Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/955,128

COSMETIC CONTAINER

Non-Final OA §102§112
Filed
Nov 21, 2024
Examiner
NOBREGA, TATIANA L
Art Unit
3799
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Tokiwa Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
33%
Grant Probability
At Risk
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
92%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants only 33% of cases
33%
Career Allow Rate
184 granted / 561 resolved
-37.2% vs TC avg
Strong +59% interview lift
Without
With
+58.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
52 currently pending
Career history
613
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.9%
-39.1% vs TC avg
§103
40.9%
+0.9% vs TC avg
§102
25.9%
-14.1% vs TC avg
§112
29.0%
-11.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 561 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §112
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 § 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 1-6 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. Regarding claim 1, the phrase "as a" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase (i.e. “brush”) are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 4 requires each of the prongs have a base end portion in the axis direction where the base end portion has a height along the radially inward direction which increase towards the opening. It is unclear what is meant by this language. The term height is conventionally understood to mean the measurement from a base end to a top end of something, commonly in a vertical direction. The claim is requiring the height of a specific portion of a prong increase in a particular direction, which does not make sense. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Funatsu et al. (US 20080035165). Regarding claim 1, Funatsu et al. discloses a cosmetic container comprising: a sleeve (portion of 20 the slides over 22) that has a tubular shape and includes an opening (space between 60) through which an applicator (40,30,42), as a brush, is insertable, the sleeve being configured to bundle the applicator; and a main body (22) that is engaged with the sleeve, wherein the sleeve has a plurality of prongs (60) disposed on a peripheral edge that defines the opening, the prongs each protrude in a radially inward direction of the opening, and extend along an axis direction of the sleeve, and one or more gaps (spaces between prongs 60 which are opposite with one another), through which the applicator is movable, are provided ahead of the prongs along the radially inward direction (Refer to Figures 1-11). Regarding claim 2, Funatsu et al. the prongs include a comb tooth (one or more f 60) protruding along the axis direction in the opening (Refer to Figures 1-11). Regarding claim 3, Funatsu et al. the applicator has a tip end (tips of 30) projecting beyond tip ends of the prongs (60) (Refer to Figures 7-11). Regarding claim 4, Funatsu et al. each of the prongs (60) has a base end portion in the axis direction, the base end portion having a height along the radially inward direction, which increases toward the opening (the prongs bend inwardly from the proximal end toward the distal end, Refer to Figures 1-11, meaning the height/width along the radially inward direction increases toward the opening). Regarding claim 5, Funatsu et al. the sleeve has a first edge (edge with one row of 60) defining the opening, and a second edge (other edge with one row of 60, opposite first edge) defining the opening and located so as to interpose an axis of the sleeve with the first edge, the prongs (60) include a plurality of first prongs (prongs on the first edge) disposed on the first edge and a plurality of second prongs (prongs on the second edge) disposed on the second edge, the first prongs and the second prongs oppose each other, respectively, and the gaps (spaces between prongs which are opposite with one another) are provided between the first prongs and the second prongs, respectively. Regarding claim 6, Funatsu et al. wherein the prongs each extend from the opening of the sleeve to a side opposite to the opening beyond a center in the axis direction of the sleeve (Refer to Figures 1-11, the prongs have distal ends disposed in the opening and the prongs extend from the distal end toward the edge of the sleeve which is beyond the center inn the axis direction). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TATIANA L NOBREGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7228. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm. 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, Thomas Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746. 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. /TATIANA L NOBREGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 21, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12575627
HAIR-BRAID LACE WITH A ONE-STRAND METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569322
FLOSSER ATTACHMENT FOR DENTAL TOOL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564483
DENTAL FLOSS HOLDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12557894
ARTIFICIAL NAIL AND METHOD OF MANUFACTURING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12557893
NAIL DRILL FOR EASY CONTROL
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
33%
Grant Probability
92%
With Interview (+58.9%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 561 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month