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 Claims 9-13 in the reply filed on 3/4/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-8 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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 9-13 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Claim 9 depends upon withdrawn claim 1, making it indefinite. Correction is required.
Claim 12 includes that the ink is removed from the surface of the cosmetic after 4-10 contacts. This is defining the invention by the intended results and not the steps performed. As the method steps necessary to perform this result are not present in the claim, any method that meets the claim will be considered to meet this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 2004-0087095 A, hereafter KR 2004 (citations taken from attached Google translated document).
As to claim 9, KR 2004 applies an ink composition to the surface of a cosmetic using an inkjet printing method (abstract) where the composition includes a water-soluble pigment (middle of p4), a water miscible organic solvent (p3), and a glyceryl ester or silicone-based surfactant (bottom of p3/top of p 4).
As to claim 12, the physical property of contacts to use the composition naturally flows from the claimed method as discussed above. Thus, as KR 2004 teaches the method, it also teaches this claim limitation.
As to claim 13, the cosmetic is of a solid powder or oil-based formulation (abstract, p 1).
Claim(s) 9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Urashima et al. (US 2020/0095441 A1, hereafter Urashima)
As to claim 9, Urashima applies an ink composition to the surface of a cosmetic using an inkjet printing method (abstract) where the composition includes a water-soluble pigment (para 0026-0031), a water miscible organic solvent (para 0033-0034), and a glyceryl ester or silicone-based surfactant (para 0037 and silicone can be used as a dispersant- a type of surfactant material- in para 0020).
As to claim 12, the physical property of contacts to use the composition naturally flows from the claimed method as discussed above. Thus, as Urashima teaches the method, it also teaches this claim limitation.
As to claim 13, the cosmetic is of a solid powder or oil-based formulation (para 0042).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 2004 in view of KR 2020-0077971A (hereafter KR 2020)
KR 2004 teaches pretreatment of cosmetics (claims) but not plasma treatment. KR 2020 teaches pretreating cosmetics before other coatings are applied by atmospheric plasma in order to improve the coating properties and process efficiency (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify KR 2004 to include atmospheric plasma pretreatment as taught by KR 2020 in order to improve the coating properties and process efficiency.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Urashima in view of KR 2020-0077971A (hereafter KR 2020)
Urashima does not teach plasma treatment. KR 2020 teaches pretreating cosmetics before other coatings are applied by atmospheric plasma in order to improve the coating properties and process efficiency (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Urashima to include atmospheric plasma pretreatment as taught by KR 2020 in order to improve the coating properties and process efficiency.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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.
KELLY M. GAMBETTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1718
/KELLY M GAMBETTA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights