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 .
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 1-5, 8-10, 12, 15-17, 19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (KR 200493653) in view of Carullo et al. (US 6,601,591) and Bruder (US 2020/0000202).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoon teaches a makeup applicator (cosmetic sponge puffs, as shown in Figures 1-4), comprising:
a substantially flat base (support plate 10);
a porous flexible body (support member 30, described as a sponge in 6th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”); and
an application outer layer (cover sheet 20);
wherein the peripheral edge of the base (rim 12 of support plate 10) and the peripheral edge of the application outer layer (rim 21 of cover sheet 20) are connected (see Figures 2-4 with cross section of puffs; 4th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”) and jointly define a receiving space for accommodating the flexible body (see Figures 2-4 with cross section of puffs);
wherein the makeup applicator has a hardness distribution with a gradient change in a single direction (support plate 10 is described as being a resin sheet, artificial leather, or thick fabric (3rd paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”), which are harder than a sponge support member of a sponge cover sheet in order support the rest of the puff; support member 30 supports the bottom of cover sheet 20 when it is pressed against a surface (6th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”) therefore is harder than the cover sheet otherwise the coversheet would just collapse the support member 30; and cover sheet 20 is a thin sponge layer, therefore is less hard than the thicker sponge layer below it (support member 30) or the support plate 10; therefore the hardness distribution has a gradient change in only one direction of hardest at the support plate to softest at the cover sheet).
Yoon does not explicitly teach the application outer layer has at least a flat portion and a curved portion.
However, Carullo, in the same field of endeavor of makeup applicators (abstract), teaches an applicator (cosmetic applicator 1) comprising at least a flat portion (upper surface 2 shown in Figure 2 to be flat) and at least a curved portion (cross section shown in Figure 2 shows that the sides curve down to meet the other flat side), the curved portion being circumferentially arranged around said at least a flat portion (Figure 2);
wherein at least a portion of the curved portion of the applicator comprises a group of curved surfaces (Figure 1 shows the top view of the applicator 1 with lateral surfaces 4, 5, and 6, and rounded edges 8; all of these surfaces/edges are curved around the side as shown by Figure 2), the group of curved surfaces comprising three types of Gaussian curvatures (concave lateral surfaces 4 and 5; linear lateral surface 6; rounded edges 8 all applied to an applicator with the provide curvature as shown in Figures 2 and 4; col 2 lines 45-59 teach any of the profiles in Figures 3-5 can be applied to the shape and the rounded lateral surfaces or profiles as in Figure 4 is preferable for use with powders), and the product of the Gaussian curvatures of any two adjacent surfaces in the group of curved surfaces is not greater than zero (concave lateral surfaces 4 and 5 have negative curvatures, rounded edges 8 have positive curvatures, and linear lateral surface 6 has a zero curvature since it is a portion of a cylinder and all rounded edges 8 are next to a concave surface 4,5 or linear surface 6, therefore the products of the curvatures are always negative or zero);
wherein the group of curved surfaces includes a saddle surface having a negative Gaussian curvature (either of concave lateral surfaces 4 and 5 with the rounded profile shown in Figure 4 and taught by col 2 lines 45-59 as preferrable for powders), three distinct spherical surfaces each having a positive Gaussian curvature (rounded edges 8 with rounded profile of Figure 4), and one distinct cylindrical surface with a zero Gaussian curvature (linear lateral surface 6 with rounded profile of Figure 4 is a cylindrical surface and therefore has a zero Gaussian curvature), wherein no two of the distinct spherical surfaces adjoin one another, two of the distinct spherical surfaces respectively adjoin opposite sides of the saddle surface, and each of the distinct cylindrical surfaces adjoin two different ones of the distinct spherical surfaces (all rounded edges 8 are separated by concave lateral surfaces 4, 5, or linear lateral surface 6 and a rounded edge 8 is present on each end of all the lateral surfaces 4, 5, 6).
Carullo teaches this shape for a cosmetic applicator in order to have an applicator that is ergonomic and works with the contours of the face (col 1 lines 34-47).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the makeup applicator taught by Yoon to be in shape taught by Carullo, which has the claimed curved surfaces, in order to have an applicator that works well with the contours of the face. By making the overall applicator shaped as taught by Carullo, the outer layer would be in that shape.
However, the combination of Yoon and Carullo does not teach at least four distinct spherical surfaces and at least three distinct cylindrical surfaces as the general shape taught by Carullo is triangular.
Bruder, in the same field of endeavor of cosmetic applicators (abstract), teaches that cosmetic applicators can come in a variety of shapes (Figure 10A-K; ¶ 0064), including circles (Fig. 10A) at taught by Yoon, triangles (Figure 10C) as taught by Carullo, and shapes with more than 3 lateral sides, such as rectangles (10D), hexagons (10F), pentagons (10G), and diamonds (10H), as well has crosses (10E), ovals (10I), and shapes that are not flat on top (10J-K).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the makeup applicator as taught by Yoon and Carullo to have a different shape than the generally triangular shape taught by Carullo, such as the polygonal shapes taught by Bruder. Bruder states that polygonal shapes can be considered advantageous (¶ 0064), and furthermore the shapes would be obvious to try as they are part of a set of shapes known to be useful and applicable to cosmetic applicators. See MPEP 2143. One would be motivated to keep the concave lateral surfaces and the curved edges as taught by Carullo as they are known to work with the contours of the face, but to apply such to the other polygonal shapes taught by Bruder. In the combination of Carullo and Bruder with still 2 concave surfaces but the other lateral surfaces being straight, the hexagon and pentagon would result in at least 4 spherical surfaces at each corner of the polygon and at least 3 cylindrical surfaces on the edges that are not concave or saddle shaped.
Regarding Claim 2, Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder teach the makeup applicator of claim 1, as presented above. Yoon further teaches wherein the application outer layer is configured to perform makeup actions of powder pickup and/or powder release (1st paragraph of “Background Art”).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder teach the makeup applicator of claim 1, as presented above. Yoon further teaches wherein the material for making the application outer layer comprises polyurethane (PU) (9th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”), latex, silicone, velour, microfiber, activated carbon, sponge, cotton, or a combination of these materials.
Regarding Claim 5, Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder teach the makeup applicator of claim 1, as presented above. Yoon further teaches wherein the flexible body is made of a sponge material (6th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”).
Regarding Claim 21, Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder teach the makeup applicator of claim 1, as presented above. Bruder further teaches that the overall shape of the applicator could be a polygon with 5 or 6 sides. The polygon with 6 sides, even keeping the two saddle surfaces as two sides as taught by Carullo, would result in 6 distinct spherical surfaces at the corners, which includes the 5 distinct spherical surfaces recited in the claim, and four distinct cylindrical surfaces.
Regarding Claim 8, Yoon teaches a makeup applicator (cosmetic sponge puffs, as shown in Figures 1-4), comprising:
a substantially flat base (support plate 10);
a porous flexible body (support member 30, described as a sponge in 6th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”); and
an application outer layer (cover sheet 20);
wherein the peripheral edge of the base (rim 12 of support plate 10) and the peripheral edge of the application outer layer (rim 21 of cover sheet 20) are connected (see Figures 2-4 with cross section of puffs; 4th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”) and jointly define a receiving space for accommodating the flexible body (see Figures 2-4 with cross section of puffs);
wherein the makeup applicator has a hardness distribution with a gradient change in a single direction (support plate 10 is described as being a resin sheet, artificial leather, or thick fabric (3rd paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”), which are harder than a sponge support member of a sponge cover sheet in order support the rest of the puff; support member 30 supports the bottom of cover sheet 20 when it is pressed against a surface (6th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”) therefore is harder than the cover sheet otherwise the coversheet would just collapse the support member 30; and cover sheet 20 is a thin sponge layer, therefore is less hard than the thicker sponge layer below it (support member 30) or the support plate 10; therefore the hardness distribution has a gradient change in only one direction of hardest at the support plate to softest at the cover sheet).
Yoon does not explicitly teach the application outer layer has a flat and curved portion.
However, Carullo, in the same field of endeavor of makeup applicators (abstract), teaches an applicator (cosmetic applicator 1) comprising at least a flat portion (upper surface 2 shown in Figure 2 to be flat) and at least a curved portion (cross section shown in Figure 2 shows that the sides curve down to meet the other flat side), the curved portion being circumferentially arranged around said at least a flat portion (Figure 2);
wherein at least a portion of the curved portion of the applicator comprises a group of curved surfaces (Figure 1 shows the top view of the applicator 1 with lateral surfaces 4, 5, and 6, and rounded edges 8; all of these surfaces/edges are curved around the side or profile as shown by Figure 2) that includes a saddle surface having a negative Gaussian curvature (either of concave lateral surfaces 4 and 5 with the rounded profile shown in Figure 4 and taught by col 2 lines 45-59 as preferrable for powders), three distinct spherical surfaces each having a positive Gaussian curvature (rounded edges 8 with rounded profile of Figure 4), and one distinct cylindrical surface with a zero Gaussian curvature (linear lateral surface 6 with rounded profile of Figure 4 is a cylindrical surface and therefore has a zero Gaussian curvature), wherein no two of the distinct spherical surfaces adjoin one another, two of the distinct spherical surfaces respectively adjoin opposite sides of the saddle surface, and each of the distinct cylindrical surfaces adjoin two different ones of the distinct spherical surfaces (all rounded edges 8 are separated by concave lateral surfaces 4, 5, or linear lateral surface 6 and a rounded edge 8 is present on each end of all the lateral surfaces 4, 5, 6).
Carullo teaches this shape for a cosmetic applicator in order to have an applicator that is ergonomic and works with the contours of the face (col 1 lines 34-47).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the makeup applicator taught by Yoon to be in shape taught by Carullo, which has the claimed curved surfaces, in order to have an applicator that works well with the contours of the face. By making the overall applicator shaped as taught by Carullo, the outer layer would be in that shape.
However, the combination of Yoon and Carullo does not teach at least four distinct spherical surfaces and at least three distinct cylindrical surfaces as the general shape taught by Carullo is triangular.
Bruder, in the same field of endeavor of cosmetic applicators (abstract), teaches that cosmetic applicators can come in a variety of shapes (Figure 10A-K; ¶ 0064), including circles (Fig. 10A) at taught by Yoon, triangles (Figure 10C) as taught by Carullo, and shapes with more than 3 lateral sides, such as rectangles (10D), hexagons (10F), pentagons (10G), and diamonds (10H), as well has crosses (10E), ovals (10I), and shapes that are not flat on top (10J-K).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the makeup applicator as taught by Yoon and Carullo to have a different shape than the generally triangular shape taught by Carullo, such as the polygonal shapes taught by Bruder. Bruder states that polygonal shapes can be considered advantageous (¶ 0064), and furthermore the shapes would be obvious to try as they are part of a set of shapes known to be useful and applicable to cosmetic applicators. See MPEP 2143. One would be motivated to keep the concave lateral surfaces and the curved edges as taught by Carullo as they are known to work with the contours of the face, but to apply such to the other polygonal shapes taught by Bruder. In the combination of Carullo and Bruder with still 2 concave surfaces but the other lateral surfaces being straight, the hexagon and pentagon would result in at least 4 spherical surfaces at each corner of the polygon and at least 3 cylindrical surfaces on the edges that are not concave or saddle shaped.
Regarding Claim 9, Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder teach the makeup applicator of claim 8, as presented above. Yoon further teaches wherein the application outer layer is configured to perform makeup actions of powder pickup and/or powder release (1st paragraph of “Background Art”).
Regarding Claim 10, Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder teach the makeup applicator of claim 8, as presented above. Yoon further teaches wherein the material for making the application outer layer comprises polyurethane (PU) (9th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”), latex, silicone, velour, microfiber, activated carbon, sponge, cotton, or a combination of these materials.
Regarding Claim 12, Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder teach the makeup applicator of claim 8, as presented above. Yoon further teaches wherein the flexible body is made of a sponge material (6th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”).
Regarding Claim 15, Yoon teaches a makeup applicator (cosmetic sponge puffs, as shown in Figures 1-4), comprising:
a substantially flat base (support plate 10);
a porous flexible body (support member 30, described as a sponge in 6th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”); and
an application outer layer (cover sheet 20);
wherein the peripheral edge of the base (rim 12 of support plate 10) and the peripheral edge of the application outer layer (rim 21 of cover sheet 20) are connected (see Figures 2-4 with cross section of puffs; 4th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”) and jointly define a receiving space for accommodating the flexible body (see Figures 2-4 with cross section of puffs);
wherein the makeup applicator has a hardness distribution with a gradient change in a single direction (support plate 10 is described as being a resin sheet, artificial leather, or thick fabric (3rd paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”), which are harder than a sponge support member of a sponge cover sheet in order support the rest of the puff; support member 30 supports the bottom of cover sheet 20 when it is pressed against a surface (6th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”) therefore is harder than the cover sheet otherwise the coversheet would just collapse the support member 30; and cover sheet 20 is a thin sponge layer, therefore is less hard than the thicker sponge layer below it (support member 30) or the support plate 10; therefore the hardness distribution has a gradient change in only one direction of hardest at the support plate to softest at the cover sheet).
Yoon does not explicitly teach the application outer layer has a flat and curved portion.
However, Carullo, in the same field of endeavor of makeup applicators (abstract), teaches an applicator (cosmetic applicator 1) comprising at least a flat portion (upper surface 2 shown in Figure 2 to be flat) and at least a curved portion (cross section shown in Figure 2 shows that the sides curve down to meet the other flat side), the curved portion being circumferentially arranged around said at least a flat portion (Figure 2);
wherein at least a portion of the curved portion of the applicator comprises a group of curved surfaces (Figure 1 shows the top view of the applicator 1 with lateral surfaces 4, 5, and 6, and rounded edges 8; all of these surfaces/edges are curved around the side as shown by Figure 2) that defines a first type of operating region (lateral surfaces 4,5 with a concave shape) and a second type of operating region (rounded edges 8), the first type of operating region and the second type of operating region being configured so as to simultaneously perform makeup application actions on the user's under-eye area and nasal root area (fully capable of being used to simultaneously apply makeup to the under-eye area and nasal root area);
wherein the group of curved surfaces (Figure 1) includes a saddle surface having a negative Gaussian curvature (either of concave lateral surfaces 4 and 5 with the rounded profile shown in Figure 4 and taught by col 2 lines 45-59 as preferrable for powders), three distinct spherical surfaces each having a positive Gaussian curvature (rounded edges 8 with rounded profile of Figure 4), and one distinct cylindrical surface with a zero Gaussian curvature (linear lateral surface 6 with rounded profile of Figure 4 is a cylindrical surface and therefore has a zero Gaussian curvature), wherein no two of the distinct spherical surfaces adjoin one another, two of the distinct spherical surfaces respectively adjoin opposite sides of the saddle surface, and each of the distinct cylindrical surfaces adjoin two different ones of the distinct spherical surfaces (all rounded edges 8 are separated by concave lateral surfaces 4, 5, or linear lateral surface 6 and a rounded edge 8 is present on each end of all the lateral surfaces 4, 5, 6).
Carullo teaches this shape for a cosmetic applicator in order to have an applicator that is ergonomic and works with the contours of the face (col 1 lines 34-47).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the makeup applicator taught by Yoon to be in shape taught by Carullo, which has the claimed curved surfaces, in order to have an applicator that works well with the contours of the face. By making the overall applicator shaped as taught by Carullo, the outer layer would be in that shape.
However, the combination of Yoon and Carullo does not teach at least four distinct spherical surfaces and at least three distinct cylindrical surfaces as the general shape taught by Carullo is triangular.
Bruder, in the same field of endeavor of cosmetic applicators (abstract), teaches that cosmetic applicators can come in a variety of shapes (Figure 10A-K; ¶ 0064), including circles (Fig. 10A) at taught by Yoon, triangles (Figure 10C) as taught by Carullo, and shapes with more than 3 lateral sides, such as rectangles (10D), hexagons (10F), pentagons (10G), and diamonds (10H), as well has crosses (10E), ovals (10I), and shapes that are not flat on top (10J-K).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the makeup applicator as taught by Yoon and Carullo to have a different shape than the generally triangular shape taught by Carullo, such as the polygonal shapes taught by Bruder. Bruder states that polygonal shapes can be considered advantageous (¶ 0064), and furthermore the shapes would be obvious to try as they are part of a set of shapes known to be useful and applicable to cosmetic applicators. See MPEP 2143. One would be motivated to keep the concave lateral surfaces and the curved edges as taught by Carullo as they are known to work with the contours of the face, but to apply such to the other polygonal shapes taught by Bruder. In the combination of Carullo and Bruder with still 2 concave surfaces but the other lateral surfaces being straight, the hexagon and pentagon would result in at least 4 spherical surfaces at each corner of the polygon and at least 3 cylindrical surfaces on the edges that are not concave or saddle shaped. The applicator in generally polygonal shape other than the triangle as taught by Carullo would still be fully capable of simultaneously applying makeup to the under-eye area and the nasal root area.
Regarding Claim 16, Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder teach the makeup applicator of claim 15, as presented above. Yoon further teaches wherein the application outer layer is configured to perform makeup actions of powder pickup and/or powder release (1st paragraph of “Background Art”).
Regarding Claim 17, Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder teach the makeup applicator of claim 15, as presented above. Yoon further teaches wherein the material for making the application outer layer comprises polyurethane (PU) (9th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”), latex, silicone, velour, microfiber, activated carbon, sponge, cotton, or a combination of these materials.
Regarding Claim 19, Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder teach the makeup applicator of claim 15, as presented above. Yoon further teaches wherein the flexible body is made of a sponge material (6th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (KR 200493653), Carullo et al. (US 6,601,591), and Bruder (US 2020/0000202) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and in further view of Jin (KR 101748856).
Regarding Claims 4, 11, and 18, Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder teach the makeup applicator of claims 1, 8, and 15 as presented above, on which claims 4, 11, and 18 depend, respectively. Yoon further teaches wherein the application outer layer has “fine pores” (10th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”) but does not explicitly teach the diameters of the pores.
However, Jin, in the same field of endeavor of multilayered makeup applicators (abstract) with the outer layer made of polyurethane (8th-11th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments” section), teaches wherein the application outer layer (first cushion member 10) has micropores with pore diameters between 100 µm and 200 µ (10th-11th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments” section). Jin teaches the outer layer of the cosmetic applicator having pores of this size because they good coating of cosmetics onto the skin polyurethane (9th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments” section).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the make-up applicator as taught Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder to have the application outer layer have pores with diameters between 100 and 200 µm as taught by Jin. Yoon teaches the application outer layer having pores but does not teach the size of the pores, therefore it would have been obvious to make the pores the size taught by Jin, which is known to be a good pore size for applicators to apply cosmetics to the skin.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (KR 200493653), Carullo et al. (US 6,601,591), and Bruder (US 2020/0000202) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and in further view of Ichii et a. (WO 2020027255)
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 20, Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder teach the makeup applicator of claims 1, 8, and 15 as presented above, on which claims 6, 13, and 20 depend, respectively. Yoon further teaches the application outer layer (cover sheet 20) having a thickness of 3-8 mm (13th paragraph of “Description of Embodiments”), which overlaps the described thickness of the application outer layer in the instant application (specification paragraph 42: 1-6 mm). Yoon does not explicitly teach am average thickness of the flexible body nor does it explicitly teach a ratio of the average thicknesses of the outer layer and the flexible body.
However, Ichii, in the same field of endeavor of multi-layered make up applicators (Figures 10-12, abstract, translation bottom of page 5 to top of page 6 discusses layers and materials of layers), teaches wherein the ratio of the average thickness of the application outer layer (application unit 21) to the average thickness of the flexibly body (core 22) is between 1/8 and 1/3 (translation page 9 4th paragraph describes the thickness of application unit 21 being preferably 2-10 mm and the thickness of core 22 being preferably 8-40 mm, therefore the ratio of the average thickness of the application unit 22 to the average thickness of the core 22 ranges from 1/20 to 1/4 at the extremes, overlapping the claimed range from 1/8 to 1/4).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the make up applicator taught by Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder to have a ratio of average thicknesses of the application outer layer and the flexible body be 1/8 to 1/4 as taught by Ichii. Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder do not teach a thickness for the interior flexibly body of the applicator nor a ratio of thickness of the outer layer to the inner flexibly body, therefore it would be obvious to utilize dimensions and ratios known in the art, such as those taught by Ichii.
Claims 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoon (KR 200493653), Carullo et al. (US 6,601,591), and Bruder (US 2020/0000202) as applied to claims 1 above, as evidenced by Kruger (US 4,520,799).
Regarding Claim 22, Yoon, Carullo, and Bruder teach the makeup applicator of claim 1, as presented above. Carullo teaches that one or more lateral surfaces are concave in shape, which results in a saddle shape when combined with the rounded profile taught. While the previous rejections have relied on the embodiment shown in Figure 1, Carullo does teach that an ergonomic cosmetic applicator would have at least one concave surface and at least one linear surface. Therefore, it would be obvious to try only one concave surface before the effective filing date.
Further evidence of one concave surface being known to be useful on cosmetic applicators can be found in Kruger. Kruger, in the same field of endeavor of devices to apply cosmetics (col 1 lines 24-31), teaches an application device with a single concave surface for use under the eye (Figure 1).
The combination of the one concave or saddle shaped edge taught by Carullo with the pentagon of Bruder, which is one of the obvious to try shapes in the set of shapes taught by Bruder, results in an applicator wherein the saddle surface, the five distinct spherical surfaces, and the four distinct cylindrical surfaces are successively connected in a circumferential sequence extending from a first side of the saddle surface to a second side of the saddle surface opposite the first side, in the following order: a first spherical surface, a first cylindrical surface, a second spherical surface, a second cylindrical surface, a third spherical surface, a third cylindrical surface, a fourth spherical surface, a fourth cylindrical surface, and a fifth spherical surface.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 5, 2026 with respect Yoon have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Yoon does not teach the hardness distribution with a gradient change in a single direction, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites only a hardness distribution, which in broadest reasonable interpretation would consider the material properties and the structure of the materials, such as thickness. In fact, applicant’s specification recites “the hardness-gradient distribution of the makeup applicator 10 can be realized through material selection and structural design” in paragraph 47. The claims do not recite further limitations on how the hardness distribution or gradient is determined.
Applicants’ argument that the concave lateral surfaces taught by Carullo have been considered but they are not persuasive. Carullo teaches lateral surfaces 4 and 5 being concave in shape (see Figure 1) and the profile of the applicator being rounded (see Figure 4). Furthermore, Carullo teaches the rounded profile is preferred for application of powders (col 2 lines 45-59), such as Yoon teaches the applicator being for. The combination of the concave surface when observed from above and the rounded surface when observed in profile results in the surface having curves in two directions of opposite signs and is a saddle shape with a negative Gaussian curvature.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to Carullo in the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15 have been considered but are moot. Bruder has been added to the rejections above due to the amendments to the claims. Bruder addresses the elements of the shape not taught by Carullo.
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 P. Connell whose telephone number is (703)756-1169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 am - 3 pm ET.
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.
/JENNIFER P CONNELL/Examiner, Art Unit 3772
/EDELMIRA BOSQUES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3772
