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 April 7, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1-21 are pending.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-7, 11-16, 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Grez (US 10,441,048).
Regarding claim 1, Grez teaches an apparatus for applying solution on skin, the apparatus comprising: a solution applying module (100, Fig 5) comprising a plurality of protruding application elements (88 & 92, Fig 4 & 7) extending from a surface (80) of the solution applying module, the plurality of protruding application elements configured to contact a user’s skin (via 92) and distribute the solution between hair follicles (Col 5, Ln 9-27; therefore solution is distributed between the hair follicles since the hair follicles are so close to each other), wherein: the solution applying module is configured to apply the solution on the user’s skin reaching under the hair of a user’s face (Col 5, Ln 9-27; therefore solution is applied on the skin under the hair as shown in Fig 4A; also because of close proximity of skin under hair, the solution always reaches the skin under the hair); the solution applying module is removably connected to a reservoir (40, Fig 2A; as shown in Fig 8-9, solution applying module appears capable to be removable from reservoir 40 and reconnected); and two or more of the protruding application elements (88, Fig 7A) of the plurality of protruding application elements comprise a channel fluidly connected to the reservoir (Col 5, Ln 13-18); the reservoir (40, Fig 1, 2A), wherein the reservoir is configured to store the solution (as shown in Fig 2A); and a solution flow generating module (20, 22, 24, Fig 1) fluidly coupled between the reservoir and the solution applying module (as shown in Fig 1), wherein the solution flow generating module is configured to generate a metered flow of the solution between the reservoir and the solution applying module (Col 4, Ln 27-36) as a function of a contact-based application event (via 36, Fig 1, or Fig 4A).
Grez further teaches in claim 2 wherein the solution applying module is configured to be reusable (although the solution applying module is described as single use in Col 1, Ln 53; it can certainly be reused again should user chooses);
in claim 4 wherein solution applying module comprises a tine structure (88, Fig 7A);
in claim 6 wherein the solution flow generating module comprises a pump (20, 22, 24, Fig 1) configured to maintain a continuous flow (via 36) of the solution from the reservoir to the solution applying module (Col 4, Ln 27-36);
in claim 7 an actuator (38) configured to control the solution flow generating module;
in claim 11 wherein the reservoir is pressurized (via 20, 22, 24, Fig 1);
in claim 13 wherein the reservoir is coupled to a housing using a snap-fit connection (as shown in Fig 2A, reservoir 40 is connected to a housing 106, Fig 5 via clips 102 & 104; therefore snap-fit); and
in claim 14 wherein the solution applying module is oriented to dispense the solution in a parallel direction relative to the housing (as shown in Fig 4A, 5).
Regarding claim 15, Grez teaches a method for applying solution on skin, the method comprising: storing (as shown in Fig 2A), using a reservoir (40, Fig 1-2A), a solution (inside 40); generating, using a solution flow generating module (20, 22, or 24), a flow of the solution between the reservoir (at 30) and a solution applying module (32 or 100), wherein: the solution flow generating module is: fluidly coupled between the reservoir and the solution applying module (as shown in Fig 1); and configured to generate a metered flow of the solution (Col 4, Ln 27-36) between the reservoir and the solution applying module as a function of a contact-based application event (via 36, Fig 1, or Fig 4A); and the solution applying module comprises a plurality of protruding application elements (88 & 92, Fig 4 & 7) extending from a surface (80) of the solution applying module, the plurality of protruding application elements configured to contact a user’s skin and distribute the solution between hair follicles (Col 5, Ln 9-27; therefore solution is distributed between the hair follicles since the hair follicles are so close to each other), wherein: the solution applying module is configured to apply the solution on the user’s skin reaching under the hair of a user’s face (Col 5, Ln 9-27; therefore solution is applied on the skin as shown in Fig 4A; also because of close proximity of skin under hair, the solution always reaches the skin under the hair); the solution applying module is removably connected to the reservoir (as shown in Fig 8-9, solution applying module appears capable to be removable from reservoir 40 and reconnected); and two or more of the protruding application elements (88, Fig 7A) of the plurality of protruding application elements comprise a channel fluidly connected to the reservoir (Col 5, Ln 13-18); and applying, using the solution applying module, the solution on skin (Fig 4A; Col 5, Ln 28-53).
Grez further teaches in claim 20 wherein the solution applying module comprises an applicator (92) configured to apply the solution to one or more of under, above, through, or on top of hair shafts (Col 5, Ln 50-53); and
in claim 21 a metering mechanism configured to regulate an amount of the solution dispensed during application (Col 4, Ln 27-36; therefore metering).
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grez, in view of Charraud et al (US 2023/0346109), hereinafter Charraud.
Regarding claim 3, Grez fails to teach wherein the solution applying module comprises a rollerball applicator configured to expel the solution as a function of rolling contact with the skin. Attention is directed to Charraud that teaches a rollerball applicator (110) configured to expel the solution as a function of rolling contact with the skin (normal function of rollerball applicator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a roller ball as the solution applying module, in view of Charraud's teaching. Rolllerball applicators are commonly used in dispensing applications where a smooth rolling application is desired.
Claim(s) 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grez, in view of Gibbs (US 11,272,776).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Grez is silent wherein the solution applying module comprises a pad-based applicator and applying the solution on skin using an applicator pre-soaked with the solution.
Attention is directed to Gibbs that teaches wherein the solution applying module comprises a pad-based applicator (150) constructed from a hydrophilic material (sponge or foam is naturally hydrophilic) configured to dispense the solution upon pressure application and applying the solution on skin using the pad applicator (common use for pads).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a pad as the solution applying module and using the pad to apply solution on skin, in view of Gibb's teaching. Pad applicators are commonly used to apply fluids onto surfaces.
Claim(s) 8-9, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grez.
Regarding claim 8, Grez is silent wherein the solution comprises a vasodilator, wherein the vasodilator is configured to promote facial hair or wherein the solution applying module is interchangeable, allowing different applicators to be attached for varying application techniques.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use a vasodilator in the solution. Applicant has not disclosed any unexpected results. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to further modify Grez to arrive at the claimed invention as specified in claim 8 because such a modification would have been a mere design consideration. (See MPEP 2144.04 (I)).
Regarding claim 9, Grez is silent wherein the solution applying module is interchangeable, allowing different applicators to be attached for varying application techniques.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use interchangeable applicators as a matter or design choice, since it was known in the art that interchangeable applicators are old and well known and widely practiced in all industries. Applicant also has not disclosed that interchangeable applicators achieve any unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to further modify Grez to arrive at the claimed invention as specified in claim 9 because such a modification would have been a mere design consideration. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)).
Regarding claim 19, Grez is silent in monitoring a level of the solution in the reservoir using an indicator before applying the solution on the skin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use an indicator to monitor a level of the solution in the reservoir as a matter or design choice, since it was known in the art that indicators for reservoirs are old and well known and widely practiced in all industries. Applicant also has not disclosed that the use of reservoir indicator to monitor a level of the solution in the reservoir achieves any unexpected result. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to further modify Grez to arrive at the claimed invention as specified in claim 19 because such a modification would have been a mere design consideration. (See MPEP 2144.04 (IV)(A)).
Claim(s) 10, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grez, in view of Hartstock-Martin (US 9,498,045), hereinafter H-M.
Regarding claims 10 and 12, Grez is silent wherein the solution applying module comprises nodes with a plurality of holes, and wherein the solution flow generating module comprises a screw-plunger mechanism.
Attention is directed to H-M that teaches in claim 10 wherein the solution applying module comprises nodes (4) with a plurality of holes (5); and
in claim 12 wherein the solution flow generating module comprises a screw-plunger mechanism (Col 6, Ln 22-29; therefore equivalent to screw-plunger).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a nodes with a plurality of holes as the solution applying module and a screw plunger mechanism for the solution flow generating module, in view of H-M's teaching. Nodes and screw plunger mechanisms are commonly used in dispensing applications using nodes with holes to apply the solution and using a screw plunger to generating solution flow.
Regarding claim 16, Grez is silent wherein the solution applying module comprises an applicator configured to promote facial hair growth, the method further comprising: dispensing the solution to the applicator; applying the applicator to the skin; and exerting pressure on the applicator to release the solution onto the skin, wherein the solution comprises an active ingredient.
Attention is directed to H-M that teaches in claim 16 wherein the solution applying module comprises an applicator (4) configured to promote facial hair growth, the method further comprising: dispensing the solution to the applicator; applying the applicator to the skin; and exerting pressure on the applicator to release the solution onto the skin (Col 8, Ln 59-67), wherein the solution comprises an active ingredient (Col 7, Ln 35-39; therefore active ingredient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an applicator configured to promote hair growth by dispensing solution to the applicator, applying the applicator to the skin and exerting pressure on the applicator to release the solution, wherein the solution comprises an active ingredient, in view of H-M's teaching. Applying a solution using an applicator pre-soaked with hair growth solution onto the skin and exerting pressure on the applicator to release the solution is the most common way of promoting hair growth.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grez, in view of Kodama (US 10,736,395).
Regarding claim 18, Grez is silent in applying the solution as an aerosol using a spray nozzle integrated into the solution applying module.
Attention is directed to Kodama that teaches applying the solution as an aerosol (via 20) using a spray nozzle (15b) integrated into the solution applying module (13; Col 4, Ln 56-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an aerosol with spray nozzle integrated into the solution applying module to apply the solution, in view of Kodama's teaching. Aerosol cans with spray nozzle integrated into the solution applying structure are commonly used in dispensing applications with hair covered skin.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on April 7, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Hartstock-Martin 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
Prosecution Insights