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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 4/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because for figure 3, applicant. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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 3 recites the limitation "the cutter" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the plane" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "said cutter" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “wherein the base... defines a cavity substantially conformed as said cutter” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The cutter is part of the lid, not the base. “A cavity substantially conformed as” is incorrect language as it indicates that the base contains the cutter or that a cavity is the cutter. However, based on drawings, this is not true.
The term “a mixture of cosmetic powders and” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Firstly, what is a cosmetic product limited to? Would carrageenan not be categorized under a cosmetic product? However, as claimed, carrageenan is considered separate from the cosmetic powder. Which is okay because its only terminology. The main issue is the bounds and metes of a cosmetic product. For the purposes of interpretation, “a mixture of cosmetic powders” shall be broadly interpreted, as most items can serve a cosmetic purpose and originate from a powder form. Claims 11-13 directly or indirectly depend from claim 10 and are also rejected.
The term “wherein the cosmetic product comprises 40-60% by weight of cosmetic powder mixture and” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. Similar to claim 10, what is being classified as a cosmetic powder? Terms that appear after the “and” could also be considered powder, further a cosmetic powder (being part of a cosmetic product). Similar rationale as claim 10 rejection above. Let it also be known that at a minimum, the weight% of the powder with the claimed material accounts for 45.75% of the product weight in total.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Foreman (US 10005633 B2).
With respect to claim 1, Foreman discloses a cosmetic article comprising a cosmetic product in the form of a flexible strip (22) rolled on a spool (24), a base (106) that rotatably supports the spool, and a lid (102) that, when in a closed position, protects the spool on which the cosmetic product is rolled, wherein the strip (22) wound on the spool is completely made of a make-up product .
Examiner Note: There is no exact definition provided for make-up product. People have been known to use a variety of items as makeup. There are video examples of people using crayons, colored pencils, sharpies, etc. as make up. Further, there are instances of people doing their make-up entirely from food products such as beets. Further, tape and stickers have been used as makeup products. For example, stickers, body tape, or taping of the face to achieve a "face lift" effect. Further makeup "product" is further broadened. For example, lip stick is a make-up product (this includes the casing). The independent claim and specification fail to further limit the term "make-up product" and therefore, the phrase can be broadly read. For bubble gum, here is a link to a video showing usage as makeup, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_l3oDP5oYA
PNG
media_image1.png
526
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 2, Foreman discloses the article according to claim 1, wherein the article comprises a cutter (118) for cutting part of the strip of cosmetic product.
With respect to claim 6, Foreman discloses the article according to claim 1, wherein the lid (102) is hinged to the base (106).
With respect to claim 7, Foreman discloses the article according to claim 1, wherein the spool (24) is removably associated with the base (106) so that it can be replaced or refilled once the original spool is empty.
With respect to claim 9, Foreman discloses the article according to claim 1, wherein between the lid and the base (146 and 148) are provided releasable snap means configured to keep the lid closed at least when the cosmetic article is not in use.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Crapet (US 20160286937 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Crapet discloses a cosmetic article comprising a cosmetic product in the form of a flexible strip (41) rolled on a spool (114), a base (10, 320) that rotatably supports the spool, and a lid (item with 120, 122) that, when in a closed position, protects the spool on which the cosmetic product is rolled, wherein the strip (41) wound on the spool is completely made of a make-up product .
PNG
media_image2.png
562
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 3, Crapet discloses the article according to claim 1, wherein the cutter (123) is associated with the lid.
With respect to claim 4, Crapet discloses the article according to claim 1, wherein the base (end surface of 120) defines a plane to which an end of the strip is rested.
With respect to claim 5, Crapet discloses the article according to claim 1, wherein the base, between the plane and the spool (114) defines a cavity (11) substantially conformed as said cutter, wherein said cutter (123) is inserted to cut said strip when the strip is resting on the plane so as to protrude from the base, and the lid is closed. (pages 6-7 [0150])
With respect to claim 8, Crapet discloses the article according to claim 1, wherein the base (10, 320) defines at least one pair of cradle seats (fig 4, one is understood to be not shown on 320) housing corresponding pins (fig 4) extending from the spool, wherein said pins provide, in the vicinity of each of said pins a flange (fig 4) laterally containing the strip.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Cotilletta (US 5566829 A).
With respect to claim 1, Cotilletta discloses a cosmetic article comprising a cosmetic product in the form of a flexible strip (13) rolled on a spool (17), a base (right side of housing 10) that rotatably supports the spool, and a lid (left side of housing 10) that, when in a closed position, protects the spool on which the cosmetic product is rolled, wherein the strip (13) wound on the spool is completely made of a make-up product .
Examiner Note: The term “make-up product” is broad. As a whole, the strip is a “make-up product”. Similar to a lipstick (including casing) is a make-up product.
PNG
media_image3.png
682
472
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotilletta (US 5566829 A) in view of Saini (US 20240216253 A1).
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the cosmetic product in a flexible solid form, shaped as a strip, comprises a mixture of cosmetic powders and: (a) 0.1-15% by weight of at least one carrageenan, on the weight of the cosmetic product. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely cosmetics, Saini taught of a cosmetic product that contains high percentages of carrageenan (2 to 20% by weight, etc. as taught on page 12 [0128]). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cosmetic product of Cotilletta to include carrageenan as taught by Saini in order to allow for test samples of Sainis product.
Examiner Note: Percentage of carrageenan is a by-product of the amount of cosmetic product on the tester. Rationale can be viewed as a change of shape (volume of cosmetics on tester).
With respect to claim 11, the references as applied to claim 10, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims. The references further disclose wherein said at least one carrageenan is carrageenan-iota. This is further described by the Saini reference on page 4 [0054].
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotilletta (US 5566829 A) in view of Saini (US 20240216253 A1) and Miller (US 20100199465 A1).
With respect to claim 12, the references as applied to claim 10, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein said cosmetic product further has at least one of the following technical characteristics: - hardness [shore A]: 20 - 60 (ASTM D2240) - tensile strength [N/mm2]: 2 - 10 (ASTM D412) - elongation [%]: 5 - 15 (ASTM D412) - tear strength [N/mm]: 10 - 40 (ASTM D624). However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely tape products, Miller taught of a tape that achieves a tensile strength per ASTM D412 of 600-700 psi (~4N/mm2). Cotilletta taught of a product that requires tape adjacent materials, but does not specify the properties of the tape. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of tape reels before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a tensile strength of 600 to 700 psi as taught by Miller in the tape of Cotiletta since the claimed invention is only a combination of these old and well known elements which would have performed the same function in combination as each did separately. In the present case the combination of Cotilletta and Saini teaches a tape reel and adding a tensile strength of around 4N/mm2 as taught by Miller would maintain the same functionality of the combination of Cotilletta and Saini, making the results predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cotilletta (US 5566829 A) in view of Guiramand (WO 2018109216 A1).
With respect to claim 10, the references as applied to claim 1, above, disclose all the limitations of the claims except for wherein the cosmetic product in a flexible solid form, shaped as a strip, comprises a mixture of cosmetic powders and: (a) 0.1-15% by weight of at least one carrageenan, on the weight of the cosmetic product. However, in a similar field of endeavor, namely cosmetics, Guiramand taught of a cosmetic product that contains carrageenan (Page 17). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cosmetic product of Cotilletta to include carrageenan as taught by Guiramand in order to allow for test samples of Guiramand product.
Examiner Note: Percentage of carrageenan is a by-product of the amount of cosmetic product on the tester. Rationale can be viewed as a change of shape (volume of cosmetics on tester).
With respect to claim 13, the references as applied to claim 10, above, disclose wherein the cosmetic product comprises 40-60% by weight of cosmetic powder mixture and: a) 0.1-15% by weight of at least one carrageenan (as taught by Guiramand see claim 10 rejection above for combination rationale). However, the teachings of claim 10 failed to disclose wherein (b) 0.05-5% by weight of a non-emulsifying ester chosen from isononyl isononanoate, isodecylneopentanoate, octyldodecylneopentanoate, isostearylisostearate, isopropyl myristate, isocetyl stearate, and mixtures thereof; (c) 0.1-5% by weight of methyl glucose dioleateether; (d) 0.1-5% by weight of two or more of Glyceryl Stearate, Behenyl Alcohol, Palmitic Acid, Stearic Acid, Lecithin, Lauryl Alcohol, Myristyl Alcohol, and CetylAlcohol; (e) 5-10% by weight of glycerin; by weight of the product.
However, Guiramand (WO 2018109216 A1) discloses of (b) isopropyl myristate (page 19 lines 33-43) as a hydrocarbon-based ester. Also, (c) methyl glucose dioleateether (page 23 lines 31-32) is to be used as an emulsifying surfactant (pages 20-21 lines 35-5) that is nonionic and non-silicone. Guiramand also teaches of the use of the use of (d) CetylAlchol as a fatty acid (page 7 lines 27-29) and to function as a fatty substance for the cosmetic product. The overall composition of a fatty substance and gelling component of Guiramand functions to create a usable cosmetic product for preventing aging (page 1). Guiramand also teaches (e) of glycerin (page 19 lines 15-20). It would have been obvious for someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the cosmetic product of Cotilletta to include carrageenan as taught by Guiramand in order to allow for test samples of Guiramand product.
With respect to the disclosed weight percentages, it would be obvious to optimize the prior art with respect to the functionalities disclosed above.
Examiner Note: At a minimum the claimed weight percentage accounts for 45.75% percent of the weight of the cosmetic product. The rest of the weight can be accounted for by the percentage of film taught by Cotilletta. Further, the disclosed materials can all relate to a cosmetic lotion product.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-10005633-B2 OR US-10321746-B2 OR US-5133980-A OR US-5566829-A OR US-4884719-A OR US-6092657-A OR US-11319141-B2 OR US-4459058-A OR US-20160286937-A1 OR US-20100199465-A1 OR US-20010006653-A1 OR US-20240216253-A1 OR US-20250241428-A1 OR US-20240351818-A1 OR US-20230166937-A1 OR US-20180305163-A1 OR US-20080193727-A1 OR US-20060203878-A1 OR US-20030084994-A1 OR US-20200255210-A1 OR US-2185386-A OR US-3267623-A OR US-3217955-A OR US-3089170-A
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYMREN K SANGHERA whose telephone number is (571)272-5305. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri.
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, Anthony Stashick can be reached on (571)272-4561. 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.
/SYMREN K SANGHERA/Examiner, Art Unit 3735
Prosecution Insights