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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/17/2026, with respect to the drawings have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/17/2026, with respect to the claim(s) objections of claim(s) 1 and 2 (as filed on 03/13/2024), have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of the drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/17/2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections of claim(s) 1 – 9, have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C 112b rejections of claim(s) 1- 9 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/17/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1,3,4,6, and 9 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of claim(s) 1,3,4,6, and 9, as being unpatentable over Uehara (EP 2,319,358 A1) in view of Poetschl et al. (US 2009/0095317 A1), have been withdrawn.
The amendment of claim 1 to incorporate limitations originally in claim 8 renders the above rejection moot, however, the new amendment of claim 1 necessitates new grounds of rejection without the introduction of new prior arts than previously cited in the last office action mailed 11/17/2025, nor a new search. The amended claim 1 contains all the limitations of claim 2 (03/13/2024) previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as being unpatentable over Uehara (EP 2,319,358) in view of Poetschl et al. (2009/0095317 A1), and further in view of Sakuma et al. (US 9,339,452). Thus, the amended claim 1 in its current state would also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, as being unpatentable over Uehara (EP 2,319,358) in view of Poetschl et al. 2009/0095317 A1), and further in view of Sakuma et al. (US 9,339,452). Furthermore, subsequent claims directly/indirectly dependent on the amended claim 1 would be examined to incorporate the new ground of rejection.
Regarding the amended claim 1 and the canceled claim 2, the applicant further argues “Regarding Uehara, element 14e of Uehara is not a "cylindrical base," but rather a groove along a cylindrical body, below which a truncated cone- shaped section is provided. It is therefore difficult to see how this can be considered a base, as claimed. More importantly, however, element 30 thereof is completely separate from the applicator body, resulting in "a joint which hold the rear end portion (applying part rear end portion) 14b of applying part 14." (See paragraph [0037]). Therefore, an "appendix" of the applicator, as claimed, cannot be readily identified. Instead, the joint must be identified as a different element that connects the applicator to the body of the applicator, with the further action of the front barrel 28. As a result, there is not a direct connection between the applicator head and the applicator body. The structure appears substantially different, and it is not apparent how the structure as claimed in the instant application can be derived from the Uehara. Moreover, claim 1 now recites that the internal volume of said applicator body is a reservoir for cosmetic substance eccentrically arranged with respect to a central axis of said appendix. Therefore, even if an appendix could be identified in Uehara, there is simply no structure that corresponds to a reservoir that is centrically arranged with respect to a central axis of any such appendix. Indeed, Uehara clearly discloses that the reservoir 10b is located centrally within the barrel body 10”.
The above applicant’s arguments have been considered and are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully rejects the applicant’s assertion that element 14e of Uehara is not a “cylindrical base” but rather a groove along a cylindrical body, below which a truncated cone-shaped section is provided. The applicant’s argument is moot regarding element 14e (Figs. 6a-f) intrinsically comprising both inner and external radii thus defining a cylindrical shape and said cylindrical shape disposed at a base position, defined as the position opposite and distal to the proximate element 14a. Furthermore, the examiner respectfully rejects the applicant’s assertion that element 30 does not satisfy the claim limitation of “an appendix” as claimed because it is completely separate from the applicator body. The examiner asserts that the claim language as written, “…comprising a cylindrical base (2) at the bottom equipped with an appendix (3)…”, does not require that the said appendix (3) be inseparable from the cylindrical base (2) nor the entire applicator. Also, the phrase “equipped with” as written in the claim can be interpreted as “provided with” or “attached to” or “installed to”.
The applicant further argues that element 30 being completely separate from the applicator body, requires further action of the front barrel 28. As a result, there is not a direct connection between the applicator head and the applicator body.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show that element 30 would facilitate a direct connection between the applicator head and the applicator body, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., applicator head) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The applicant further argues that Uehara (EP 2,319,358) does not disclose an internal volume of said applicator body that is a reservoir for cosmetic substance eccentrically arranged with respect to a central axis of said appendix. Further buttressing the point, applicant stated “indeed, Uehara clearly discloses that the reservoir 10b is located centrally with the barrel body 10”. The argument have been considered and not persuasive because Uehara (EP 2,319,358) was not relied upon for the claimed invention of an internal volume of said applicator as previously described in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2 (03/13/2024) as outlined in the Office Action mailed 11/17/2025.
Regarding the amended claim 1 and the canceled claim 2, the applicant further argues: “Turning to Poetschl, while the application surface W is convex, and not concave, as in the instant claims, Poetschl is still missing the other claimed structure that defines the application surface. In particular, the claim of the instant application refers to a "a portion (5) removed according to the combination of a triangular profile having the apex substantially on the bottom surface (5b) and a parabolic profile (5c), said parabolic profile (5c) being angled to the cylinder's generatrix, thereby defining the application surface of said spatula." Nothing in Poetschl, neither the written description nor the drawings, discloses the claimed structure of the spatula.”
The above applicant’s arguments have been considered and are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the application surface being “concave”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant assertion that Poetschl is still missing the other claimed structure that defines the application surface. As previously described in the Office Action mailed on 11/17/2025, Poetschl disclosed an applicator (100 Fig. 1a) comprising a portion (application surface, W, Fig. 1a) removed according to the combination of a triangular profile (see annotated Fig. 1a) having the apex substantially on the bottom surface and a parabolic profile (see annotated Fig. 1a) being angled to the cylinder’s generatrix, thereby defining the application surface of said spatula (application surface, W, see annotated Fig. 1a). It is the examiner’s assertion that the above disclosures clearly teaches the claimed structure of the
PNG
media_image1.png
509
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
spatula.
Regarding the amended claim 1 and the canceled claim 2, the applicant further argues: “Lastly, regarding Sakuma, the description thereof recites that reference number 25 is a "communication passage." However, it appears clear that a communication passage cannot be considered to be a "reservoir." Instead, the reservoir is clearly identified and numbered 11, and is contained in the center of the barrel body 10. Indeed, the specification recites that "In the present embodiment, as application liquid 12 is pressured by means of thrusting mechanism 30, the liquid passes through communication passage 25 and is dispensed from dispensing port 23 and stagnates on dispensing port plane 24." Therefore, Sakuma does not and cannot disclose the claimed "reservoir (7) for cosmetic substance eccentrically arranged with respect to a central axis of said appendix.”
The above applicant’s arguments have been considered and are not persuasive. The claim language does not further limit said reservoir as a storage component for cosmetic substance as being implied by the applicant’s argument. A reservoir is defined to be a component designed to hold a substance for immediate or future use. Element 25 as disclosed by Sakuma has a defined length and diameter thus a defined volume which is capable of holding cosmetic substances for immediate use thus can be interpreted as a reservoir as claimed. Applicant’s further argument that Sakuma discloses element 11 as a reservoir that is contained in the center of the barrel body 10, is moot because the examiner did not rely on the argued elements for the rejection of the claimed invention. The examiner respectfully rejects applicant’s assertion that Sakuma does not and cannot disclose the claimed “reservoir (7) for cosmetic substance eccentrically arranged with respect to a central axis of said appendix”, because element 25 is capable to function as a reservoir as claimed, and it is eccentrically arranged with respect to a central axis of said appendix (element 10) (Figs. 1 and 2; element 25 as depicted in Fig. 2 is eccentrically arranged with respect to an axis of element 10 - the examiner interprets the claim language to mean that the internal volume is misaligned with respect to a central axis of the lower engagement appendix in a longitudinal direction).
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) 1, 3, 4, 6, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara (EP 2,319,358 A1) in view of Poetschl et al. (US 2009/0095317 A1), and further in view of Sakuma et al. (US 9,339,452 B2).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently amended), Uehara discloses an applicator for cosmetic products, comprising a cylindrical base (14e Fig. 2) at a bottom equipped with an appendix (30d Fog. 2; better illustrated in Fig. 4a) for engagement with a rod body and at the top equipped with a silicone applicator body comprising a spatula (14 Figs. 2 and 3; element 14 is integrally formed of elastic resin which is transparent or translucent silicone resin (paragraph 51 lines 51-52)), having a substantially cylindrical shape (see Figs. 6a-f) except for a portion (14c Fig. 6a and c) removed (14c is an oblique end cut from the cylindrical configuration of the applying part 14; paragraph 49 lines 25-27).
Uehara is silent regarding claim 1, wherein the portion is removed according to the combination of a triangular profile having an apex substantially on a bottom surface (5b) and a parabolic profile (5c), said parabolic profile (5c) being angled to the cylinder's generatrix, thereby defining an application surface of said spatula.
Poetschl teaches an analogous applicator (100 Fig. 1a) comprising a portion (application surface, W, Fig. 1a) removed according to the combination of a triangular profile (see annotated Fig. la attached below) having an apex substantially on a bottom surface (see annotated Fig. la attached below) and a parabolic profile (see annotated Fig. 1a attached below), said parabolic profile being angled to the cylinder's generatrix, thereby defining an
PNG
media_image1.png
509
713
media_image1.png
Greyscale
application surface (W Fig. 1a) of said spatula (see annotated Fig. la attached below).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applicator disclosed by Uehara to have the removed portion configured according to the combination of a triangular profile having an apex substantially on a bottom surface and a parabolic profile being angled to the cylinder's generatrix as taught by Poetschl. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create an applicator with varying design shapes depending on ergonomical and design aspects involved, as suggested by Poetschl.
Furthermore, Uehara is silent regarding claim 1, wherein an internal volume of said applicator body is a reservoir (7) for cosmetic substance eccentrically arranged with respect to a central axis of said appendix (3).
Sakuma et al. teaches a cosmetic applicator (20 Figs. 1 and 2) wherein an internal volume (25, Fig. 2; a small-diametric communication passage with three-dimensional space that can be occupied by application liquid, 12) of said applicator body (22 Fig. 2) is a reservoir for cosmetic substance eccentrically arranged with respect to a central axis of said appendix (10 Figs. 1 and 2) (Figs. 1 and 2; element 25 as depicted in Fig. 2 is eccentrically arranged with respect to an axis of element 10 - the examiner interprets the claim language to mean that the internal volume is misaligned with respect to the central axis of the lower engagement appendix in a longitudinal direction).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applicator disclosed by Uehara/Poetschl to have an internal volume configured as a reservoir for cosmetic substance, being eccentrically arranged with respect to a central axis of said appendix. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for the collection of cosmetic substance into the internal volume as suggested by Sakuma et al., thus the cosmetics substance can be readily applied.
PNG
media_image2.png
795
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, Uehara as modified by Poetschl et al. and Sakuma et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially, as set forth in claim 1. Uehara further teaches an applicator for cosmetics where an upper reinforcing appendix (outlined in Figs. 2 and 4a) of said spatula departs from cylindrical base (14e Fig.2) coaxially with said lower engagement appendix (30d Figs. 2 and 4a).
PNG
media_image3.png
424
776
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Uehara as modified by Poetschl et al. and Sakuma et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially, as set forth in claim 3. Uehara further teaches an applicator for cosmetics wherein said upper reinforcing appendix (outlined in Figs. 2 and 4a attached below) comprises a vertical rod (see attached Figs. 2 and 4a below) at the top of which a head (see attached Figs. 2 and 4a below) is arranged.
PNG
media_image2.png
795
769
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
424
776
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Uehara as modified by Poetschl et al. and Sakuma et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially, as set forth in claim 4. Uehara further teaches an applicator for cosmetics wherein the low portion of the said vertical rod (see attached Figs. 2 and 4a) comprises a base shaped for engagement with a rod of the applicator body (see attached Figs. 2 and 4a), at the top of which a series of protruding rings (30c Figs 2 and 4a) are provided, which form a punching area (element 30c is an indented/projected engaging portion on the outer peripheral side of the rearward part of joint 30 (abstract)).
Regarding claim 9, Uehara as modified by Poetschl et al. and Sakuma et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially, as set forth in claim 1. Uehara further teaches an applicator, wherein the applicator is exclusively made of silicone (element 14 is integrally formed of elastic resin which is transparent or translucent silicone resin or urethane resin; paragraph 51 lines 51 - 52).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara (EP 2,319,358 A1) in view of Poetschl et al. (US 2009/0095317 A1) and Sakuma et al. (US 9,339,452 B2), and further in view of Calas et al. (WO 2021/078779 A1).
Uehara as modified by Poetschl et al. and Sakuma et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially, as set forth in claim 4. Uehara is silent regarding claim 5, wherein said head (10) is visible even after a silicon substance has been injected.
Calas et al. teaches a cosmetic product applicator wherein said head (66, Fig. 3) is visible even after a silicon substance has been injected (page 5 lines 10 - 13 and lines 29 - 31, claim 7; the second material that molds over the upper vertical appendix is transparent or translucent to visible light such that an external observer can distinguish the upper vertical appendix inside the applicator body including the ornamental or decorative head portion).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applicator disclosed by Uehara to comprise an upper reinforcing appendix, configured to have a head that is visible after a silicone substance has been injection, as taught by Calas et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this motivation in order to make it easy for an external observer to distinguish the ornamental head inside the applicator body, as suggested by Calas et al.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uehara (EP 2,319,358 A1) in view of Poetschl et al. (US 2009/0095317 A1) and Sakuma et al. (US 9,339,452 B2), and further in view of Crane et al. (US 10,813,434 B2).
PNG
media_image6.png
687
574
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Uehara as modified by Poetschl et al. and Sakuma et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially, as set forth in claim 3. Uehara further teaches an applicator wherein a ferrule (14b Fig. 2) is finally provided in correspondence with an area for engagement with said cylindrical base (14e Fig. 2), for abutment and support of the entire structure (see abstract; the indented/projected features of 14b is essential for fixing and supporting the entire structure of elements 14, 30, 28 and 10). Uehara is silent wherein the said ferrule (14b Fig. 2) have a polygonal external profile.
In the same field of endeavor, Crane et al. teaches an applicator comprising an engagement area (905 Fig. 9), having a ferrule (see outlined portion of Fig. 9 below) with polygonal external profile (see outlined portion of Fig. 9 below).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applicator disclosed by Uehara to be configured with a ferrule having polygonal external profile as taught by Crane et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide structural support to the applicator structure as suggested by Crane et al.
Regarding claim 8, Uehara as modified by Poetschl et al. and Sakuma et al. discloses the claimed invention substantially, as set forth in claim 7. Poestchl et al. further teaches an applicator wherein said ferrule features distribution channels (105 Fig. 1b) for distribution of silicone that is injected during a manufacturing operation to form the applicator ([0048]: element 105 allows for the distribution of element 102* during manufacturing to form part of the soft component 102 ([0031] element 102 can be made from silicone) of the applicator, 100), said channels comprising opposite cavities (108 (lateral opening)Fig. 1b) (Figs. la and 1b; element 108 is an opening on the opposite sides of the applicator for the injection silicone. Paragraphs 31 and 51. Fig. 1b; element 105 is a passage (distribution channels) with a tubular configuration for injected silicone (paragraph 31). Paragraph 48)).
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 CHIEMERIE C AZUBUOGU whose telephone number is (571)272-0664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 6:00PM.
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 at (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.
/C.A./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights