Toilet – Methods
Reexamination Certificate
2000-07-12
2003-07-29
Manahan, Todd E. (Department: 3732)
Toilet
Methods
C132S319000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06598608
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to cosmetics, and in particular to a cosmetics sampling method and cosmetics sampler film.
2. Background of the Invention
Cosmetics have been used by both sexes for thousands of years. As early as 4000 B.C. the ancient Egyptians used perfumes and body oils for protection against the hot dry climate, as well as for aesthetic reasons. As time passed, the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans learned to make cosmetics from plants. Powdered minerals were also used in the production of hair dyes, face, and eye makeup.
By 1100 A.D. cosmetics and their use had spread to Western Europe. During the same approximate time frame African cultures used war and religious ceremony body paints. American Indians used preparations made from animal fats for protection against the cold and insects long before European settlers arrived. In turn, the European settlers also brought cosmetics with them to the New World.
By the early 1900's, the use of face powder, rouge, lipstick and shampoo was fairly widespread on a world-wide basis. The demand and variety of available cosmetics increased dramatically from the 1930's on, attributable largely to the promotion and advertising efforts of cosmetics manufacturers.
Today the world-wide cosmetics industry generates billions of dollars each year in sales. A wide variety of cosmetics are available, including lipstick, lip liner, eye shadow, eye liner, fingernail polish, rouge and face powder.
Attendant with the tremendous demand for cosmetics come the problems of how to provide effective and sanitary sampling for potential purchasers of the different color shades, intensities, and vibrancies of the different cosmetics. Consumers understandably wish to observe how a given cosmetic product looks applied to their own skin prior to purchase. Because everyone has different skin characteristics, the appearance of a specific cosmetic may vary depending upon to whose lips, skin or fingernails it is applied.
Traditionally, in some up-scale stores, sampler tubes of lipstick, etc. have been made available for customers to use in sampling the cosmetics. A major problem associated with this approach is the large expense of providing a sampler tube of each and every one of the myriad colors and shades available for each product. This expense alone dissuades most stores form offering cosmetics samplers at all. Another problem associated with this sampler approach is the bulk of the sampler container: one cannot easily slip a number of tear-out sampler tubes of lipstick between the pages of a fashion magazine for the consumer to try out at home. Still another problem associated with the sampler approach is sanitation: many consumers are loath to use a cosmetic applicator, be,it an eyeliner brush or a tube of lipstick, which has previously been used by an indeterminate number of strangers of unknown health and personal hygiene habits. Needless to say, in today's litigious legal environment, where a store sampler which has been used by numerous individuals infects a consumer with some serious disease, the legal liability of that store to the infected consumer could become substantial.
Due to the lack of a sanitary, economical, comprehensive and effective cosmetic sampling method, and the looming liability issue, most stores simply do not offer cosmetics sampling, either by their own choice or in acquiescence to the limitations of their liability insurance carrier. This pervasive lack of cosmetic sampling capability has given rise to a population of shadow criminals. These shadow criminals are comprised of otherwise law-abiding citizens, most female, who are forced to furtively break the seal of store stock cosmetic containers in order to apply a small amount of the enclosed cosmetic to their skin, in order to get some idea what the cosmetic will look like when applied. Given the elevated prices commanded by quality cosmetics, it is simply unreasonable to expect the average consumer of limited means to buy without trying the cosmetic out first. Yet in the face of this entirely reasonable sampling need, most stores do not, or feel they cannot, provide samples!
This sad state of cosmetics sampling affairs has forced consumers to sample from store stock. At a minimum this action constitutes shop-lifting, and if the cosmetic is sufficiently pricey, could even amount to grand theft.
It is clear that a crying need exists for a method of sampling cosmetics which is inexpensive, yet which provides quick and easy sampling of the entire range of a manufacturer's products. Even a single manufacturer could offer dozens of different shades in lipsticks alone, not to mention the numerous shades of lip liner, eye shadow, eye liner, fingernail polish, rouge and face powder produced by that same manufacturer. When all these varieties of cosmetics available from a single manufacturer are multiplied by the number of cosmetics manufacturers on the market today, it is easy to see that a comprehensive cosmetics sampling method must provide sampling of hundreds, maybe thousands, of individual products.
In addition, it is crucial that the cosmetic sampling method be reasonably sanitary, for the reasons given above. Finally, the cosmetic sampling method must provide for an apparatus which is small and easily stored. There are a number of reasons for this compactness requirement: given the high cost of retail store floor and counter space, and given the hundreds or thousands of individual cosmetic products which must be sampled, absent a very compact apparatus, storage cost and display counter space cost of the sampling apparatus could be prohibitive. Another reason for compactness is the ability to deliver samplers to consumers to try in their homes or work places, via stand-alone mailers, magazine tear-out sheets, newspaper or other publication inserts, etc., to name only a few delivery methods.
EXISTING DESIGNS
A number of approaches have been attempted to solve this cosmetics sampling problem. U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,860,809 2,020,100, 2,393,371, 2,417,677, 1,990,630 and 5,570,793 have been granted Meehan, Boyd, Harris, Cohan, Bensel, and Killough respectively. These designs provided color chips embedded in an apparatus, color wheel, or mirror. While some idea of the “look” provided the consumer by a given cosmetic was afforded by these designs, they suffered from a number of drawbacks. All were complex and hence expensive, and each accommodate only a relatively small number of shades. Most of them taught only fingernail polish samplers, not lipstick, lip liner, eye shadow, eye liner, rouge or face powder sampling.
Winslow's U.S. Pat. No. 2,088,076 did teach a lipstick sampler which comprised a pair of lips to which tabs were connected. The consumer was expected to grip the tabs between her teeth, thus holding the artificial pair of lips against her own. This apparatus suffered from sanitation problems, in that the germs from previous users could be introduced into the mouth of subsequent users. In addition, each apparatus displayed only one lipstick shade, thus rendering storage of hundreds or thousands of these items bulky and unwieldy.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,441,412 was granted Hayles. This patent taught a series of transparencies overlaid on a backing sheet intended to represent the face of the consumer. This approach suffered from a number of problems. The major problem appeared to be lack of realism: the backing sheet intended to represent the face of the consumer was at best a rough approximation, so an exact picture of how a given cosmetic would look on a specific consumer was not possible. In addition, each transparency appeared to be roughly 9 inches×12 inches, and each transparency contained only a single cosmetic sample. Therefore the method and apparatus taught by the Hayles patent was bulky, and storage of hundreds or thousands of transparencies would require a fair amount of space.
Robinson was granted U.S. Pat. No. 2,237,162 for a fingernail polish sampler swivelably attached to a fingernail p
Manahan Todd #E.
Paul S. Rooy P.A.
LandOfFree
Cosmetics sampling method and cosmetics sampler film does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Cosmetics sampling method and cosmetics sampler film, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Cosmetics sampling method and cosmetics sampler film will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3034685