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 were received on 26 May 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 1-16 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 1 recites the limitation "a plurality of protuberances projecting outward from the core toward an opposite free end of the protuberance” in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claim recites “a plurality of protuberances” in line 5 it does not recite “a protuberance” prior to the limitation “the protuberance” in line 6, and it is unclear if “the protuberance” is intended to refer to one of the plurality of protuberances so that all of the plurality project toward that protuberance’s opposite free end, a respective protuberance of the plurality of protuberances so that each protuberance extends towards its own respective opposite free end, or a different protuberance from the plurality of protuberances. In light of the Figures, Examiner will interpret “the protuberance” as referring to a protuberance of the plurality of protuberances and will interpret lines 5-6 as referring to each protuberance of the plurality of protuberances projecting outward from the core towards a respective opposite free end of each protuberance and suggests Applicant amend to clarify.
Claims 2-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for their dependence on one or more rejected base and/or intervening claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 8-12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limongi et al (U.S. Publication No. 20140091613 A1, hereinafter “Limongi”) in view of De Bardonneche (WO 2020120846 A1 and translated PDF, citations use large bolded paragraph numbers).
PNG
media_image1.png
703
542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
797
777
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 1, Limongi discloses an applicator for cosmetic product (Abstract, Figs. 1, 6, and 8), comprising:
a core (core in annotated Fig. 6) extending along a longitudinal extension direction from a proximal end (1st end in annotated Fig. 6), towards an opposite free distal end (2nd end in annotated Fig. 6), and
a plurality of protuberances (624 and 614b in Fig. 6, para. 0071) projecting outward from the core toward an opposite free end of the protuberance (Fig. 6),
wherein said protuberances are arranged in a plurality of first longitudinal rows (1st rows in Fig. 6) regularly distributed around the core (Fig. 6, para. 0071-0072), and in a plurality of second longitudinal rows (2nd rows in annotated Fig. 6) regularly distributed around the core and alternating regularly with the first longitudinal rows (Fig. 6, para. 0071-0072).
Limongi does not disclose the first longitudinal rows having along the core a rectilinear increase in a height of the protuberances from the proximal end towards a distal portion and the second longitudinal rows having along the core a rectilinear decrease in a height of the protuberances from the proximal end towards the distal portion.
De Bardonneche teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-4 and 6a-6c, Fig. 6c shows the applicator sectors shown in 6a and 6b assembled next to each other, para. 0038; para. 0029 and 0031 applicator sectors are assembled together to form the desired brush shape) wherein first longitudinal rows (3b in Fig. 6b) have along a core (4 in Fig. 6b) a rectilinear increase in a height of protuberances from the proximal end (proximal end in annotated Fig. 6b, para. 0038, substantially conical so height increase is constant) towards a distal portion (distal portion in annotated Fig. 6b) and second longitudinal rows (3a in Fig. 6a) having along the core a rectilinear decrease in the height of the protuberances from the proximal end (starting at right side of proximal end in annotated Fig. 6a) towards the distal portion (para. 0038, substantially conical so height decrease is constant).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic applicator brushes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second longitudinal rows of Limongi by specifying the first longitudinal rows have along the core a rectilinear increase in a height of the protuberances, and the second longitudinal rows having along the core a rectilinear decrease in a height of the protuberances, from the proximal end towards the distal portion as taught by De Bardonneche in order to allow the brush to meet additional makeup requirements sought by users (De Bardonneche, para. 0041)
In regard to claim 3, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 1. Limongi does not disclose wherein the rectilinear increase of the first longitudinal row and the rectilinear decrease of the second longitudinal row are monotonic.
De Bardonneche teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-4 and 6a-6c) wherein the rectilinear increase of the first longitudinal row (3b in Fig. 6b) and the rectilinear decrease of the second longitudinal row (3a in Fig. 6a) are monotonic (para. 0038, substantially conical so height increase and height decrease are constant).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic applicator brushes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first and second longitudinal rows of Limongi in view of De Bardonneche by specifying the rectilinear increase of the first longitudinal row and the rectilinear decrease of the second longitudinal row are monotonic as taught by De Bardonneche in order to allow the brush to meet additional makeup requirements sought by users (De Bardonneche, para. 0041)
In regard to claim 5, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 1. Limongi does not disclose wherein the protuberances of the first and second longitudinal rows located in the distal portion have a rectilinear decrease in their height along the core and/or a constant height in the direction of the opposite free distal end.
De Bardonneche teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-4 and 6a-6c) wherein the protuberances of the first and second longitudinal rows (3b and 3a in Fig. 6b) located in the distal portion (distal portion in annotated Figs. 6a and 6b) have a rectilinear decrease in their height along the core (para. 0038, substantially conical so height decrease is rectilinear) in the direction of the distal end (annotated Fig. 6a).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic applicator brushes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protuberances of the first and second longitudinal rows of Limongi in view of De Bardonneche by specifying the protuberances of the first and second longitudinal rows located in the distal portion have a rectilinear decrease in their height along the core in the direction of the distal end as taught by De Bardonneche in order to allow the brush to meet additional makeup requirements sought by users (De Bardonneche, para. 0041)
In regard to claim 8, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 1. Limongi further discloses wherein the applicator comprises the same number of the first and second longitudinal rows (Fig. 6, paras. 0071-0072).
In regard to claim 9, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 1. Limongi further discloses wherein the protuberances of the first longitudinal rows are offset by half a pitch relative to the protuberances of the second longitudinal rows (Fig. 6, paras. 0071-0072).
In regard to claim 10, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 1. Limongi does not disclose wherein the free end of the protuberances defines an envelope surface, the envelope surface having at least one hollow extending angularly over at least part of the periphery of the envelope.
De Bardonneche teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-4 and 6a-6c) wherein the free end of the protuberances defines an envelope surface (envelope surface in annotated Fig. 6c, which shows sector 101 of 6a and 102 of 6b assembled next to each other, para. 0038), the envelope surface having at least one hollow (hollow in annotated Fig. 6c) extending angularly over at least part of the periphery of the envelope (Fig. 6c, para. 0038).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic applicator brushes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protuberances of Limongi in view of De Bardonneche by specifying the free end of the protuberances defines an envelope surface, the envelope surface having at least one hollow extending angularly over at least part of the periphery of the envelope as taught by De Bardonneche in order to allow the brush to meet additional makeup requirements sought by users (De Bardonneche, para. 0041)
In regard to claim 11, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 10. Limongi does not disclose wherein the hollow has a bottom wherein the height of the protuberances of the first and second longitudinal rows is substantially similar.
De Bardonneche teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-4 and 6a-6c) wherein the hollow (hollow in annotated Fig. 6c) has a bottom wherein the height of the protuberances of the first and second longitudinal rows is substantially similar (Fig. 6c, para. 0038).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic applicator brushes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hollow of Limongi in view of De Bardonneche by specifying the hollow has a bottom wherein the height of the protuberances of the first and second longitudinal rows is substantially similar as taught by De Bardonneche in order to allow the brush to meet additional makeup requirements sought by users (De Bardonneche, para. 0041)
In regard to claim 12, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 10. Limongi does not disclose wherein the hollow is located in a middle of a length of the core.
De Bardonneche teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-4 and 6a-6c) wherein the hollow (hollow in annotated Fig. 6c) is located in a middle of a length of the core (Fig. 6c, para. 0038).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic applicator brushes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hollow of Limongi in view of De Bardonneche by specifying it is located in a middle of a length of the core as taught by De Bardonneche in order to allow the brush to meet additional makeup requirements sought by users (De Bardonneche, para. 0041)
In regard to claim 14, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 1. Limongi does not disclose wherein in a first portion of the applicator extending from the proximal end towards the hollow, the protuberances of the first longitudinal rows have a lower height than the protuberances of the second longitudinal rows and/or in a second portion of the applicator extending from the hollow towards the distal portion, the protuberances of the first longitudinal rows have a height lower than the protuberances of the second longitudinal rows.
De Bardonneche teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-4 and 6a-6c) wherein in a first portion of the applicator (1st portion in annotated Fig. 6c) extending from the proximal end towards the hollow (Fig. 6c), the protuberances of the first longitudinal rows (protuberances of 3b in annotated Fig. 6b) have a lower height than the protuberances of the second longitudinal rows (protuberances of 3a in annotated Fig. 6a).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic applicator brushes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protuberances of the first and second longitudinal rows of Limongi in view of De Bardonneche by specifying that in a first portion of the applicator extending from the proximal end towards the hollow, the protuberances of the first longitudinal rows have a lower height than the protuberances of the second longitudinal rows as taught by De Bardonneche in order to allow the brush to meet additional makeup requirements sought by users (De Bardonneche, para. 0041)
In regard to claim 15, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 1. Limongi further discloses wherein the protuberances of the first longitudinal rows (624 in Fig. 6) are of a first type and the protuberances of the second longitudinal rows (614b in Fig. 6) are of a second type (para. 0071), the first type and the second type being different in nature of material and color (para. 0071 and 0080).
In regard to claim 16, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 1. Limongi further discloses an applicator assembly for cosmetic product (Fig. 8, para. 0083), comprising:
a container (102 in Fig. 8) comprising a body forming a reservoir capable of containing the cosmetic product (para. 0083), and
an applicator of the cosmetic product according to claim 1 (see above rejection of claim 1) capable of being attached to the container (para. 0083), so that the applicator is housed inside the reservoir (Fig. 8, para. 0083).
Claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limongi in view of De Bardonneche and Schreiber et al (U.S. Publication No. 2015/0272300 A1, hereinafter “Schreiber”).
PNG
media_image3.png
710
471
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 2, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 1. Limongi does not disclose wherein the rectilinear increase of the first longitudinal row and/or the rectilinear decrease of the second longitudinal row extend over 3/4 to 9/10ths of a length of the core.
Schreiber teaches a similar apparatus (Fig. 1, Abstract) wherein the increase and decrease of the longitudinal rows extend over 3/4 to 9/10ths of a length of the core (core in annotated Fig. 1, paras. 0053 and 0084, chamfer 20 is 5 mm and core is 27 mm, therefore the length not taken up by the chamfer is 22 mm).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic applicator brushes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the rectilinear increase of the first longitudinal row and the rectilinear decrease of the second longitudinal row of Limongi in view of De Bardonneche by specifying that the increase and decrease of the longitudinal rows extend over 3/4 to 9/10ths of a length of the core as taught by Schreiber in order to facilitate the return of the brush into a receptacle (Schreiber para. 0084).
In regard to claim 6, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 1. Limongi does not disclose wherein the distal portion extends over a length of between 1/4 and 1/10th of a length of the core.
Schreiber teaches a similar apparatus (Fig. 1, Abstract) wherein a distal portion (20 in Fig. 1, para. 0084) extends over a length of between 1/4 and 1/10th of a length of a core (paras. 0053 and 0084, chamfer 20 is 5 mm and core is 27 mm).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic applicator brushes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the distal portion of Limongi in view of De Bardonneche by specifying that it extends over a length of between 1/4 and 1/10th of a length of the core as taught by Schreiber in order to facilitate the return of the brush into a receptacle (Schreiber para. 0084).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limongi in view of De Bardonneche and Gueret (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0059080 A1).
In regard to claim 4, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 1. Limongi does not disclose wherein the increase and/or the decrease in the height between each successive protuberance of the same first or second longitudinal row is between 0.05 mm and 0.2 mm.
Gueret teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-9E) wherein the increase and/or the decrease in the height between each successive protuberance of a longitudinal row is 0.08 mm (para. 0023).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic applicator brushes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protuberances of Limongi in view of De Bardonneche by specifying the increase and/or the decrease in the height between each successive protuberance of the same first or second longitudinal row is 0.08 mm as taught by Gueret in order to cause stiffness to vary in a progressive manner along the brush as a function of the desired makeup effect (Gueret para. 0017).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limongi in view of De Bardonneche and GMBH (DE 202013009431 U1 and translated PDF).
PNG
media_image4.png
559
739
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regard to claim 7, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 1. Limongi does not disclose wherein the core has a diameter decreasing towards the opposite free distal end in the distal portion and/or the core has a constant diameter over a whole length extending from the proximal end towards the distal portion.
GMBH teaches an apparatus (Figs. 1-7, Abstract) wherein the core has a constant diameter (para. 0085) over a whole length extending from a proximal end towards a distal portion (para. 0085, length from proximal toward distal portion in annotated Fig. 1).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic applicator brushes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the core of Limongi in view of De Bardonneche by specifying the core has a constant diameter over a whole length extending from the proximal end towards the distal portion as taught by GMBH in order to allow for carrying of the main bristle arrangement (GMBH para. 0079) while being able to be preferably used for applying mascara (GMBH para. 0135).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limongi in view of De Bardonneche and Gueret (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0023020 A1, hereinafter Gueret 020).
In regard to claim 13, Limongi in view of De Bardonneche discloses the invention of claim 1. Limongi does not disclose wherein the protuberances of the first and second longitudinal rows are arranged in first and second radial rows, the first radial rows of the protuberances of the first longitudinal rows alternating regularly with the second radial rows of the protuberances of the second longitudinal rows.
Gueret 020 teaches a similar apparatus (Figs. 1-6, Abstract) wherein the protuberances (18 in Fig. 2) of the first (20 in Fig. 2) and second longitudinal rows (30 in Fig. 2) are arranged in first and second radial rows (Figs. 3, 4 and 6, para. 0177), the first radial rows of the protuberances of the first longitudinal rows alternating regularly with the second radial rows of the protuberances of the second longitudinal rows (Figs. 3, 4 and 6, para. 0169, 0171, 0177).
The references and the claimed invention are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cosmetic applicator brushes. It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the protuberances of the first and second longitudinal rows of Limongi in view of De Bardonneche by specifying they are arranged in first and second radial rows, and that the first radial rows of the protuberances of the first longitudinal rows alternate regularly with the second radial rows of the protuberances of the second longitudinal rows as taught by Gueret 020 in order to allow the protuberances to penetrate into the eyelashes and improve application of makeup or make application easier (Gueret 020 para. 0174).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In regard to the rejections of claims 1, 3, 5, 8-12, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limongi in view of De Bardonneche, Applicant argues that the fibers 614 of Limongi do not extend outward from the core as the fibers 614 are added elements that extend through openings in the core and consequently do not extend outward from the core.
Examiner notes that the fibers 614b of Limongi do extend and project outward from the core, as that Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claim limitations. Applicant argues that an element 614, which extends through openings in the core, does not extend outward from the core, however as seen in annotated Fig. 6 of Limongi, the element 614 and 614b project outward from the core of annotated Fig. 6, as claimed. Examiner notes that Applicant appears to argue “projecting outward from the core” of claim 1 line 5 as referring to projecting protuberances which are manufactured simultaneously with the core and are unitary with the core as opposed to protuberances added through openings, however this is narrower than the claimed limitations. Limongi discloses the limitation as claimed. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that in rejecting independent claim 1 starting from Limongi, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to (a) modify and vary the height of the protuberances and (b) replace the fibers of the Limongi applicator with protuberances. Applicant argues that there is no reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to abandon the rows of Limongi fibers, given that the aim of Limongi's invention is to combine both fibers and protuberances. Applicant argues that to modify Limongi to arrive at the currently claimed protuberances features, one of ordinary skill in the art would be removing the feature that allows Limongi to achieve its intended purpose, and such modification of Limongi would be improper and would not properly support a prima facie case of obviousness.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection, the fibers of Limongi are protuberances and Limongi is not modified to replace the fibers with the protuberances of De Bardonneche. Examiner notes that as defined by the Cambridge Dictionary, a protuberance is something that sticks out from a surface (see attached PDF, p. 1). Both the fibers of Limongi (614b in Fig. 6) and the protrusions of Limongi (624 in Fig. 6) are protuberances, as claimed. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that if one of ordinary skill in the art were to modify Limongi based on the disclosure in De Bardonneche, the resulting modified applicator would still be missing the feature of the varying height of the protuberances of independent claim 1. Applicant argues that any change in height of the protuberances in De Bardonneche is NOT (i) for protuberances in the first longitudinal row, a rectilinear increase in height from the proximal end towards a distal portion AND (ii) for protuberances in the second longitudinal row, a rectilinear decrease in height from the proximal end towards a distal portion. Applicant argues that the row of protuberances in Figure 6a exhibits a rectilinear decrease in height along its core, starting after the proximal portion (and not from the proximal end) towards the distal portion. Applicant argues that the decrease does not begin at the proximal end but a few protuberances further along, and that in this proximal portion, the height of the protuberances increases and then decreases towards the distal end. Applicant argues that thus, at least one feature of independent claim 1 is missing from the proposed combination of De Bardonneche and Limongi, and as such, the rejection does not establish prima facie obviousness.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s arguments are narrower than the claim limitation. Examiner notes that the row of protuberances in Figure 6a exhibits a rectilinear decrease in height along its core, starting at the proximal end as annotated in annotated Fig. 6a of De Bardonneche, towards the distal portion as claimed. Examiner notes that the Applicant appears to argue that the proximal end can only be an extreme proximal end of the core, however, this is narrower than the claim limitations. De Bardonneche teaches the limitation as claimed. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that because the particular design of Figure 6a, when combined with the design illustrated in Figure 6b, creates an advantageous peanut shape, one of ordinary skill in the art is not incentivized to modify the height of the protuberances in the proximal end as to do so would not maintain this peanut shape and its advantages. Applicant argues that that any further proposed modification to the arrangement and height of the protuberances of De Bardonneche would be improper.
Examiner notes that in the above rejection of claim 1, the arrangement and height of the protuberances in the proximal end of De Bardonneche is not further modified, and in the above rejection, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limongi in view of De Bardonneche. Applicant is directed to the rejections in view of the amendments.
Applicant argues that De Bardonneche discloses a large number of designs, and nothing incentivizes someone with ordinary skill in the art to choose the designs in Figures 6a and 6b and assemble them, especially to assemble them regularly around the core, and even more so to alternate them regularly around the core. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would be just as likely, or even more so, to create an applicator of the type shown in Figure 7 of De Bardonneche, which has two well-defined application areas that the user can easily select. Applicant argues that in view of one or more of the above reasons, independent claim 1 patentably distinguishes over the combination of Limongi in view of De Bardonneche. Applicant argues that as to the claims dependent from independent claim 1 and subject to this rejection, they are also non-obvious for at least the same reasons and respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections based on Limongi in view of De Bardonneche.
Examiner notes that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to choose the designs in Figs. 6a and 6b and assemble them together as assembled in Fig. 6c (De Bardonneche para. 0024). Examiner notes that in the above rejection, the first and second longitudinal rows of Limongi are modified by the respective rectilinear increase in height and rectilinear decrease in height of De Bardonneche, and notes that the first and second longitudinal rows of Limongi are assembled in an alternating pattern around the core (Fig. 6). Examiner notes that in the above rejection, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limongi in view of De Bardonneche, and Applicant is directed to the rejections of claim 1 and its dependent claims in view of the amendments.
In regard to the rejection of claims 2 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limongi in view of De Bardonneche and Schreiber, the rejection of claim 4 is under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limongi in view of De Bardonneche and Gueret, the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limongi in view of De Bardonneche and GMBH, and the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limongi in view of De Bardonneche and Gueret 020, Applicant argues that each of claims 2, 4, 6, 7 and 13 depend from independent claim 1 and patentably distinguish over the cited prior art for at least the same reasons independent claim 1 distinguishes over the cited prior art. Applicant argues that none of the secondary references provide disclosure relevant to the features missing from the primary combination of Limongi in view of De Bardonneche or which would provide a basis to further modify the primary combination of Limongi in view of De Bardonneche to arrive at a structure of an applicator having all the features of independent claim 1. Applicant argues that accordingly, there would still be at least one feature of the claims missing from the cited prior art and prima facie obviousness would not established. Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 7 and 13.
Examiner notes that, as noted in the above response to Applicant’s arguments, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Limongi in view of De Bardonneche. Applicant is directed to the rejections of claim 1 and its dependent claims in view of the amendments.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 COURTNEY N HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-7219. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-5:00PM (EST) flex, 2nd Friday off.
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, Eric Rosen can be reached at (571) 270-7855. 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.
/COURTNEY N HUYNH/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/ERIC J ROSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights