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 .
Amendment received on December 10, 2025 has been acknowledged. Therefore, claims 22-26, 42-47 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim status should be “currently amended”. Also line 10 contains an extra “a”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 22-23, 42, 45-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gueret (US 5,301,697).
Regarding claim 22, Gueret teaches an applicator assembly (1) for delivering a chemical composition in an active state (Col 2, Ln 28-37; since the disclosure does not define active, active is interpreted as chemical composition that is not deteriorated before use), comprising an insert (4) comprising an insert body (Fig 1), a handle portion (41) and an applicator portion (42), the insert body made of a first material (Col 2, Ln 44-45) and separable from the applicator assembly (Col 3, Ln 50-51); a chemical composition (P) applied to the insert body (Col 3, Ln 42-49), wherein the chemical composition comprises one or more of a cosmetic (Col 1, Ln 14), a health, or a hygiene product; a wrapper enclosing the insert body (121, 122, 150), wherein the wrapper protects the insert body (Col 3, Ln 55-63); wherein the handle portion is isolated from the chemical composition and remains clean for handling when the applicator assembly is opened (Col 3, Ln 32-46; therefore the handle portion is isolated from the chemical composition and remains clean for handling); and a substantially sealed border (33 & 32 Fig 1 or 103 & 102, Fig 3) a wherein the substantially sealed border aligns with the applicator portion to maintain the insert body in position within the wrapper (as shown in Fig 1 or 3).
Gueret further teaches in claim 23 wherein the chemical composition is dispensed in an active state during manufacturing and remains in the active state when the applicator assembly is opened (Col 2, Ln 28-37 and Col 3, Ln 64-68; since the disclosure does not define active state, active state is interpreted as chemical composition that is not deteriorated before use, and since the applicator is sealed, the chemical composition is considered remaining in active state);
in claim 42 wherein the substantially sealed border (33 & 32 Fig 1 or 103 & 102, Fig 3) aligns with the applicator portion to maintain the insert body in an offset position within the wrapper (as shown in Fig 2 & 3, insert body is in an offset position within the wrapper and cannot be moved);
in claim 45 wherein the insert body comprises a plastic substrate (Col 2, Ln 44-45), and the applicator portion is configured to transfer the chemical composition from a surface of the plastic substrate (Col 3, Ln 32-49);
in claim 46 wherein the applicator portion of the insert comprises a set amount of the chemical composition (Col 1, Ln 59-68 to Col 2, Ln 1-3); and
in claim 47 wherein the chemical composition contains one or more of an amorphous silica, a white adhesive agent, a coloring agent, an aromatic preservative agent, a bulking agent, a sealing agent and a preservative agent (Col 2, Ln 28-43).
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(s) 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gueret, in view of Khan et al (US 9,113,692, cited in IDS), hereinafter Khan.
Regarding claims 24, Gueret teaches substantially all features of the claimed invention except for a set amount of the chemical composition corresponding to a single dose, applied to the applicator portion of the insert body, which comprises multiple cyclic groups for even distribution of the chemical composition across a surface of the first material.
Attention is directed to Khan that teaches in claim 24 a set amount of the chemical composition corresponding to a single dose, applied to the applicator portion of the insert body, which comprises multiple cyclic groups (14a-14e) for even distribution of the chemical composition across a surface of the first material (Col 5, Ln 51-56);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a set amount of multiple cyclic groups of the single chemical composition corresponding to a single dose for even distribution of the chemical composition across a surface of the first material, in view of Khan's teaching. Multiple cyclic groups are often used in cosmetic compositions for aesthetic effects.
Regarding claim 25, in addition to the limitations of claim 22, the already modified applicator assembly further teaches wherein the chemical composition includes an aromatic preservative agent that comprises aromatic properties configured to control scent and prevent growth of microorganisms (Khan: Col 9, Ln 23-25);
Regarding claim 26, in addition to the limitations of claim 22, the already modified applicator assembly further teaches wherein the chemical composition is applied to the first material during manufacturing and undergoes controlled evaporation (Khan: Abstract).
Claim(s) 43-44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gueret.
Regarding claim 43, Gueret fails to teach an embossed border formed by substantially sealing a top sheet material to a bottom sheet material. Instead, Gueret teaches a basic border formed by sealing a top sheet material to a bottom sheet material (Fig 3).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an embossed border formed by substantially sealing a top sheet material to a bottom sheet material. Applicant has not disclosed the embossed border 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 Gueret’s packaging method and the applicant’s invention to perform equally well because both types of packaging are equally capable of sealing an applicator assembly.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gueret to obtain the invention as claimed because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Gueret.
Regarding claim 44, Gueret fails to teach wherein the insert comprises a single body without a separately defined handle portion or applicator portion. Instead, Gueret teaches an insert body with defined handle and applicator portions (4, Fig 1).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use an insert with undefined applicator and handle portions. Applicant has not disclosed that having this feature 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 Gueret and the applicant’s invention to perform equally well as claimed because both are equally capable of performing as an applicator insert.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gueret to obtain the invention as specified in claim 44 because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Gueret.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on December 10, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Shim does not teach the amended limitations as recited in the amended claims. See remarks section. Nevertheless, applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection as discussed supra.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER C CHIANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5613. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10 AM- 6 PM 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, Paul Durand can be reached at (571) 272-4459. 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.
/JENNIFER C CHIANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3754