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 species I (claims 1-15) in the reply filed on 11/4/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 4 be found allowable, claim 7 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 3 be found allowable, claim 6 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Applicant is advised that should claim 10 be found allowable, claim 11 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 2-7 and 10-15 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 term “plurality of scrubbers” in claim 4 and 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “plurality of scrubbers” 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. What is a scrubber? Is there a distinct feature that makes something a “scrubber”? Could the whole applicator be considered a singular scrubber? If so, the addition of multiple scrubbers would not be obvious or shown in the drawings.
Claims 2-7, 10-15 recites the limitation "claim 0" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that claim 0 means claim 1. If this is not true, every referenced part (“the”) of the claims listed above have antecedent issues. For claim 15, claim 0 will be read as claim 14.
Claims 13 recites the limitation "the opening" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it is presumed that claim 0 means claim 1. If this is not true, every referenced part (“the”) of the claims listed above have antecedent issues.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by No Byong (KR 20090065146 A).
With respect to claim 1, No Byong discloses a jar comprising: a container (30); and a cap assembly (50 and up in figure 7a) that is releasably attachable to the container, the cap assembly comprising a lower cap (50), the lower cap being releasably attachable to the container to provide the releasable attachability of the cap assembly to the container an upper cap, the upper cap (90) being releasably attachable to the lower cap; and an applicator (80, 82 or 83) that is locatable between the upper cap and the lower cap.
PNG
media_image1.png
442
304
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
694
846
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, No Byong discloses the jar of claim 0, the applicator (80, 82 or 83) being adapted for applying creams, gels, ointments, powders, and/or cosmetics to the skin of a human.
With respect to claim 4, No Byong discloses the jar of claim 0, the applicator further comprising a plurality of scrubbers (82).
With respect to claim 5, No Byong discloses the jar of claim 0, the applicator being adapted for massaging, cleaning, and/or exfoliating the skin of a human. (80, 82 or 83)
With respect to claim 7, No Byong discloses the jar of claim 0, the applicator further comprising a plurality of scrubbers. (80, 82 or 83)
With respect to claim 8, No Byong discloses the jar of claim 1, wherein the applicator further comprises a slot extending through an entire thickness thereof. (central through slot, best seen in figure 8)
With respect to claim 12, No Byong discloses the jar of claim 0, wherein the applicator further includes a rim (consider 60/61 part of applicator) that rests on an upper surface (53) of the lower cap when the cap assembly is fully assembled with the upper cap attached to the lower cap with the applicator located between the upper cap and the lower cap.
With respect to claim 13, No Byong discloses the jar of claim 0, the application further including a lower body portion (consider 60/61 part of the applicator) that sits below the opening of the lower cap (consider 70 as part of lower cap) when the cap assembly is fully assembled with the upper cap (90) attached to the lower cap with the applicator located between the upper cap and the lower cap.
Claim(s) 1, 9-11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Amazon Thermos Jar (see webpage attached).
With respect to claim 1, Amazon Thermos Jar discloses a jar comprising: a container (figure 1); and a cap assembly that is releasably attachable to the container, the cap assembly comprising a lower cap (figure 1), the lower cap being releasably attachable to the container to provide the releasable attachability of the cap assembly to the container an upper cap (figure 1), the upper cap being releasably attachable to the lower cap; and an applicator (figure 1) that is locatable between the upper cap and the lower cap.
PNG
media_image3.png
390
536
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 9, Amazon Thermos Jar discloses the jar of claim 1, wherein the container has threads located on an exterior side (as seen in figure 1) thereof and the cap assembly has threads located on an interior side thereof (not depicted but understood as being present in order to allow for mating of the lower cap on the container), the threads located on the exterior side of the container and the threads located on the interior side of the cap assembly being interactable to render the cap assembly releasably attachable to the container.
With respect to claim 10, Amazon Thermos Jar discloses the jar of claim 0, wherein the upper cap has threads located on an interior side (not depicted but understood as being present in order to allow for mating of the upper cap on the depicted threads of the lower cap) thereof and the lower cap has threads located on an exterior side thereof (as seen in figure 1), the threads located on the interior side of the upper cap and the threads located on the exterior side of the lower cap being interactable to render the upper cap releasably attachable to the lower cap.
With respect to claim 11, Amazon Thermos Jar discloses the jar of claim 0, wherein the upper cap has threads located on an interior side (not depicted but understood as being present in order to allow for mating of the upper cap on the depicted threads of the lower cap) thereof and the lower cap has threads located on an exterior side thereof (as seen in figure 1), the threads located on the interior side of the upper cap and the threads located on the exterior side of the lower cap being interactable to render the upper cap releasably attachable to the lower cap.
With respect to claim 14, Amazon Thermos Jar discloses the jar of claim 0, the container further comprising an opening (top of the container) and the lower cap (figure 1) further comprising an upper surface that covers the opening in the container when the cap assembly is releasably attached to the container.
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over No Byong (KR 20090065146 A) in view of D’Andrea (US 6102209 A).
With respect to claim 3, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the upper cap further includes a lid surface that is all or partially transparent such that at least a portion of the applicator can be seen through the lid surface while the cap assembly is fully assembled with the upper cap attached to the lower cap with the applicator located between the upper cap and the lower cap. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely cosmetic containers, D’Andrea taught of a cosmetic container with a fully transparent lid to enable viewing of contents (abstract and column 1 lines 5-10). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover/container of No Byong to be transparent as taught by D’Andrea in order to allow for easy viewing of contents.
Examiner Note: Fully transparent cosmetic containers are common in the art. Refer to Temu Reusable Loose Powder Container for an example.
With respect to claim 6, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the upper cap further includes a lid surface that is all or partially transparent such that at least a portion of the applicator can be seen through the lid surface while the cap assembly is fully assembled with the upper cap attached to the lower cap with the applicator located between the upper cap and the lower cap. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely cosmetic containers, D’Andrea taught of a cosmetic container with a fully transparent lid to enable viewing of contents (abstract and column 1 lines 5-10). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover/container of No Byong to be transparent as taught by D’Andrea in order to allow for easy viewing of contents.
Examiner Note: Fully transparent cosmetic containers are common in the art. Refer to Temu Reusable Loose Powder Container for an example.
With respect to claim 15, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein at least a portion of the upper surface of the lower cap is transparent. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely cosmetic containers, D’Andrea taught of a cosmetic container with a fully transparent lid to enable viewing of contents (abstract and column 1 lines 5-10). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cover/container of No Byong to be transparent as taught by D’Andrea in order to allow for easy viewing of contents.
Examiner Note: Fully transparent cosmetic containers are common in the art. Refer to Temu Reusable Loose Powder Container for an example.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-6102209-A OR KR-20090065146-A OR KR-20220141087-A OR KR-102435684-B1 OR KR-102029097-B1 OR KR-20170097962-A OR KR-20150008798-A OR KR-20130001984-U OR KR-200396886-Y1 OR KR-20240092390-A OR US-20170079408-A1 OR US-20060037886-A1
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/S.K.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3735
/ERNESTO A GRANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3735