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 .
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) 1-4, 6-7, 9-11, 13-15, 19, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Demellier (US 7429140).
Regarding claim 1, Demellier discloses a packaging device for a product, optionally a cosmetic product, comprising a sleeve (3) having an open end, a support (4) for a container (2) of the product, movable in the sleeve between a retracted position (Fig. 3) wherein the container is housed in the sleeve and a released position (Fig. 5) in which the container extends beyond the sleeve, an actuator (8) distinct from the sleeve and able to be driven in rotation (when pin 7 moves in track 10) in a nominal stroke to cause the movement of the support, a return system (14) configured to return the support towards the released position and a stop (13) provided so as to limit the stroke of the actuator relative to the nominal stroke when the support is in the released position.
Regarding claim 2, Demellier discloses the packaging device according to claim 1, wherein the return system is configured to return the support towards the released position in a first direction and the actuator is configured to be driven in rotation in a second direction different from the first direction, orthogonal to the first direction (spring 14 biases in the longitudinal direction while actuator 8 rotates about the longitudinal axis).
Regarding claim 3, Demellier discloses the packaging device according to claim 1, wherein said stop forms a second stop and the packaging device further comprises a first stop (11) provided so as to limit the movement of the support under the influence of the return system when the support is in the retracted position.
Regarding claim 4, Demellier discloses the packaging device according to claim 1, wherein said return system forms a first return system, and the packaging device further comprises a second return system (14) configured to return the support towards the retracted position (the spring 14 biases the sleeve from the position of Fig. 6 to the retracted position of Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, Demellier discloses the packaging device according to claim 4, wherein the return force exerted by the first return system is greater than or equal to the return force exerted by the second return system (the return forces are equal because they are exerted by the same spring).
Regarding claim 7, Demellier discloses the packaging device according to claim 4, wherein the first return system and the second return system are formed by a same prestressed elastic component (14).
Regarding claim 9, Demellier discloses the packaging device according to claim 1, wherein the orientation of the support relative to the sleeve is maintained between the retracted position and the released position (the support cannot rotate relative to the sleeve due to the square shape of element 6 and the corresponding shape of the end of sleeve 3).
Regarding claim 10, Demellier discloses the packaging device according to claim 1, wherein a first element (7) among the support and the actuator engages with a guide (10) of a second element among the support and the actuator.
Regarding claim 11, Demellier discloses the packaging device according to claim 10, wherein the guide has a first portion (11 to 12) corresponding to the nominal stroke of the actuator and a second portion (12 to 13), connected to the first portion, corresponding to the movement of the support in the sleeve under the influence of the return system.
Regarding claim 13, Demellier discloses the packaging device according to claim 1, further comprising a product container (2), including a lipstick mechanism, provided on the support
Regarding claim 14, Demellier discloses the packaging device according to claim 13, wherein the product container is a lipstick mechanism (2).
Regarding claim 15, Demellier discloses the packaging device according to claim 1, wherein an available rotational stroke of the actuator in the released position of the support is less than an available rotation stroke of the actuator in the retracted position of the support (in the released position, the actuator has no more room to rotate while the actuator has space to rotate in the retracted position; compare Figs. 3 and 5).
Regarding claim 19, Demellier discloses the packaging device according claim 1, further comprising a cap (6) cooperating with the support (cap 6 is pressed against support 4 to move the support from the release position to the retracted position) and configured to be housed in the sleeve (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 21, Demellier discloses the packaging device according to claim 13, wherein the product container is detachable from the support for application of the cosmetic product when the support is in the released position (Demellier col. 2, ll. 26-29), optionally wherein the product container has a mechanism for at least one of distribution or vaporization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12, 16-18, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-6, filed 19 December 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Demellier as discussed above.
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