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 .
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 following features must be shown or the features cancelled. No new matter should be entered.
The camera 48, as claimed in claim 2.
The motor, as claimed in claims 8 and 13.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “20” has been used to designate both the drive member and the cosmetic container (refer to, at least, fig. 4). 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. 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 Objections
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “interchangeable permit selected ones of the cosmetic substances,” is not proper idiomatic English, resulting in uncertainty of the quantity or selection of the claimed features. The examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “interchangeable permit at least one of the cosmetic substances”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 2 is 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 limitation "the free ends of the robotic arms" in ll. 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner recommends amending the claim by removing the plural endings of both the “free ends” and “robotic arms.”
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 12 improperly establishes dependency to itself. The examiner recommends amending the claim to depend from claim 11 in order to properly establish antecedent basis. As such, claim 12 is being interpretated by the examiner as depending from and further limiting claim 11 for the purposes of advancing prosecution. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dauga et al. (US 7648364 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Dauga discloses a cosmetic application device comprising:
a robotic arm (articulated assembly 10);
a processor operatively (central processing unit 3) coupled to the robotic arm (fig. 1 and col. 5 ll. 45-49);
a cosmetic container coupled to the robotic arm (area of head 11 which houses removable cartridges 25, 26, 27 and 28), the cosmetic container being configured to hold a cosmetic substance (col. 6 ll. 49-58 and col. 9 ll. 57-67);
a dispensing tube (tube 29, 30, 31, 32) in fluid communication with the cosmetic container (col. 6 ll. 49-58), the dispensing tube being mounted in the robotic arm (refer to fig. 2), the dispensing tube having an open end at a free end of the robotic arm (open end is locate before the nozzle 21, 22, 23, and 24, located at the free end of articulated assembly 10);
a pump in fluid communication with the cosmetic container and the dispensing
tube (col. 6 l. 64 to col. 7 l. 12 describing pumping means), the pump being operatively coupled to the processor (col. 7 ll. 3-8), the pump being configured to selectively urge the cosmetic substances from the cosmetic container and through the dispensing tube (col. 7 ll. 35-48, wherein the processor determines the amount of substance required, such that the pumping means can urge the required amount of each substance from cartridges 25, 26, 27, and 28).
Regarding claim 2, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Dauga further discloses comprising a camera (camera 1) operatively coupled to the processor, the processor having programming to determine locations of the free ends of the robotic arms with respect to a user via images captured by the camera (col. 8 ll. 8-12).
Regarding claim 3, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Dauga further discloses an applicator attachment (head 11) attachable to the robotic arm at the free end thereof (refer to fig. 1), the applicator attachment defining a channel which extends therethrough (refer to fig. 2, wherein the channel is the internal fluid communication between the outlet of the nozzle and the inlet of the tube), the channel of the applicator attachment being in fluid communication with the dispensing tube when attached to the robotic arm (necessary for dispensation, fig. 2, col. 6 ll. 49-58 and col. 6 l. 64 to col. 7 l. 8).
Regarding claim 4, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Dauga further discloses further comprising a display (touch screen 5) operatively coupled to the processor (col. 3 ll. 52-65).
Regarding claim 5, in addition to the limitations of claim 4, Dauga further discloses wherein the display includes a touch screen input for inputting instructions to the processor (col. 3 ll. 52-65, wherein the keyboard 6 is replaced by touch screen 5 for carrying out commands).
Regarding claim 7, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Dauga further discloses wherein the robotic arm comprises a plurality of arm segments (arms 12 and 13) and a plurality of drive members (articulations 14, 15 and 16), the drive members of the robotic arm being configured to urge the arm segments of the robotic arm to move with respect to each other (fig. 2 and col. 4 ll. 3-11, wherein the movement of the head relative to the case inherently imparts motion between arm segments.)
Regarding claim 8, in addition to the limitations of claim 7, Dauga further discloses wherein the arm segments of the robotic arm are pivotably coupled to each other, each drive member of the robotic arm comprising a motor (col. 4 ll. 3-11, wherein the articulations are motorized).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dauga et al. (US 7648364 B2) in view of Harding et al. (US 11006733 B2) .
Regarding claim 6, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Dauga further discloses the robotic arm configured to apply the cosmetic substance to a user but remains silent to a chair, the robotic arm being mounted to the chair, the robotic arm configured to apply the cosmetic substance to a user sitting in the chair. Harding teaches a chair (chair 302), the robotic arm being mounted to the chair (col. 4 ll. 7-15), and the application of cosmetics to a user sitting in the chair (col. 4 ll. 7-15).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device to be mounted to a chair. Dauga contemplates the mounting of the robotic arm onto any suitable surface (Dauga: col. 3 l. 66 to col. 7 l. 2) and in mounting the device to the chair, it advantageous allows for a consistent and stable environment improving application accuracy and safety of the user.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dauga et al. (US 7648364 B2) in view of Herre et al. (US 9089864 B2).
Regarding claim 9, in addition to the limitations of claim 1, Dauga already discloses wherein the cosmetic container is configured to hold a plurality of cosmetic substances (portion of head 11 in which cartridges are located, holds a plurality of cosmetic substances via multiple cartridges 25-28) and the pump. However, Dauga remains silent an input valve manifold in fluid communication with the cosmetic container and the pump, the input valve manifold being operatively coupled to the processor, the input valve manifold being configured to interchangeably permit selected ones of the cosmetic substances to move from the cosmetic container to the pump.
Herre teaches an input valve manifold (valves within docking carriage 16) in fluid communication with a container (color bar 12) configured to hold a plurality of liquid substances (plurality of colored paints, col. 10 ll. 22-33), the input valve manifold being operatively coupled to the processor (control signal, col. 4 ll. 52-64), the input valve manifold being configured to interchangeably permit selected ones of the fluid substances to move from the container to the pump (col. 4 ll. 52-64 ,col. 17 ll. 41-63, and fig. 13A-G). It is the examiner’s position that, the device of Herre is analogous to that of applicant’s as both devices utilize robotics/automation for the dispensing of pigments and solve the problem of automated application to a surface.
It would have been prima facie obvious to modify the pumping system of Dauga to the manifold and pumping system of Herre before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Dauga contemplates a pumping and valve means with selective actuation of a desired cartridge (Dauga, col. 7 ll. 35-48, where a means for selectively permitting flow is described), however, does not further specify the exact means for achieving this result (see Dauga, col. 6 l. 64 to col. 7 l. 12, wherein pumping is described). The structure of Herre satisfies the aforementioned function of Dauga without undue modification of its mode of operation, by permitting fluid flow based on a desired order and mix (refer to Herre, figs. 13A-G). Implementing the pump and manifold assemblies of Herre into that of Dauga would allow for the pumping of cosmetics (for example, pigments or dyes, Dauga col. 9 l. 61 to col. 10 l. 43) in a desired sequence and with a reasonable expectation of success (as pigment does not significantly differ in viscosity from paint, and the dispenser of Dauga allows for implementations of heating means to alter viscosity, Dauga: col. 7 ll. 13-18). Furthermore, the manifold and pumping system of Herre can be implemented with the source lines of the cartridges of Dauga, allowing for integration with existing systems.
Regarding claim 10, in addition to the limitations of claim 9, Dauga further discloses wherein the cosmetic container comprises a housing and a plurality of cartridges removably mountable in the housing (refer to col. 6 ll. 49-58 for the removability of cartridges and fig. 2),
each cartridge of the plurality of cartridges defining an interior space configured to contain an associated cosmetic substance of the plurality of cosmetic substances (internal space of cartridges 25-28 contain respective cosmetic substances), each cartridge of the plurality of cartridges defining an outlet for facilitating the release of the associated
cosmetic substance (refer to the annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
564
637
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 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 as well as resolving any/all pertinent rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d).
Claim 13 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Among other references, US 7648364 B2 discloses the features of claims 1-5 and 7-8, however, remains silent to both the input valve manifold being configured to interchangeably permit selected ones of the cosmetic substances to move from the cosmetic container to the pump. US 20110262622 A1 teaches arrangements of input and output valve manifolds (see figs. 3-21), however, these references alone, nor in combination, teach the input valve manifold being configured interchangeably permit selected substances to move from the container to the pump and the output valve manifold being selectively configured to permit substances to move from the pump to a selected one of the plurality of dispensing tubes. Combination of the aforementioned references would be impermissible as modification of both the input and output valve manifolds together changes the mode of operation of the base prior art reference, US 7648364 B2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Herre et al. (US 20110262622 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER STEVEN PARISI whose telephone number is (571)270-5490. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00 EST.
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.
/CHRISTOPHER S. PARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 3754
/DAVID P ANGWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3754