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 statements (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 14, “lips stick” should be changed to – lipstick --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: punching element in claim 3.
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 § 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deng et al. (hereinafter “Deng”) (JP 3240630 U) in view of Diehl et al. (hereinafter “Diehl”) (US 20150059153 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
462
307
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Deng discloses: a method for making a lipstick cup unit of a lipstick container (see modified Figure 3 above), comprising the steps of:
providing a cup (3) with a chamber (3a), a wall (3b) (see Fig. 3, illustrated above) extending around the chamber,
and an aperture (13) extending throughout the wall so that the aperture is in communication with the chamber.
Deng discloses: providing a pin (4) (Figures 4, 5) wherein the pin is insertable in helical slit (15) of a cylinder (2) of the lipstick container (11) and a rectilinear slit (12) of another cylinder (5) of the [lipstick] container ([0019], lines 9-11) (Deng discloses this limitation; however, it is noted that the limitations after “insertable” are not positively claimed).
Deng does not disclose: providing a rivet with a head and a slender portion, wherein the slender portion is formed with a first end connected to the head and a second end located opposite to the first end;
and enlarging the second end of the slender portion so that the enlarged second end of the slender portion is tightly located against an internal side of the wall and that the head is tightly located against an external side of the wall,
wherein the head is insertable in helical slit of a cylinder of the lipstick container and a rectilinear slit of another cylinder of the lips stick container.
Diehl teaches: providing a rivet (10) (Figures 1A, 1B, 1C) with a head (12) and a slender portion (14), wherein the slender portion is formed with a first end (16) connected to the head and a second end (22) located opposite to the first end;
and enlarging the second end of the slender portion so that the enlarged second end of the slender portion is tightly located against an internal side of the wall (42) and that the head is tightly located against an external side of the wall (40) ([0047-0049], Figure 3A,3B,3C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rivet for the attachment of individual components to one another as taught by Diehl for the pin of the lipstick container of Deng because rivets, compared to other fasteners, are less expensive and less complicated to manufacture. ([0006], lines 1-8 of Diehl)
After modification, Deng in view of Diehl teaches: providing a rivet with a head and a slender portion, wherein the slender portion is formed with a first end connected to the head and a second end located opposite to the first end;
and enlarging the second end of the slender portion so that the enlarged second end of the slender portion is tightly located against an internal side of the wall and that the head is tightly located against an external side of the wall,
wherein the head is insertable in helical slit of a cylinder of the lipstick container and a rectilinear slit of another cylinder of the [lipstick] container.
Regarding claim 2, modified Deng teaches:
The method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of making the slender portion a tubular portion (14 cross section in Figure 1A of Diehl).
Regarding claim 3, modified Deng teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the step of enlarging the second end of the slender portion comprises the steps of:
using a mold (70) (Figure 3B of Diehl) to receive the second end of the slender portion,
and using a punching element (60) (Figure 2B of Diehl) to punch the head.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's
disclosure.
US 20240041183 A1 teaches a cup with a pin insertable in a rectilinear slit of one cylinder and a
helical slit of another cylinder.
US 5035041 A teaches a rivet with a mold and punch.
CN 107232736 A teaches a cup with a pin insertable in a rectilinear slit of one cylinder and a
helical slit of another cylinder.
CN 110801095 teaches a cup with a pin insertable in a rectilinear slit of one cylinder and a
helical slit of another cylinder.
TW I707643 B teaches a cup with a pin insertable in a rectilinear slit of one cylinder and a helical
slit of another cylinder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUEVARA SAOOD ISSA whose telephone number is (571)482-9980. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:00am-5pm and every other Friday 9:00am-5pm.
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, Christopher Templeton can be reached at (571) 270-1477. 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.
/J.S.I./Examiner, Art Unit 3725 /Christopher L Templeton/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3725