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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 18 December 2025 has been entered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the power source and heat source recited in claim 21 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9-11, 13, 16-17, 20-22, 24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the applicator, the handle, and the head having no dispensing apertures and no internal reservoir and are configured to not store to dispense creams, lotions, or gels” in lines 3-5. Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the applicator pad comprises non-porous food grade or higher grade silicone or food grade or higher grade rubber” in lines 21-22. Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the applicator pad comprises no pores adapted to permit skincare product to be applied by way of ejection or expulsion from the applicator head or handle”.
These limitations are unsupported negative limitations.
Per MPEP 2173.05(i), any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure. If alternative elements are positively recited in the specification, they may be explicitly excluded in the claims. See In re Johnson, 558 F.2d 1008, 1019, 194 USPQ 187, 196 (CCPA 1977) ("[the] specification, having described the whole, necessarily described the part remaining."). See also Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983), aff’d mem., 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In describing alternative features, the applicant need not articulate advantages or disadvantages of each feature in order to later exclude the alternative features. See Inphi Corporation v. Netlist, Inc., 805 F.3d 1350, 1356-57, 116 USPQ2d 2006, 2010-11 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion. However, a lack of literal basis in the specification for a negative limitation may not be sufficient to establish a prima facie case for lack of descriptive support. Ex parte Parks, 30 USPQ2d 1234, 1236 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1993). "Rather, as with positive limitations, the disclosure must only 'reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.' ... While silence will not generally suffice to support a negative claim limitation, there may be circumstances in which it can be established that a skilled artisan would understand a negative limitation to necessarily be present in a disclosure." Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., 38 F.4th 1013, 2022 USPQ2d 569 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (quoting Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 589 F.3d 1336, 1351, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1172). Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicant has not pointed to any support for these negative limitations, nor can examiner find any support.
Regarding the limitation “the applicator, the handle, and the head having no dispensing apertures and no internal reservoir and are configured to not store to dispense creams, lotions, or gels,” the closest support Examiner can find is in paragraph 0032 of the published specification, which says “the handle 110 may be solid, or it may container, or be configured to allow the loading or input of, skincare product”. This is not sufficient support for the claim limitation because it only discloses an option of the handle being solid. There is no similar disclosure regarding the applicator or the head.
Regarding the limitations “wherein the applicator pad comprises non-porous food grade or higher grade silicone or food grade or higher grade rubber” and “wherein the applicator pad comprises no pores adapted to permit skincare product to be applied by way of ejection or expulsion from the applicator head or handle,” Examiner was unable to find any disclosure that the applicator head is non-porous. The closest disclosure to the claim limitations is in paragraph 0041 of the published specification, which says “The applicator pad 130 may be impermeable/unabsorbent, absorbent, hydrophilic, or hydrophobic.” Impermeable and non-porous are not the same.
Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claims to remove the unsupported limitations or by pointing out where and how the original disclosure supports these limitations.
Claims 2, 7, 9, 11, 13, 16-17, 20-22, 24, and 26 are rejected as inheriting the defect(s) of their respective parent claim(s).
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, 13, 16, and 21 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 limitations "the applicator pad" and “the applicator head” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 21 recites the limitations "the operable connection between the power source and heat source" in line 2-3. There is insufficient 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 (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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 10, 13, 24, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belleau (US 5842488) in view of Norris (US 2006/0085937), Messer (US 6129469) and Nelson (US 11986078)
Regarding claim 1, Belleau teaches an apparatus for applying a skincare product to skin of the facial skin of a user, the apparatus comprising: an applicator including a handle (22) and an applicator head (34), the applicator, the handle and the head having no dispensing apertures and no internal reservoir and are configured to not store or dispense creams, lotions, or gels, and an applicator pad (108) configured to be replaceable and removably fit around the applicator head,
Belleau does not teach that (a) the applicator pad includes an adhesive configured to stick to the applicator head and/or (b) the applicator pad is configured to create a vacuum between the applicator pad and the applicator head by creating a seal and being compressible so as to expel air from a closed cavity between the applicator pad and the applicator head; that the applicator pad includes at least one side that is textured and comprises a series of raised bumps adapted to hygienically contact the skin of the facial skin of the user, assist in the efficient application of the skincare product to the skin, and minimize waste of the skincare product, wherein the at least one side of the applicator pad that is textured and comprises a series of raised bumps has a surface that is circular or oval in shape, and wherein the series of raised bumps include raised bumps that are positioned spaced apart at or near the periphery of the circular of oval shape on the surface, and raised bumps that are positioned inside the raised bumps positioned spaced apart around the periphery, wherein the raised bumps positioned at or near the periphery of the circular or oval shape on the surface are symmetrically positioned relative to one-another on the applicator pad, or that the applicator pad comprises non-porous food grade or higher grade silicone or food grade of higher grade rubber.
Norris teaches an applicator pad (20) that includes an adhesive (double sided tape 26) configured to stick to an applicator head (18).
Messer teaches an applicator pad (26) that includes at least one side that is textured and comprises a series of raised bumps (27) adapted to hygienically contact the skin of the facial skin of the user, assist in the efficient application of the skincare product to the skin, and minimize waste of the skincare product, wherein the at least one side of the applicator pad that is textured and comprises a series of raised bumps has a surface that is circular or oval in shape (Fig. 3), and wherein the series of raised bumps include raised bumps that are positioned spaced apart at or near the periphery of the circular of oval shape on the surface, and raised bumps that are positioned inside the raised bumps positioned spaced apart around the periphery, wherein the raised bumps positioned at or near the periphery of the circular or oval shape on the surface are symmetrically positioned relative to one-another on the applicator pad (Fig. 3).
Nelson teaches an applicator pad (10) that comprises non-porous food grade or higher silicone (15, see col. 4, ll. 57-66).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Belleau such that the applicator pad includes an adhesive configured to stick to the applicator head as taught by Norris for the purpose of providing the applicator pad with redundant releasable attachment means.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applicator pad of Belleau such that the applicator pad includes at least one side that is textured and comprises a series of raised bumps adapted to hygienically contact the skin of the facial skin of the user, assist in the efficient application of the skincare product to the skin, and minimize waste of the skincare product, wherein the at least one side of the applicator pad that is textured and comprises a series of raised bumps has a surface that is circular or oval in shape, and wherein the series of raised bumps include raised bumps that are positioned spaced apart at or near the periphery of the circular of oval shape on the surface, and raised bumps that are positioned inside the raised bumps positioned spaced apart around the periphery, wherein the raised bumps positioned at or near the periphery of the circular or oval shape on the surface are symmetrically positioned relative to one-another on the applicator pad as taught by Messer for the purpose of enabling the pad to spread a lotion, soap or oil smoothly and evenly (Messer col. 5, ll. 58-60).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the applicator pad of Belleau to comprise non-porous food grade or higher silicone as taught by Nelson, wherein doing so would merely be a matter of selecting a known material known to be suitable for use as an applicator pad.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Belleau, Norris, Messer, and Nelson teaches a method for application of a skincare product to the facial skin of a user, the method comprising: attaching the applicator pad around the applicator head (Belleau, Fig. 1) of the apparatus of claim 1; applying a first skincare product to the applicator pad (Belleau, col. 5, ll. 57-58); applying the skincare product to face of a person using the applicator (Belleau, “apply lotion to areas of the body that are difficult for the user to reach”, col. 5, ll. 48-50; it is noted that for some people, the face can be difficult to reach), the application including pivoting the head of the applicator relative to a handle of the applicator (Belleau, via 69); and either: (a) cleaning the applicator pad to remove any excess first skincare product or contamination from the face of the person without removing the applicator pad from the applicator head (Nelson, col. 6, ll. 44-53); and either (i) applying a second skincare product to the applicator pad and applying the second skincare product to the face of the person using the applicator (Nelson col. 1, ll. 47-52); or (ii) applying the first skincare product to the applicator pad and applying the firs skincare product to the face of a second person using the applicator; or (b) cleaning the applicator pad to remove any excess first skincare product or contamination from the face of the person by removing the applicator pad from the applicator head and subjecting it to hygienic cleaning; and either (i) applying a second skincare product to the applicator pad and applying the second skincare product to the face of the person using the applicator; or (ii) applying the first skincare product to the applicator pad and applying the first skincare product to the face of a second person using the applicator.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the applicator pad comprises no pores (Nelson, col. 4, ll. 57-59) adapted to permit skincare product to be applied by way of ejection or expulsion from the applicator head or the handle.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson teaches the method of claim 2, wherein attaching the applicator pad to the head of the applicator includes wrapping the applicator pad around the head of the applicator (Belleau, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach that about 28% of the total raised bumps on the applicator pad are positioned inside of the raised bumps that are positioned spaced-apart at or near the periphery.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the applicator pad of Messer such that about 28% of the total raised bumps on the applicator pad are positioned inside of the raised bumps that are positioned spaced-apart at or near the periphery because Applicant has not disclosed that the relative number of bumps positioned inside provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the combination and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the approximately 46% of the total raised bumps on the applicator pad are positioned inside of the raised bumps that are positioned spaced-apart at or near the periphery taught by Messer or the claimed 28% of the total raised bumps on the applicator pad are positioned inside of the raised bumps that are positioned spaced-apart at or near the periphery because both applicator pads are equally capable of applying a product to a user.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the applicator pad of Messer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 24 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson teaches the apparatus of claim 24, but does not teach that the raised bumps positioned inside of the raised bumps that are positioned spaced-apart at or near the periphery are positioned such that together they form a diamond shape on the applicator pad inside of the raised bumps that are positioned spaced-apart at or near the periphery.
At the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the applicator pad of Messer such that the raised bumps positioned inside of the raised bumps that are positioned spaced-apart at or near the periphery are positioned such that together they form a diamond shape because Applicant has not disclosed that the shape formed by the bumps provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected the combination and the applicant's invention to perform equally well with either the bumps taught by Messer or the claimed raised bumps positioned inside of the raised bumps that are positioned spaced-apart at or near the periphery are positioned such that together they form a diamond shape because both applicator pads are equally capable of applying a product to a user.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the applicator pad of Messer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 26 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson.
Claim(s) 7, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and further in view of Tapper (US 2006/0010625).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach that the applicator handle or applicator head are configured to vibrate.
Tapper teaches an applicator wherein the applicator handle or applicator head are configured to vibrate (via 28 or 30).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Belleau such that the applicator handle or applicator head are configured to vibrate as taught by Tapper for the purpose of stimulating blood flow (Tapper, ¶0052).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson teaches the method of claim 2, but does not teach that the skincare product is applied to the applicator pad prior to attaching the applicator pad to the head of the applicator.
Tapper teaches that a skincare product is applied to the applicator pad prior to attaching the applicator pad to the head of the applicator (¶0068).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have replaced the reservoir and applicator pad of Belleau with a pad where that the skincare product is applied to the applicator pad prior to attaching the applicator pad to the head of the applicator as taught by Tapper for the purpose of being able to use disposable applicator pads (Tapper, ¶0068).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson teaches a kit comprising: the apparatus of claim 1; wherein the applicator pad is configured to removably attach to the applicator head by fitting around the applicator head, the applicator pad being configured to apply a skincare product to facial skin of a user.
The combination does not teach a plurality of applicator pads.
Tapper teaches providing a plurality of applicator pads (16).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Belleau with a plurality of pads as taught by Tapper for the purpose of enabling a user to replace the applicator pad if it becomes soiled (Tapper ¶0069).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nakamura (US 2012/0180808).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach that the applicator pad further comprises an antibacterial covering.
Nakamura teaches an applicator pad (5) with an antibacterial covering (¶0053).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the applicator pad of Belleau with an antibacterial covering as taught by Nakamura for the purpose of preventing the applicator pad from developing a foul smell (Nakamura, ¶0053).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McKay (2002/0083964).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach that the applicator pad has a surface that enables a film or surface to be removed from the applicator pad.
McKay teaches an applicator pad (226) that has a surface that enables a surface to be removed from the applicator pad (the outermost sheet may be peeled off to reveal the next sheet).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the applicator pad of Belleau such that it has a surface that enables a film or surface to be removed from the applicator pad as taught by McKay for the purpose of enabling a user to remove the outermost surface when it becomes soiled (McKay, (¶0007).
Claim(s) 17 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messer and Nelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rhoades (US 7384405).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach that the applicator head and/or the applicator pad include a material configured to produce or retain heat or cold.
Rhoades teaches an applicator head (120, 140) that includes a material configured to produce or retain heat or cold (col. 17, ll. 39-67 and col. 18, ll. 1-53).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the applicator head of Messer with a material configured to produce or retain heat or cold as taught by Rhoades for the purpose of soothing the skin (Rhoades, col. 18, ll. 2-3).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Belleau, Norris, Messer, and Nelson, teaches the apparatus of claim 18, wherein the applicator head is attachable/detachable from the handle (Belleau Fig. 1A) but does not teach that the operable connection between the power source and heat source is established when the applicator head is attached to the handle.
Rhoades teaches a connection between a power source (batteries, see Fig. 3) and heat source (coils, col. 17, ll. 61-64) that is established when the head is attached to the handle (this is required for the heat source to be operable).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Belleau such that an operable connection between the power source and heat source is established when the applicator head is attached to the handle as taught by Rhoades for the purpose of soothing a user’s skin (Rhoades, col. 18, ll. 2-3).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gueret (US 7959369).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Belleau, Norris, Messer and Nelson teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not teach a heating block or cooling block configured to receive and store the applicator head.
Gueret teaches an applicator with a cooling block (refrigerator) configured to receive and store the applicator head (col. 3, ll. 47-49).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided the device of Belleau with a cooling block configured to receive and store the applicator head as taught by Gueret for the purpose of cooling the applicator head to impart a relaxing effect (Gueret, col. 3, line 2).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Messer does not teach a removable pad. This argument is moot because the newly cited Belleau reference is relied upon to teach this feature.
Applicant argues that applying the non-porous silicone coating of Nelson to a removeable pad like that of Belleau is impermissible hindsight.
Examiner disagrees. Nelson teaches that a non-porous, food-grade silicone coating is suitable for an applicator that will come into contact with a user’s face in col. 4, ll. 57-66. One of ordinary skill would be able to apply that teaching to a wide range of applicators, including the applicator pad of Belleau.
Applicant argues that Messer does not teach a symmetrical positioning of the raised bumps.
Examiner disagrees. Figure 3 of Messer clearly shows a symmetrical arrangement of bumps. Furthermore, Applicant has not established that the percentage of bumps interior to the periphery has any particular effect. The distribution of the bumps is not discussed at all in the specification. Arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). In this case, there is no evidence that the distribution of the bumps of the shape made by the bumps solves any particular problem or provides any particular advantage.
Applicant argues that Messer does not teach that the applicator, the handle and the head lack dispensing apertures and internal reservoirs.
In response, it is noted that the Belleau reference is relied upon to teach these features.
Applicant argues that Messer does not teach adhesive or vacuum sealing.
In response, it is noted that the newly cited Norris reference teaches adhesive.
Applicant argues that Nelson’s pores would trap skincare products.
Examiner disagrees. Nelson teaches a silicone coating that “prevents the material forming the body from absorbing any cosmetics products being applied with the cosmetics applicator into the pores of the material of the body. This design minimizes cross-contamination between different types of makeup during normal use, reduces the amount of makeup wasted that is not applied to a user's skin, and also makes the present applicator easier to clean after use compared to both conventional brushes and sponges.” in col. 2, ll. 12-20. Applicant’s argument contradicts the teachings of Nelson and is therefore unpersuasive.
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 asserted art does not teach hermetically sealed storage for hygienic pads) 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).
Applicant argues that Tapper is not analogous to the claimed invention.
A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). Note that "same field of endeavor" and "reasonably pertinent" are two separate tests for establishing analogous art; it is not necessary for a reference to fulfill both tests in order to qualify as analogous art. See Bigio, 381 F.3d at 1325, 72 USPQ2d at 1212. In this case, Tapper is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention: the field of skincare applicators.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY S OLIVER whose telephone number is (571)270-3787. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3 ET.
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, David Angwin can be reached at (571)270-3735. 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.
/BRADLEY S OLIVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754
Prosecution Insights