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 Status
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed 06/26/2025 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claims 2, 7-8, 10, and 20 are canceled.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 9, and 11-14 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1, 9, 15, 18, 21, 23, and 25 have been amended.
Claims 15-19 and 21-25 are examined on the merits.
Upon further search and consideration, prior art was located for claim 21and therefore, a second non-final rejection is submitted to Applicant.
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.
Claim 15 is 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 15 fails to add additional structural limitations, specifically the claim recites the phrase ‘configured to’ which fails to add structure and thus does not further limit the claim rendering the claim indefinite. Therefore, the claim will be broadly interpreted by the examiner to mean any composition comprising hydrophilic electrospun fibers free of active ingredients.
Claim 18 is 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 18 fails to add additional structural limitations, specifically the claim recites the phrase ‘configured to’ which fails to add structure and thus does not further limit the claim rendering the claim indefinite. Therefore, the claim will be broadly interpreted by the examiner to mean any kit comprising a pre-wetting substantiality free of active ingredients and a cosmetic patch substantially free of active ingredients comprising hydrophilic electrospun fibers of pullulan.
Claim 25 is 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 25 fails to add additional structural limitations, specifically the claim recites the phrase ‘configured to’ which fails to add structure and thus does not further limit the claim rendering the claim indefinite. Therefore, the claim will be broadly interpreted by the examiner to mean any composition comprising the composition and limitations of instant claim 15.
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 15-17, 22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al (US9168231B2) as evidenced by Fu (Fu, X.B. (2005), Growth factors and skin repair and regeneration. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 27: 40-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2494.2004.00254_4.x, abstract only).
As evidenced by Fu, formation of scars is a skin cosmetic problem (abstract).
Regarding instant claim 15 and 17, Patel et al disclose fibrous polymer scaffolds having at least one layer of diametrically patterned fibers (abstract, claim1). FIG. 2 depicts an electrospinning assembly with a rotational disk collector. Electrospinning is a technique known in the art for producing articles composed of polymer fibers (column 1, lines 30-21). Patel et al teaches the polymer fibers of the fibrous polymer scaffolds can further optionally comprise an additive selected from the group consisting of poly (propylene glycol), poly (ethylene oxide), triethyl citrate, glycerol, poly (ethylene glycol), and combinations thereof (column 3, lines 1-5). Patel et al disclose that the fibers can comprise a material selected from the group consisting of aliphatic polyesters, polyhydroxyalkanoates, polyurethanes, polyalkylene oxides, polydimethylsiloxane, polyvinylalcohol, polyvinylpyrrolidone (column 4, lines 56-58). Patel et al teaches different fiber diameters may be desirable for different applications (column 22, lines 50-51). The disclosed composition as presented in the abstract and claim 1 of Patel et al is directed to electrospun fibers with no active ingredients and are silent to active ingredients. Patel et al teaches the invention is used for defects in biological tissues including skin (column 1, lines 59-63) and further teaches the invention is used for promoting the regeneration of anatomical biological components to include skin (column 1, lines 20-25). Further, Patel et al teaches the scaffolds may be used to minimize the formulation of scar tissue (column 27, lines 43-44). Patel et al teaches the addition of excipients (column 1, lines 65-66) and Patel et al also teaches the scaffold can be applied topically (column 32, lines 61-64). Thus, Patel et al teach and suggest that drugs, growth factors, differentiation factors, etc. can be additionally added to the patch that is substantially free of active ingredients as described in the abstract and claim 1 of Patel et al.
Regarding instant claims 16 and 22, Patel et al disclose that scaffolds can include more than two layers (column 10, lines 29-30). Patel teaches the scaffold comprises two layers, a first and second layer of polymer fibers (claim 1). Patel then teaches the polymers may be natural polymers, biological polymers, synthetic polymers, or a combination thereof (column 14, lines 10-11). In various aspects, scaffolds can comprise a plurality of layers of fibers (column 10, lines 30-31). In some embodiments, the first layer of polymer fibers contacts the second layer of polymer fibers, or the first and second layers are adjacent, and one or more additional layers can be disposed on the outside of one of the two layers as a third layer, a fourth layer, a fifth layer, and so on (column 10, lines 31-36). In various embodiments, an intervening layer can be an adhesive layer (column 10, lines 38-39). In some embodiments, the adhesives can be any biocompatible adhesive known in the art (column 10, lines 39-40).
Regarding claim 24, Patel et al teaches in various embodiments, the fibrous polymer scaffolds are made from naturally hydrophobic polymers in order to increase wettability (column 21, lines 63-65).
Patel et al does not teach with sufficient specificity to anticipate and so the claims are obvious. It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the teachings of Patel et al with a reasonable expectation of success to obtain the cosmetic patch of the instant claims.
A reference is analyzed using its broadest teachings. MPEP 2123 [R-5]. “[W]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007)(quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. A person of ordinary skill in the art who is not an automaton is capable of producing the cosmetic patch of the instant claims with predictable results.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al (US9168231B2) in view of Islam et al. (Journal of Colloid and Interface Science; 2012), and in view of Gauthier et al (US 20140148515 A1) as evidenced by Fu (Fu, X.B. (2005), Growth factors and skin repair and regeneration. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 27: 40-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2494.2004.00254_4.x, abstract only).
The teachings of Patel et al has been set forth above. However, Patel et al does not expressly disclose including an electrospun fiber comprises pullulan as in instant claim 23. Islam et al, and Gauthier et al remedy this deficiency.
Islam et al disclose electrospinning technique has attracted much interest among academic and industrial scientists because of its simple and effective approach to produce nanofibres (page 779, Introduction). Poly (vinyl alcohol) (PVA) is a semi-crystalline hydrophilic polymer with good chemical and thermal stability. It is a highly biocompatible and non-toxic polymer. It can be processed easily and has high water permeability. PVA can form physical gels in various types of solvents which lead to the use of PVA in a wide range of applications in medical, cosmetic (page 779, Introduction). Islam et al teach that pullulan (PULL) is a natural polymer, and recent interest in the use of natural polymers, for example, as proteins in biotechnological materials and biomedical applications as well as their biocompatibility (page 780, Introduction). Pullulan is an extracellular microbial polysaccharide produced by the fungus-like yeast, Aureobasidium pullulans (page 780, Introduction). The basic structure is a linear α-glucanone, made from three glucose units linked α-(1,4) in maltotriose units which are linked in a α-(1,6) way (page 780, Introduction). Islam et al disclose that blending of polymers is a useful method for the modification and improvement of the physicochemical properties of polymeric materials which are different from constituent polymers (page 780, Introduction). An important property of a polymer blend is the miscibility of its components because it affects the mechanical properties, the morphology, and the permeability and degradation (page 780, Introduction). Islam et al teach that combining PVA with PULL has been used in cosmetics and drug delivery (page 780, Introduction). Islam et al teach PVA has been blended PVA with PULL in aqueous medium and PVA/PULL blend nanofibres have been prepared by electrospinning, in order to investigate the effects of blend ratios as well as total polymer concentrations on the morphologies and properties of PVA/PULL blend nanofibres (page 780, Introduction).
Gauthier et al disclose a system for alleviating the appearance of scar tissue, said system comprising a combination of two compounds; a first compound having properties that perform skin regeneration; and a second compound having properties that provide a physical barrier adapted to protect scar tissue by insulating it from ambient air while maintaining and protecting said first compound that is combined therewith (abstract). Gauthier teaches pullulan includes the properties of high adhesion, lubrication, and film forming abilities ([0009]). Gauthier discloses pullulan is also much more inert than gelatin or HPMC, so there is no interaction with the products with which it is mixed. It offers high adhesion, sticking, lubrication, and film forming abilities ([0028]).
Patel et al teach a cosmetic patch comprising hydrophilic electrospun fibers formed using natural polymers, wherein the patch is substantially free of active ingredients. Islam et al teach pullulan nanofibres have been prepared by electrospinning. Gauthier et al disclose role of pullulan in alleviating the appearance of scar tissue. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the composition as described by Patel et al with the composition of Islam et al, and Gauthier et al. One would be motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Patel et al teach a cosmetic patch comprising hydrophilic electrospun fibers formed using natural polymers. Islam et al teach pullulan is a natural polymer, and recent interest in the use of natural polymers (page 780, Introduction). It is water soluble, insoluble in organic solvents and non-hygroscopic in nature (page 780, Introduction). Its aqueous solutions are stable and show a relatively low viscosity as compared to other polysaccharides. It decomposes at 250-280°C (page 780, Introduction). It is moldable and spinnable, being a good adhesive and binder (page 780, Introduction). It is also non-toxic, edible and biodegradable (page 780, Introduction). Gauthier teaches pullulan has properties of high adhesion, lubrication, and film forming abilities ([0009]). It offers high adhesion, sticking, lubrication, and film forming abilities. offers high adhesion, sticking, lubrication, and film forming abilities ([0028]). Pullulan can be used in repair of scars ([0029]). Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP 2144.07); in the instant case, producing an efficient biobased beauty mask. Lastly, one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim the cosmetic patch comprising hydrophilic electrospun fibers formed using natural polymers, wherein the patch is substantially free of active ingredients as outlined by Patel et al. ready for improvement with the known technique of cosmetic patch comprising hydrophilic electrospun fibers as claimed by instant claim 23 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al (US9168231B2) in view of Islam et al. (Journal of Colloid and Interface Science; 2012) and Gauthier et al (US 20140148515 A1) and in further view of Kim (US 20150272855 A1) and Golubovic-Liakopoulos et al (US 20110045041 A1 also published as WO 2009120365 A2; an IDS reference) as evidenced by Fu (Fu, X.B. (2005), Growth factors and skin repair and regeneration. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 27: 40-41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2494.2004.00254_4.x, abstract only).
The teachings of Patel et al and Islam et al, and Gauthier et al have been set forth above. Islam et al, and Gauthier et al disclose the benefit of incorporating pullulan nanofibres have been prepared by electrospinning. Patel et al teaches in various embodiments, the fibrous polymer scaffolds described herein can be included as part of a kit (column 34, lines 38-39). These kits can comprise, inter alia, instructions, such as in the form of an instruction manual, that teach methods of the disclosure and/or that describe the use of the scaffolds as components of the kit (column 34, lines 39-43). However, it is silent to a kit comprising a pre-wetting solution, and a cosmetic patch comprising hydrophilic electrospun polymeric fibers. Kim and Golubovic-Liakopoulos et al remedy these deficiencies.
Kim discloses a cosmetic sheet formed from nanofibers that is obtained by preparing a spinning solution that is formed by dissolving a water-soluble polymer material together with a functional material in a solvent of water or alcohol, and electrospinning the spinning solution wherein the nanofiber has a controlled dissolution velocity and has fine pores (abstract). Kim teaches a hydrophilic polymer and a functional material are dissolved in a solvent such as water or alcohol, to thereby prepare a spinning solution. Then, a polymer nanofiber web with a diameter of less than 1 μm is prepared by carrying out electrospinning of the spinning solution ([0042]).
Kim discloses in the case of using the cosmetic sheet including the nanofiber web according to the present invention, it can be seen that an effect of properly delivering the efficacious ingredients for a desired time via a crosslinking process is obtained by attaching the cosmetic sheet to the skin after having created a moisture environment in the skin or having sprayed mist on the skin (i.e., pre-wetting skin) ([0077]).
Golubovic-Liakopoulos et al disclose methods and compositions for the delivery of cosmetics and medicants (abstract). Golubovic-Liakopoulos et al disclose a dissolving or "disappearing" (e.g., the outline of the material and the material itself becomes invisible as the material transforms from solid, or semi-solid, to liquid) film or patch for use on the skin ([0004]). Golubovic-Liakopoulos et al teach that the dissolving film or patch comprises hydrophilic polymer fibers, e.g., a polymer fiber matrix that is porous, but mechanically strong enough to apply to the skin without tearing ([0004]). Golubovic-Liakopoulos et al disclose hydrophilic polymers include Poly (Ethylene Glycol), Poly (Propylene Glycol), Poly (Vinyl Alcohol), Polypyrrolidone or Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), and the biodegradable PolyActive (a soft poly ethylene glycol-terephthalate block copolymer with a hard poly butylene-terephthalate) ([0045]).
