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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 9, line 10 should be amended as follows: “Figure 2 shows a with Fig. 1 of the complete applicator system, i.e. an exchangeable cartridge which is installed in a sleeve and to which a cap is coupled”.
On page 9, line 22 should be amended as follows: “and latched in place in the sleeve”.
On page 20, line 6 should be amended as follows: “A further design option of the invention is shown in Figure 7 and”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 15 should be amended as follows: “positioned
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
line 3 should be amended as follows: “coupling element is a tube section of the cap configured to act as”
line 4 should be amended as follows: “a tubular gripper, and is slotted once or several time and which, in [[the]] a coupled state”.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 should be amended as follows: “by which the exchangeable cartridge is configured to be anchored to the”.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 9 should be amended as follows: “the applicator unit including, at the second end”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 2-3 should be amended as follows: “according to claim 13 wherein the spring element comprises spring rings and the spring rings are circumferential rings lying one below another and each spring ring of the spring”.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 should be amended as follows: “a press button at least partially protruding from the cap top or being”.
Lines 4-5 should be amended as follows: “accessible to a user such that the cap top is capable of being pushed downwards by the user.”.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 should be amended as follows: “through which the
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 should be amended as follows: “and a press button, and is formed from plastic”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 13 should be amended as follows: “positioned
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 9 should be amended as follows: “the applicator unit including, at the second end, a coupling element designed and”.
Lines 25-26 should be amended as follows: “container without requiring a separate act of removing or destroying the tightening or freshness [[the]] seal”.
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.
Claims 1-20 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, line 17 recites “a removal side”, it is unclear if this is the same or different from “a removal side of the sleeve” previously recited in lines 10-11. For purposes of substantive examination, “a removal side” recited in line 18 is interpreted as being the same as the previously recited removal side of the sleeve. It is therefore suggested to amend line 18 as follows: “while the sleeve is closed on [[a]] the removal side with the cap”.
Claims 2-18 are rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Regarding claims 10, and 12-14 recite the limitation “spring rings”, which appear to be drawn toward the embodiment of Figures 9-11, where actuation of the press piston is effected via pressing the press button to advance the press piston, and the press piston is sprung back to its original position when a pressing force is removed due to the spring rings of the ejector. Claims 10 and 12-14 depend from claim 4, where claim 4 requires a rotatably mounted cap top with nut thread, as depicted in the embodiments of Figures 1-8, such that actuation of the press piston appears to be effected by engaging threads of the ejector with the cap top. Thus, the scope of claims 10 and 12-14 is unclear as the claims appear to be requiring two separate, mutually exclusive actuation means for ejecting a spent cartridge. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 11, lines 3-6 recite “a spring element is configured to contact the cap base body and when moved further into a direction towards the exchangeable cartridge unfold a spring action, through which the press piston is pushed back into a direction away from the exchangeable cartridge”, which is unclear. The phrase “unfold a spring action” is unconventional and its meaning is unclear. It is further unclear what component of the invention is being referred to by the limitation “when moved further into a direction towards the exchangeable cartridge”, i.e. it is unclear if the claim is requiring that the spring element is moved further into a direction toward the exchangeable cartridge or if the cap base body is moved into a direction toward the exchangeable cartridge. It is further unclear if the spring element is the same or different from the spring rings of the ejector. Claim 11 appears to be describing the embodiment of Figures 9-10; the operation of the embodiment of Figure 9 is described on Pages 21-22. Figure 9 does not appear to show a separate spring element from the spring rings of the ejector nor does it appear that the cap base body is mobile. Page 22, second paragraph, of the instant specification describes the spring action as “The ejector 37 springs back to its original position and state by spring action when it is no longer pressed.” If claim 11 intends to describe the embodiment of Figures 9-10, as described on pages 21-22 of the instant specification, then the claim is further unclear because claim 11 depends from claim 4, wherein claim 4 requires a rotatably mounted cap top having a nut thread. The embodiment comprising a rotatably mounted cap top and nut thread is best shown in Figures 2, and 5-6. The embodiment of Figures 9-11 appears to have no nut thread but rather returns the press piston back to its original position under the action of the spring rings of the ejector. Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 19, line 15 recites “a removal side”, it is unclear if this is the same or different from “a removal side of the sleeve” previously recited in line 10. For purposes of substantive examination, “a removal side” recited in line 15 is interpreted as being the same as the previously recited removal side of the sleeve. It is therefore suggested to amend line 15 as follows: “on [[a]] the removal side with the cap.”.
Regarding claim 20, lines 18-19 recite that the cap comprises a cap top having a nut thread that is configured to advance or retract the press piston, then line 20 recites that the ejector includes a spring element. In light of applicant’s specification, the nut thread and the spring element/spring rings appear to be two mutually exclusive means for actuating the press piston. The nut thread is described with respect to the embodiment of Figures 1-8 and the spring element/spring rings are described with respect to the embodiment of Figures 9-11, thus the scope of claim 20 is unclear as claim 20 appears to be combining two mutually exclusive means for ejecting a spent cartridge. Clarification 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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Drugeon et al. (US 2021/0093067).
Regarding claim 1, Drugeon discloses a refillable applicator system (10, Figures 1-8), comprising:
an exchangeable cartridge (14) including a mass container (40) containing a mass supply (“an internal volume that contains a cosmetic product”, refer to Paragraph [0173]), when, in a new state (refer to Paragraphs [0174-0175] which describes refilling the applicator system by replacing the exchangeable cartridge with a cartridge containing the same or different cosmetic product therein), and an applicator unit (12) with a first end (bottom end, refer to Figure 3) projecting into an area of the mass supply (refer to Figure 3) and a second end (top end, refer to Figure 3) forming a closure (32) of the mass container (“The neck 41 is adapted to cooperate with the skirt 32 of the first part 12”, refer to Paragraph [0089]);
a sleeve (18), configured to have the exchangeable cartridge fixed therein (refer to Figures 2-3); and
a cap (16) configured to be fixed (“16 here comprises a collar 48”, refer to Paragraph [0105]; “The collar 48 is adapted to extend around the first part 12”, refer to Paragraph [0106], thereby fixing the cap to the sleeve; additionally refer to Figure 3; where Merriam-Webster defines fixed as “securely placed”, the cap is securely placed on/to the sleeve, as best shown in Figure 3) to the sleeve to close a removal side (top side with respect to Figures 3, 5) of the sleeve from which the applicator unit is capable of being removed (best shown in Figure 5),
the applicator unit including, at the second end, a coupling element (30, best shown in Figures 1 and 4) designed and positioned to enter into a connection with a counter-coupling element (64; additionally refer to Paragraph [0116]) while the exchangeable cartridge is completely inserted into the sleeve, and while the sleeve is closed on the removal side with the cap (refer to Figures 3-4 which show the sleeve closed on a removal side).
Regarding claim 2, Drugeon discloses the refillable applicator system according to claim 1, wherein the cap has an ejector (50 or 50 + 48, Figure 1) operatively connected thereto such that the coupling element and the counter-coupling element are disengageable by imparting relative movement to the ejector with respect to a remainder of the cap (“The thrusting member 50 is movably mounted with respect to the collar 48 between an idle position and an extraction position, the thrusting member being able to disengage the first indexing element 30 and the first part 12 and the second indexing element 64 of the collar 48 when it is in the extraction position”, refer to Paragraph [0149]).
Regarding claim 7, Drugeon discloses the refillable applicator system according to claim 1, wherein the sleeve has an insertion and ejection opening on an end face (bottom face with respect to Figure 3) facing away from the cap (refer to Figures 2-3).
Regarding claim 8, Drugeon discloses the refillable applicator system according to claim 2, wherein the exchangeable cartridge has an external thread or a latching element (44, Figure 2) by which the exchangeable cartridge is configured be anchored to the sleeve in a position of use (refer to cropped and annotated Figure 3, below).
PNG
media_image1.png
644
631
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 19, Drugeon discloses an exchangeable cartridge (14) for an applicator system comprising:
a mass container (40) containing a mass supply (“an internal volume that contains a cosmetic product”, refer to Paragraph [0173]), when in a new state (refer to Paragraphs [0174-0175] which describes refilling the applicator system by replacing the exchangeable cartridge with a cartridge containing the same or different cosmetic product therein); and
an applicator unit (12) with a first end (bottom end with respect to Figure 3) projecting into an area of the mass supply (refer to Figure 3) and a second end (top end, refer to Figure 3) forming a closure (32) of the mass container (“the neck 41 is adapted to cooperate with the skirt 32 of the first part 12”, refer to Paragraph [0089]),
the exchangeable cartridge configured to have a sleeve fixed thereto, and configured to have a cap fixed to the sleeve to close a removal side of the sleeve from which the applicator unit is capable of being removed (the limitation “the exchangeable cartridge configured to have a sleeve fixed thereto, and configured to have a cap fixed to the sleeve to close a removal side of the sleeve from which the applicator unit is capable of being removed” is interpreted as an intended use limitation; Drugeon’s exchangeable cartridge is fully capable of being used in the manner as claimed, as indicated in Drugeon’s Figures 2 and 3),
the applicator unit including, at the second send (top end with respect to Figure 3), a coupling element (30, best shown in Figure 4) designed and positioned so as to enter into a connection with a counter-coupling element while the exchangeable cartridge is completely inserted into the sleeve, and while the sleeve is closed on a removal side with the cap (the limitation “to enter into a connection with a counter-coupling element while the exchangeable cartridge is completely inserted into the sleeve, and while the sleeve is closed on a removal side with the cap” is interpreted as an intended use limitation; Drugeon’s exchangeable cartridge is fully capable of being used in a manner as claimed, if a counter-coupling element, sleeve, and cap are provided, as depicted in Drugeon’s Figure 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drugeon.
Regarding claim 17, Drugeon discloses the refillable applicator system according to claim 2, as applied above. Drugeon further discloses wherein the ejector (50 + 48) includes a press piston (82, Figure 4), spring rings (54 + 60, where 54 is annular, thereby defining a ring, and portion 60 is elastic, thereby defining a spring AND 88 + 70, where 88 defines a ring and 70 is elastic, thereby defining a spring, Figure 1; additionally refer to Paragraph [0168]) and a press button (80, Figure 3). Drugeon does not disclose wherein the ejector is formed as a one-piece part. Drugeon discloses the claimed invention except for providing the ejector to be formed as a one-piece part. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to form the ejector as a one-piece part, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164 (1893).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drugeon in view of Rauschert et al. (US2010/0104348).
Regarding claim 18, Drugeon discloses the refillable applicator system according to claim 2 wherein the ejector (50 + 48) includes a press piston (82, Figure 4), spring rings (54 + 60, where 54 is annular, thereby defining a ring, and portion 60 is elastic, thereby defining a spring AND 88 + 70, where 88 defines a ring and 70 is elastic, thereby defining a spring, Figure 1; additionally refer to Paragraph [0168]) and a press button (80, Figure 3). Drugeon does not disclose that the ejector is formed from plastic.
Rauschert discloses a similar applicator system (1, Figures 1-14), comprising a cartridge (2), a cap (7) and an applicator unit (4 + 5 + 6), where the unit is “formed from plastic”, (refer to Paragraph [0022]), thereby demonstrating that plastic is a known material for use in the manufacture of cosmetic containers and may be selected based on a user’s preference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Drugeon’s system such that the ejector is formed of plastic, as taught by Rauschert, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice; additionally, such a modification provides the advantage of enabling the use of an inexpensive, readily available material.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim (US2017/0303663) discloses a refillable applicator system (Figures 1-6), comprising a mass container (100) a sleeve (300), and a cap (200); however, the applicator does not appear capable of being removed from the removal side of the sleeve.
Refer additionally to the attached PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH WOODHOUSE whose telephone number is (571)272-5635. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm.
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, EDELMIRA BOSQUES can be reached at 571-270-5614. 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.
/SARAH WOODHOUSE/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
Prosecution Insights