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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 5, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-24, and 26-27 are currently pending. Claim 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13-24 are amended. Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 25 are canceled. Claim 26 and 27 are newly added.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 17 and 24 are withdrawn as being directed to nonelected species, there being no allowable linking or generic claims.
Claims 13-16, 18-23 and 26-27 are examined in light of the elected species of external cosmetic agent combination retinol (vitamin A), citric acid, ceramides, and vitamin E (tocopheryl acetate), water, propylene glycol and glycerin as the solvent combination, polysorbate 60 as the emulsifier, Carbopol 980, cetearyl alcohol and stearyl alcohol as the thickening agent combination, lanolin oil, aloe vera palmitate and lecithin as the emollient combination, the condition of dry skin; antioxidant, transdermal delivery agent, preservative, fragrance and coloring agent as the additional substances, methylparaben as the preservative, transcutol as the transdermal delivery agent, vitamin C as the antioxidant, tea tree as the fragrance and mica interference copper as the coloring agent.
Information Disclosure Statement
No Information Disclosure Statement has been filed. Applicants are reminded of their duty to disclose.
Previous Rejections
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn as are those rejections and/or objections expressly stated to be withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Rejections Withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In light of the amendments to the claims the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12-16 and 18-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lintner et al. US 2009/0017147 (1/15/2009) in view of Karelis et al. US 2019/0307719 (8/3/2016), Kurz et al. US 6,187,298 (2/13/2001), Joerger et al. US 2007/0207113 (9/6/2007), Gupta et al. US 2011/0059907 (3/10/2011), Lanzalaco et al. WO 2013/122932 (8/22/2013), Desanto WO 2015/030702 (3/5/2015), Disalvo US 2016/0158134 (6/9/2016), FR 2522500 (9/9/1983)(“FR”), and Baron, Medicinal Properties of Cannabinoids, Terpenes and Flavonoids in Cannabis, and Benefits in Migraine, Headache, and Pain: An Update on Current Evidence and Cannabis Science, Headache Vol. 57:7 (7/8 2018) pp 1139-1186 is withdrawn.
New Rejections
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 13-16, 18-23 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Lintner et al. US 2009/0017147 (1/15/2009) in view of Karelis et al. US 2019/0307719 (8/3/2016), Kurz et al. US 6,187,298 (2/13/2001), Joerger et al. US 2007/0207113 (9/6/2007), Lanzalaco et al. WO 2013/122932 (8/22/2013), Desanto WO 2015/030702 (3/5/2015), Disalvo US 2016/0158134 (6/9/2016), FR 2522500 (9/9/1983)(“FR”) and Baron, Medicinal Properties of Cannabinoids, Terpenes and Flavonoids in Cannabis, and Benefits in Migraine, Headache, and Pain: An Update on Current Evidence and Cannabis Science, Headache Vol. 57:7 (7/8 2018) pp 1139-1186.
Lintner et al. (Lintner) teaches the invention provides a cosmetic or dermopharmaceutic composition containing an Euglena extract, its use to activate the cellular metabolism and in particular to protect and/or improve the state of the skin and to reduce the signs of ageing in particular and/or cutaneous fatigue. (See Abstract). The composition can be used to treat dry skin by applying the composition to skin as called for in instant claim 1. Indeed claim 35 of Lintner expressly teaches that it is a method of treating and/or reducing skin dryness, loss of skin elasticity, withered and flaccid skin, sagging, dehydrated skin, loss of skin firmness. Thus, Lintner does expressly teach and even claims a method of treating dry skin.
Lintner teaches a composition comprising water, retinol (vitamin A) and tocopherol (vitamin E). (See [0043]). Retinol and tocopherol are taught to be skin active agents. Vitamin E is taught to be a preferred antioxidant. (See [173]). The cosmetic active agents can be present in an amount of about 0.001 to 50% which overlaps with the 0.1 to 7.5% called for in instant claim 4. (See [0170]). Vitamin A and vitamin E are called for in instant claim 26. 0.001 to 50% also overlaps with the 0.1-7.5 wt% called for in claim 26.
Lintner also teaches that a ceramide and citric acid can be part of the composition. (See [0061], [0107], [0162]). Citric acid is taught to be a preferred keratolytic agent. (See162]). Ceramides are taught to be suitable and desirable active to include in the composition. (See [0061]). Ceramide and citric acid are called for in instant claim 26.
The composition can be formulated as a lotion as called for in instant claim 13. (See [0380]). Lotions are taught to generally include an emollient and a solution carrier system. (See [0058], [0380]). The emollient may be present in an amount of from about 1% to about 50%. (See [0379]). About 1% to about 50% overlaps with the 10-22% called for in instant claim 26. Emollients are for moisturizing skin.
The composition can also comprise Polysorbate 60 as called for in instant claim 26. Polysorbate 60 is an emulsifier and emulsifiers can be present in an amount of about 0.1 to 10%. (See [0326]). 0.1 to 10% overlaps with the 3-8% called for in claim 26.
In Table 19 Lintner teaches a composition with water, glycerin, cetearyl alcohol and ceramide. (See Table 19). Water and glycerin are called for instant claim 26. The solvent can comprise preferably about 25-98% of the composition. (See [0350]). 25-98% overlaps with the 60-80% called for in instant claim 26. Lintner teaches that combinations of solvents can be used. (See [0324]). Propylene glycol is taught by Lintner and is called for in claim 26. (See [175], [191]). Thickeners can be present in an amount of from about 0.05 to 10% which overlaps with the 0.3 to 3% called for in instant claim 10. (See [0202]).
The composition can also contain the flavonoid quercetin as called for in instant claim 1. (See [0179], [0061]). The composition can include anti-inflammatory agents such as triterpenes. (See [0184]). The composition can also include antioxidants such as vitamin C as called for in instant claim 20. Antioxidants are taught to be suitable actives that can be included in the composition. (See [0061]). Additionally, the transdermal delivery agent transcutol can be used as called for in claim 19. (See [0445]). Methylparaben is a preservative that can be used in the composition as called for in instant claim 18. (See [0419]).
Solvents include water, polypropylene glycol and glycerin as called for in instant claim 1. (See [0175, 0177], [0285] and [0308]). The aqueous solvent mixture can be present in amount of from 20 to 95% which overlaps with the 60-80% called for in claim 6. (See [0306]).
Carbopol 980 is a thickening agent that can be present in the composition. (See 0289]). Carbopol 980 is crosslinked polyacrylic acid as called for in claim 26. Stearyl alcohol can also be present as well as cetearyl alcohol as called for in instant claim 26. (See [0446]). Indeed stearyl alcohol is even described as being among the preferred structural agents for the composition. (See [0354]).
Polysorbate 60 can be present as an emulsifier as called for in instant claim 1 as the elected species of emulsifier. (See [0331]). The emulsifier can be present in an amount of from 0.1 to 10% which overlaps with the 3-8% emulsifier called for in instant claim 26. (See [0307]).
Lintner teaches that the active cosmetic agent can be dissolved in the solvent as called for in instant claim 15. (See [0336] and [0435]). Additionally, the active cosmetic agent can be dispersed throughout the composition. (See [0356]). This is called for in instant claim 14.
The composition can include tea tree oil which Lintner describes as having the advantage of being antimicrobial. (See [0191]). Tea tree is called for in instant claim 22 and it is a fragrance as called for in instant claim 16. The composition can also include vitamin C as called for in claim 20 which is a vitamin and an antioxidant as called for in claim 16. The vitamin C is present in an amount of about 0.1 to 5% which overlaps with the 0.05 to 0.5% called for in claims 21 and 27. Lintner also teaches transcutol as called for in claim 19 which is a transdermal delivery agent as called for in claim 16. Lintner teaches quercetin as an oxygen generator and flavonoid. (See [0179]). Flavinoids are called for in instant claim 26.
Lintner also teaches lecithin as called for in claim 26. (See [0123], [0148]). Lecithin is taught to provide for ease of formulation. (See [0123]). Lanolin is taught as a suitable oil as called for in claim 26. (See [0278]). Aloe vera in any of its forms is also taught as a suitable humectant. (See [0175]). Lintner also teaches ethylhexyl palmitate. (See [0446]).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the earliest effective filing date for one of ordinary skill in the art to add citric acid to the composition with water, glycerin, cetearyl alcohol and ceramide in order to have a preferred keratolytic agent, add vitamins A, C and E in order to have preferred antioxidants, add transcutol to have a transdermal delivery agent to deliver the actives through the skin, and add tea tree oil in order to have a perfume with antimicrobial activity.
It would have been prima facie obvious before the earliest effective filing date for one of ordinary skill in the art to add lecithin for ease of formulating the composition, add aloe vera in ethylhexyl palmitate to have a suitable humectant and add polysorbate 60 in order to have a suitable emulsifier to emulsify the oil and aqueous phases. Polypropylene glycol could be added to the mixture of water and glycerin in order to have a desirable mixture of solvents since mixtures of solvent are taught to be suitable. Methylparaben could be added to the composition in order to have a preservative for the composition. Carbopol 980 can be added as a preferred thickener and stearyl alcohol can be added as preferred structuring agent.
Lintner teaches aloe vera but does not expressly teach aloe vera palmitate. Lintner does not teach cannabinoid, terpenes or mica interference copper. Lintner does not teach pumpkin puree, yogurt filtrate or walnut shell powder. These deficiencies are made up with Karelis, Kurz, Joerger et al., Lanzalaco, Desanto, Disalvo, FR and Baron.
Karelis teaches a topical composition for treating a skin disorder. (See Abstract). The composition comprises a Cannabis extract and optionally pharmaceutically acceptable carriers, diluents, or adjuvants. (See Abstract). The main cannabinoid is CBD. (See Karelis claim 2). Karelis also teaches terpenes. (See [0009]). CBD and terpenes are called for in instant claim 1. Karelis also teaches that certain cannabinoids may be absent, or present in non-detectable amounts. (See [0039]). Karelis also teaches that CBD is the main cannabinoid present and secondary cannabinoids are present in an amount of from 0.001% to about 20%. (See [0038]). The 0.001% overlaps with the substantially free limitation of instant claim 1.
Karelis teaches that terpene may be present in an amount of less than 1%. (See [0040]). Karelis expressly teaches that it is believed that the presence of particular terpenes is associated with beneficial effects of the composition in use. (See [0043]). Terpene is taught to be present in combination with CBD and so this amount would be suitable for the combination of terpene and CBD as well. (See [0040-0043]). Less than 1% overlaps with the from in an aggregate amount of 0.05% to 0.5% called for in instant claim 26.
Karelis also teaches embodiments in which the Cannabis extract can exclude the following cannabinoids including THCA, THCV, CBDA, CBGA, CBN and CBC. (See [0039]). With respect to the THC content limitation of claim 26, Karelis teaches the main cannabinoid to be selected as CBD (paragraph 37) and teaches the THC to be from 0.001% to about 20%. The 0.001% (0.01 mg/mL) overlaps with the less than 0.02 mg/mL called for in instant claim 26. 0.001% to about 20% also overlaps with the aggregate amount of 0.05 to 0.5 wt% called for in instant claim 26.
Kurz teaches interference pigments that are suitable for topical compositions and that have sunscreen capabilities. (See Abstract). Kurz teaches copper interference mica as called for in instant claim 23. (See Kurz claim 1). This is a coloring agent as called for in instant claim 16.
Joerger et al. (Joerger) teaches personal care composition comprising 1,3-propanediol and an acceptable carrier and an active. (See Abstract). Joerger teaches in Example 3 at [0211] a combination of Vitamin A palmitate and aloe vera gel. In [0212] Joerger teaches that the Vitamin A palmitate and aloe vera gel are combined by being mixed together in a composition to form a hand and body cream. This forms aloe vera palmitate as called for in instant claim 26. Joerger teaches that aloe vera is an effective anti-inflammatory agent. (See [0141]).
Lanzalaco et al. (Lanzalaco) teaches a topical cosmetic composition that includes an effect amount of a skin commensal prebiotic to improve the health of the skin microbiome. (See Abstract). Lanzalaco teaches that the topical compositions may include a probiotic substance that provides a skin care benefit in combination with a skin commensal prebiotic. A lactobacillus is an example of a skin commensal microorganism, a bacteria, that has a skin care benefit. (See page 27, lines 18-25). Lactobacillus is called for in instant claim 26.
Desanto teaches a method of applying a cosmetic composition containing rhamnolipid to human to treat wrinkles. (See Abstract and claim 1). Desanto teaches that walnut shell powder may be used as a carrier in its cosmetic composition. (See page 9). Walnut shell powder is called for in instant claim 26. Desanto also teaches that pumpkin and yogurt can be used as carriers in its cosmetic composition.(See pages 7 and page 9).
Disalvo teaches a cosmetic composition with high vitamin C content that can contain additional cosmetic actives and additives and method of administering this cosmetic composition to skin. (See Abstract and claims 1 and 20). Disalvo teaches that yoghurt filtrate is a probiotic and fermentation filtrate that can be used as an active ingredient in its cosmetic composition. (See [0052]). Yogurt filtrate is called for in instant claim 26.
FR teaches a cosmetic composition containing the pulp of Chinese pumpkin that is particularly beneficial to the skin, scalp and hair and has antinflammatory activity. (See Abstract). FR teaches that pumpkin puree is a useful addition to topical compositions. (See Abstract and claims 1-2). FR teaches a mash of pumpkin pulp which reads on the pumpkin puree called for in instant claim 26.
Baron teaches that there is a synergistic effect of cannabinoids, terpenes and flavonoids when administered together and a therapeutic benefit for treating pain, migraine and headache as well as opioid detoxification in administration of these components together. (See Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date making the Lintner composition for treating skin dryness by combing citric acid with water, glycerin, cetearyl alcohol, ceramide, vitamins A, C and E, transcutol, tea tree oil, quercetin, lecithin, polysorbate 60, polypropylene glycol, methylparaben and Carbopol 980 to add less than 1% CBD and terpenes to the composition in order to have a composition that is useful for the effective therapeutic treatment of pain, migraine and headache as taught by Baron.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date making the Lintner composition for treating skin dryness by combing citric acid with water, glycerin, cetearyl alcohol, ceramide, vitamins A, C and E, transcutol, tea tree oil, quercetin, lecithin, polysorbate 60, polypropylene glycol, methylparaben and Carbopol 980 to use mica interference copper to the composition in order to have an interference pigment that has sunscreen capabilities as taught by Kurz.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date making the Lintner composition for treating skin dryness by combing citric acid with water, glycerin, cetearyl alcohol, ceramide, vitamins A, C and E, transcutol, tea tree oil, quercetin, lecithin, polysorbate 60, polypropylene glycol, methylparaben and Carbopol 980 to add aloe vera and Vitamin A palmitate and combine them as taught by Joerger in order to have an effective anti-inflammatory as taught by Joerger. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Lintner teaches that all types of aloe vera are useful in its composition.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date making the Lintner composition for treating skin dryness by combing citric acid with water, glycerin, cetearyl alcohol, ceramide, vitamins A, C and E, transcutol, tea tree oil, quercetin, lecithin, polysorbate 60, polypropylene glycol, methylparaben and Carbopol 980 to add lactobacillus and a prebiotic to the composition as taught by Lanzalaco in order to have a skin care benefit agent that causes the composition to improve the health of the skin microbiome as taught by Lanzalaco.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date making the Lintner composition for treating skin dryness by combing citric acid with water, glycerin, cetearyl alcohol, ceramide, vitamins A, C and E, transcutol, tea tree oil, quercetin, lecithin, polysorbate 60, polypropylene glycol, methylparaben and Carbopol 980 to add walnut shell powder to the composition in light of its teaching as a useful carrier in a cosmetic composition as taught by Desanto.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date making the Lintner composition for treating skin dryness by combing citric acid with water, glycerin, cetearyl alcohol, ceramide, vitamins A, C and E, transcutol, tea tree oil, quercetin, lecithin, polysorbate 60, polypropylene glycol, methylparaben and Carbopol 980 to add yogurt filtrate to the composition as taught by Disilvo in light of its teaching as a useful active ingredient in a cosmetic that is beneficial to skin.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date making the Lintner composition for treating skin dryness by combing citric acid with water, glycerin, cetearyl alcohol, ceramide, vitamins A, C and E, transcutol, tea tree oil, quercetin, lecithin, polysorbate 60, polypropylene glycol, methylparaben and Carbopol 980 to add mash of Chinese pumpkin pulp to the composition as taught by FR in order to have a powerful anti-inflammatory in the composition as taught by FR.
There is also a reasonable expectation of success that the addition of these components would be successful because Lintner, Karelis, Kurz, Joerger, Lanzalaco, Desanto, Disalvo, FR and Baron are all directed to cosmetic or dermopharmaceutic compositions.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments of June 5, 2026 have been fully considered and are found to be unpersuasive.
Applicants note that claim 1 has been canceled in favor of new claim 26.
Applicants argue that each of the pending claims requires administration of a topical cosmetic composition to treat or prevent dry skin. Applicants note that Baron was added to teach that there was a synergistic effect of cannabinoids, terpenes and flavonoids when administered together and a therapeutic benefit for treating pain, migraine and headache as well as opioid detoxification, and assert that this is somehow an acknowledgement that Karelis fails to provide a reason for modifying Lintner with a cannabinoid, terpene and flavonoid. Applicants also notes that claim 1 does not require either colloidal oatmeal nor turmeric.
Applicants assert that in the absence of a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art would look to a method of treating pain to modify a method of treating dry skin, Baron is non-analogous art.
Applicants assert that the combination of Karelis and Lintner in light of Baron would lead a person having ordinary skill in the art to a composition including Euglena extract for dry skin and a Cannabinoid extract that can contain any amount of any cannabinoid that might be beneficial for pain headache or migraine when a cannabinoid, terpene and flavonoid are included. However, the presently pending claims are directed to a method of administering a topical cosmetic composition to treat or prevent dry skin. Dry skin and pain/migraine/headache are very different ailments. Neither the Office Action nor any of the cited references, alone or in combination, provides any rationale for applying a method of treating pain, headache or migraine to treat or prevent dry skin. Applicants assert that given the number of references in the obviousness rejection and the number of taught elements that the Office has had to piecemeal add individual components to reach all of the claimed elements impermissible hindsight was used.
Applicants argue with respect to the Office’s assertion that the rejection need not solve the same problem as the claimed invention that this is the incorrect analysis. Applicants assert the issue is whether a person having an ordinary skill in the art would combine the cited references to arrive at the claimed invention, and Lintner and Baron are directed to two different problems. Applicants continue to assert that no rationale has been provided for applying a method of treating pain, headache or migraine to treat or prevent dry skin.
Applicants’ obviousness arguments have been carefully reviewed and are again found to be unpersuasive. Applicants’ repeated argument that each of the pending claims requires administration of a topical cosmetic composition to treat or prevent dry skin and neither the Office Action nor any of the cited references, alone or in combination, teaches a method of treating or preventing dry skin is unpersuasive because Lintner expressly teaches a method of treating dry skin. Specifically, claim 35 of Lintner expressly teaches that it is a method of treating and/or reducing skin dryness, loss of skin elasticity, withered and flaccid skin, sagging, dehydrated skin, loss of skin firmness. Thus, Lintner does expressly teach and even claims a method of treating dry skin.
Thus, the primary reference in the rejection expressly teaches and claims a method of treating and/or reducing skin dryness and Baron teaches to add less than 1% CBD and terpenes to the composition in order to have a composition that is useful for the effective therapeutic treatment of pain, migraine and headache as taught by Baron as well as a composition that is useful for the treatment and/or prevention of skin dryness. This provides a very powerful motivation of having a composition that can treat skin dryness also able to treat pain, migraine and headache through the addition of certain ingredients. Furthermore, dry skin can be very painful, so the conditions and maladies overlap each other and are not so different as Applicants appear to suggest. Therefore, the desirability of having a composition that can treat skin dryness and also able to treat pain at the same time in the same composition is very high. Since a rationale has been provided Baron is not non-analogous art because it relates to relieving pain and treating dry skin also relates to relieving pain. There is overlap in these conditions.
The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result is covered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Linter, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972) (discussed below); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991). Respectfully, Applicants’ assertion that hindsight has been employed in making the obviousness rejections is incorrect and unpersuasive. Hindsight has not been used in making any obviousness rejections; this is evident in that all of the claimed elements are taught or suggested in the prior art references themselves and so is the motivation to combine them. Significantly, all of the reasons for combining the teachings of the prior art are based on the express teachings of the references themselves.
The teachings of Baron only add additional motivation to add cannabinoids, terpenes and flavonoids to the Lintner composition. Lintner already teaches quercetin which is a flavonoid, and its beneficial effects for dry skin. Baron adds the additional motivation that there is a synergistic effect of cannabinoids, terpenes and flavonoids when administered together and a therapeutic benefit for treating pain, migraine and headache. In the new rejection applied above, there is no longer a teaching of colloidal oatmeal nor turmeric, as noted by Applicants.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CHICKOS whose telephone number is (571)270-3884. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
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.
/SARAH CHICKOS/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights