DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Due to applicant’s amendment filed on July 14, 2026, the objections to the claims, drawings, specification and the 112(b) rejections in the previous office action (dated 04/15/2026), are hereby withdrawn.
The status of the claim(s) is as follows:
Claims 1, 3, 7, 10 and 12 have been amended,
Claims 2, 4-6, 8-9, 11 and 13-17 were previously presented, and
Claim 18 has been newly added.
Therefore, claims 1-18 are currently pending.
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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 9-10, 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Attard-Kingswell et al. (US 9717316 B2; hereinafter Attard-Kingswell) in view of JP S6340166 Y2.
Regarding claim 1, Attard-Kingswell teaches a cosmetic product embodiment (100; as shown in Figs. 4-6b) comprising:
a container (110) defining a cavity;
a removable drawer (i.e. in the form of a godet tray (16)) including a drawer floor and a sidewall operably coupled therewith to define a drawer cavity adapted to retain a cosmetic substance (17); and
a frame (104) adapted to be at least partially disposed within the cavity of the container, the frame including a frame floor and a sidewall operably coupled therewith to define a first opening and a second opening (114);
wherein the first opening is adapted to expose the cosmetic substance to allow the cosmetic substance to be collected and removed from the drawer cavity and the second opening is adapted to slidably receive the removable drawer (Attard-Kingswell Col. 3 ln. 60 – Col. 4 ln. 60).
PNG
media_image1.png
1245
1450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Attard-Kingswell fails to teach the removable drawer further including a locking member extending from the sidewall, the frame further including at least one engaging member extending from the sidewall; and wherein upon slidably inserting the removable drawer into the second opening of the frame, the locking member engages the at least one engaging member to retain the removable drawer within the frame.
JP S6340166 Y2 is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Attard-Kingswell, which is a cosmetic container having a removable drawer or tray. JP S6340166 Y2 teaches a cosmetic product comprising:
a removable drawer or tray (3) including a drawer floor and a sidewall operably coupled therewith to define a drawer cavity adapted to retain a cosmetic substance, the removable drawer further including a locking member (3c) extending from the sidewall;
a frame (2) having a sidewall (2a) operably coupled therewith to define a first opening and a second opening, and further including at least one engaging member (2c) extending from the sidewall; and
wherein upon slidably inserting the removable drawer into the second opening of the frame, the locking member engages the at least one engaging member to retain the removable drawer within the frame (JP S6340166 Y2 pgs. 1-2 and Figs. 1-4b).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to applying the teachings of a locking member on the removable drawer and at least one engaging member on the frame (as taught by JP S6340166 Y2) onto the respective structure(s) (of Attard-Kingswell) to ensure the removable drawer does not dislodge and fully secured – when the overall cosmetic product is being used or transported.
Regarding claim 10, Attard-Kingswell teaches a cosmetic product embodiment (100; as shown in Figs. 4-6b) comprising:
a container (110) defining a cavity;
a removable drawer (i.e. in the form of a godet tray (16)) including a drawer floor and a sidewall operably coupled therewith to define a drawer cavity adapted to retain a cosmetic substance (17), the removable drawer further including an upper ledge extending from the sidewall; and
a frame (104) adapted to be at least partially disposed within the cavity of the container, the frame including a frame floor and a sidewall operably coupled therewith to define a first opening and a second opening (114), the frame further including an upper rim extending from the sidewall;
wherein the first opening is adapted to expose the cosmetic substance to allow the cosmetic substance to be collected and removed from the drawer cavity and the second opening is adapted to slidably receive the removable drawer (Attard-Kingswell Col. 3 ln. 60 – Col. 4 ln. 60 and see annotated Figs. 5-6b above).
However, Attard-Kingswell fails to teach the removable drawing further including a locking member extending from the sidewall, the frame further including at least one engaging member extending from the sidewall; and wherein upon slidably inserting the removable drawer into the second opening of the frame, the locking member and the at least one engaging member form a first point of contact therebetween.
JP S6340166 Y2 is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and Attard-Kingswell, which is a cosmetic container having a removable drawer or tray. JP S6340166 Y2 teaches a cosmetic product comprising:
a removable drawer or tray (3) including a drawer floor and a sidewall operably coupled therewith to define a drawer cavity adapted to retain a cosmetic substance, the removable drawer further including a locking member (3c) extending from the sidewall;
a frame (2) having a sidewall (2a) operably coupled therewith to define a first opening and a second opening, and further including at least one engaging member (2c) extending from the sidewall; and
wherein upon slidably inserting the removable drawer into the second opening of the frame, the locking member engages the at least one engaging member to retain the removable drawer within the frame, the locking member and the at least one engaging member form a first point of contact therebetween (JP S6340166 Y2 pgs. 1-2 and Figs. 1-4b).
With this in mind, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to applying the teachings of a locking member on the removable drawer and at least one engaging member on the frame (as taught by JP S6340166 Y2) onto the respective structure(s) (of Attard-Kingswell) to ensure the removable drawer does not dislodge and fully secured – when the overall cosmetic product is being used or transported.
Regarding claim 13, modified Attard-Kingswell as above further teaches wherein upon slidably inserting the removable drawer into the second opening of the frame, the upper ledge of the removable drawer and the upper rim of the frame cooperate to form a second point of contact (see Attard-Kingswell annotated Fig. 5 above).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, modified Attard-Kingswell as above further teaches wherein engagement between the locking member and the at least one engaging member generates a tactile feedback (i.e. in the form of an audible click or snap will occur when the two structures engage one another) indicative of complete coupling between the removable drawer and the frame.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is/are allowed.
Claims 2-8, 11-12 and 14-16 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (in particular claims 1 and 10, respectively), but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 14, 2026 with respect to claims 1, 9-10, 13 and 17 have been fully considered but they ARE NOT persuasive for the following reason(s):
Applicant’s argument: applicant argues that the proposed prior art structure (Attard-Kingswell in view of JP S6340166 Y2) fails to teach certain limitations of the claimed invention. Specifically, applicant points out that JP S6340166 Y2 does not teach “a frame adapted to be at least partially disposed with the cavity of the container” as recited in claims 1 and 10, respectively. Applicant further points out there is no articulated reasoning provided in either reference to combine the references. Therefore, the 103 rejections are in improper and should be withdrawn (see Remarks middle of pg. 8 to middle of pg. 9, specifically item VII).
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion(s).
Examiner notes that Attard-Kingswell already teaches “a frame adapted to be at least partially disposed with the cavity of the container”; emphasis added. JP S6340166 Y2 is relied upon to teach a locking mechanism between the two structure(s) (i.e. a removable drawer/cartridge AND a frame).
In addition, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP §2145(III)
Examiner further notes, “[T]he rationale to modify or combine the prior art does not have to be expressly stated in the prior art; the rationale may be expressly or impliedly contained in the prior art or it may be reasoned from knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, established scientific principles, or legal precedent established by prior case law.” See MPEP §2144(I)
With that in mind, one of the articulated reason(s) for providing the locking mechanism (of JP S6340166 Y2) onto the respective structures (of Attard-Kingswell) would be additional locking mechanism/feature between the removable drawer and frame.
Applicant’s argument: applicant argues that the proposed prior art structure (Attard-Kingswell in view of JP S6340166 Y2) fails to teach certain limitations of the claimed invention. Specifically, applicant points out that Attard-Kingswell does not teach “…upper ledge extending from the sidewall” (removable drawer) and “upper rim extending from the sidewall” (frame)…without identifying where the Attard-Kingswell reference discloses distinct upper-ledge and upper rim structures extending from the respective sidewalls. Mere annotation of figures, without citation to the specification or identification of the claimed structures, is insufficient to establish a prima facie case” (see Remarks bottom of pg. 9 and top of pg. 10, specifically item VII).
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with appellant's assertion. Please refer to the updated annotated Attard-Kingswell Fig above to see how the limitations are disclosed or taught. Further, "…When the reference is a utility patent, it does not matter that the feature shown is unintended or unexplained in the specification. The drawings must be evaluated for what they reasonably disclose and suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art..." See MPEP §2125(I).
Applicant’s argument: Applicant further argues that the remaining dependent claims are improper and should be withdrawn for the same reasoning as applied to ind. claims 1 and 10 (see Remarks pg. 9-10, item VII).
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s assertion(s) because in the art rejection(s) above, examiner further clarified or explained as to how the applied art still disclose or teaches the limitation(s) in question. Therefore, examiner maintains the 103 rejections of the dependent claims.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited documents are listed on the attached PTO-892 form.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIJESH V. PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-1878. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 6:00 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Orlando E. Avilés can be reached on 571-270-5531. 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.
/B. V. P./
Examiner, Art Unit 3736
/ORLANDO E AVILES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3736
Prosecution Insights