosure describes the selection of the backing material being a polyethylene terephthalate as merely preferable [0039, “The backing material 12 may be a polyethylene terephthalate (“PET”)”] and does not describe it as contributing any unexpected result to the eyelash lift pad. As such, the selection of material for polyethylene terephthalate for the backing material is deemed matters of design choice (lacking in any criticality), well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, obtained through routine experimentation in determining optimum results.
Claim 11. Chien and Valucci teach the invention of claim 9. Chien further teaches a tool to secure the user’s eyelashes to the eyelash lift pad (¶0049).
Claim 12-13. Chien and Valucci teach the invention of claim 9. Chien is silent to the at least one eyelash lift pad comprises a plurality of eyelash lift pads provided in pairs of two; wherein each pair of two eyelash lift pads are the same.
However, Valucci further teaches the shield 10 may be provided in numerous sets of pairs (¶0025 and Fig 2B-2C), and each pair of the shield 10 are the same shield 10 (Fig 2C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the time the invention was made to duplicate the eyelash lift pad of the combination of the Chien and Valucci kit to be in pairs of two of the same lift pads, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In this instance, such modification would efficiently improve the turnover between users and meet the users’ needs.
Claim 14. Chien and Valucci teach the invention of claim 12, but silent to a first pair of eyelash lift pads is a different size then a second pair of eyelash lifts.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to have a first pair of eyelash lift pads in a different size then a second pair of eyelash lifts, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size/shape of a the eyelash lifts pad. A change in size/shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In this instance, such modification would accommodate different lash lengths, eye shapes, and desired aesthetic results of various users.
Conclusion
Additional references were also reviewed during the examination of this application and listed for your reference in the notice of reference cited form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KARIM ASQIRIBA whose telephone number is 571- 270-3416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8-5 pm.
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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KARIM ASQIRIBA/Examiner, Art Unit 3772