Golubovic-Liakopoulos et al teach kits comprising the various films or patches described herein ([0031]). Thus, in one embodiment, the present invention contemplates a kit, comprising a pre-wetting solution, and a skin patch, said skin patch comprising electrospun hydrophilic fibers (claim 27, [0031]).
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the composition as described by Patel et al and Islam et al, and Gauthier with the Kim and Golubovic-Liakopoulos et al. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success absent evidence to the contrary and because Kim and Golubovic-Liakopoulos et al have both demonstrated that it is well known in the art to create a kit comprising a pre-wetting solution, and a cosmetic patch comprising hydrophilic electrospun polymeric fiber products.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kong et al. (Kong, L., & Ziegler, G. R. (2014). Rheological aspects in fabricating pullulan fibers by electro-wet-spinning. Food Hydrocolloids, 38, 220–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2013.12.016) in view of Chaen (Chaen, Hiroto. "Pullulan." Food stabilisers, thickeners and gelling agents (2009): 266-274.) and in view of Kim (US 20150272855 A1).
Kong et al discloses the fabricating of pullulan nonwoven microscale and nanoscale fibers by electro-spinning (title and abstract). Kong teaches that the pullulan has distinct properties to include structural flexibility, high solubility in water, adhesiveness, oxygen impermeability and excellent fiber/film forming capacities (page 220, introduction, paragraph 2). Kong further teaches that the pullulan formed into fiber mats has biomedical applications including wound dressings and the fibers have a high surface area that would benefit air permeation, moisture absorption, and action of active agents (page 220, introduction, paragraph 3). Kong teaches the preparation of the fibers to include pullulan, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), and ethanol, specifically pullulan being electrospun in a DMSO solution (page 221, material and methods, 2.1 and 2.2).
Kong et al fails to explicit claim the use of the pullulan film in cosmetics but does teach mats and medical dressings.
Chaen teaches pullulan is widely used in cosmetics for its specific functional properties, specifically its excellent adhesive properties, binding ability, biodegradability, and ability to form films with low oxygen permeability (page 266, abstract).
Both Kong et al and Chaen fail to teach the areal density of pullulan fibers as in instant claim 21.
Kim et al discloses a cosmetic sheet formed from nanofibers that is obtained by preparing a spinning solution that is formed by dissolving a water-soluble polymer material together with a functional material in a solvent of water or alcohol, and electrospinning the spinning solution wherein the nanofiber has a controlled dissolution velocity and has fine pores (abstract). Kim teaches a hydrophilic polymer and a functional material are dissolved in a solvent such as water or alcohol, to thereby prepare a spinning solution. Then, a polymer nanofiber web with a diameter of less than 1 μm is prepared by carrying out electrospinning of the spinning solution ([0042]). Furthermore, Kim et al discloses the content or basis weight of the nanofiber sheet is preferably set in a range of 10-50 gsm ([0019]). Additionally, Kim teaches the cosmetic sheet formed from nanofiber is dissolved by the water to thus maximize close adhesion and adhesiveness ([0013]). The same paragraph of Kim further teaches the sheet adhered closely to the skin is automatically melted and absorbed in the skin, to thereby enable daily activities without separately removing the cosmetic sheet from the skin and to thus enhance ease of use ([0013]).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim an electrospun pullulan film with no active ingredients as outlined by Kong with the ready for improvement with the known technique of using the pullulan film in cosmetics as outlined by Chaen. Utilizing the forementioned invention as a cosmetic as claimed by instant claim 21 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan. Further, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim a cosmetic electrospun pullulan film as outlined by Kong in view of Chaen ready for improvement with the known technique of optimizing the areal density of the film to a range of 10-50 gsm as outlined by Kim et al. Adding the forementioned limitations to a cosmetic pullulan film as claimed by instant claim 21 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/26/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
In regards to the 35 USC § 112 rejection, Applicant argues that “is configured to at least partially dissolve upon wetting” reflects specific structural elements (e.g. material composition, thickness, layering, fiber diameter, size of cosmetic patch, etc). Applicant further argues the claims are limited to cosmetic patches whose structure enables the claimed behavior.
As Applicant points out, numerous structural elements have the ability of achieving the desired property of “dissolve upon wetting”. Thus, it is unclear what components (e.g. material composition, thickness, layering, fiber diameter, size of cosmetic patch, etc) are contributing to the desired property, therefore rendering the claim indefinite.
In summary, the examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s argument. The 35 USC § 112 rejections of record are maintained and updated to account for claim amendments.
In regards to the 35 USC § 103 rejection over Patel in view Islam, Gauthier, and Kim, Applicant first argues that the instant claims are limited to cosmetic patches whose structure enable the claimed dissolution behavior. Further, Applicant argues that it would not be obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the cosmetic patch outlined by Patel, Islam, Gauthier, and Kim by the limitation of the mask dissolving as outlined by Kim. Secondly Applicant argues by quoting Patel stating it is directed medical devices for the repair of wounds. Additionally, Applicant argues that one would not modify the scaffold of Patel to enable the claimed dissolution. Applicant then argues that Gauthier teaches the use of pullulan as a protective layer and is not directed towards pullulan alone treating scars.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Patel, Islam, Gauthier, and Kim do not teach the dissolution behavior and that one would not modify the scaffold of Patel to enable the claimed dissolution, it is first noted that the instant claims are composition claims. Applicant is reminded that the prior art teaches a cosmetic patch composition comprising hydrophilic electrospun fibers, wherein the patch is substantially free of active ingredients, thereby since a product is not separable from its physical properties then it necessarily teaches the desired dissolution behavior. Further, the prior art teaches a composition and process for forming said composition described by applicants instant application, but applicants observation that it also ‘dissolve upon wetting’ does not give it patentable weight, since it is the same composition and same process of making, as adding a characterization to a prior art patented invention is not patentable. It is further noted that wetting the cosmetic patch is future intended use which is not given patentable weight.
In response to Applicant’s argument that Patel is directed towards a medical device as opposed to a cosmetic patch, Applicant is first reminded one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Additionally, as evidenced above by Fu, formation of scars is a skin cosmetic problem (abstract) and Patel et al teaches the scaffolds may be used to minimize the formulation of scar tissue (column 27, lines 43-44). Therefore, as outlined above, Patel does teach a cosmetic patch.
In regards to Applicant’s argument against Gauthier, Applicant is again reminded one cannot nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and that Gauthier is a secondary reference cited solely to render the deficiencies of Patel. Other than attacking Gauthier individually, Applicant has failed to provide any reasoning as to why Gauthier should not be combined with Patel and Islam.
In summary, the examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments. The rejections are updated to account for claim amendments.
In regards to the 35 USC § 103 rejection over Patel in view Islam, Gauthier, Kim, and Golubovis-Liakopoulos, Applicant argues that for the same reasons above the combination does not teach the dissolution properties of the instant claims.
In response to Applicant’s arguments, similarly to above, it is first noted that the instant claims are composition claims. Applicant is reminded that the prior art teaches a cosmetic patch composition comprising hydrophilic electrospun fibers, wherein the patch is substantially free of active ingredients, thereby since a product is not separable from its physical properties then it necessarily teaches the desired dissolution behavior. Further, the prior art teaches a composition and process for forming said composition described by applicants instant application, but applicants observation that it also ‘dissolve upon wetting’ does not give it patentable weight, since it is the same composition and same process of making, as adding a characterization to a prior art patented invention is not patentable. It is further noted that wetting the cosmetic patch is future intended use which is not given patentable weight.
In summary, the examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments. The rejections are updated to account for claim amendments.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA NICOLE ISNOR whose telephone number is (703)756-5561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30am-3pm PST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571) 272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1611