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 .
Applicant should note that the instant application has been reassigned to a new examiner. The Art Unit location of this application remains the same.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/24/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 5 and 14-16 have been cancelled in a previous communication.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 17-19 are pending and under current examination.
All rejections not reiterated have been withdrawn.
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.
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 1-4, 6, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Aiko et al. (JP2018193393A) in view of Li et al. (Li et al. Polymers, 9(1), 32. 2017) and further in view of Kravchenko et al. (UA139601U).
Applicant’s claims:
-- A cosmetic patch product comprising a membrane substrate suitable to be absorbed by the skin, said membrane substrate being made up of at least one electrospun fiber comprising hyaluronic acid and a spinning promoter, wherein the spinning promoter comprises pullulan or a mixture of alginate and polyethylene oxide (PEO) having a weight ratio of 1:1.—
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 1-4, 8, 10, and 13, Aiko et al. disclose a cosmetic patch that can contain cosmetic ingredients (i.e. active ingredients; limitation of instant claim 4; Paragraphs 0003 and 0040). Aiko et al. disclose that the nanofiber sheet is produced by electrospinning (Paragraph 0022). Aiko et al. disclose that, in consideration of compatibility with the skin, particularly preferred polymer compounds used in the nanofiber sheet include pullulan and hyaluronic acid. Aiko et al. also discloses that the polymers can be dissolved and mixed alone or in combination to spin a nanofiber sheet (Paragraph 0027). Aiko et al. disclose that any active agent may be used in the composition and that the active ingredient is applied to the nanofiber sheet(Paragraphs 0014 and 0039). Aiko et al. disclose that the nanofiber sheet is preferably prepared by forming nanofibers which have been spun to have a fiber diameter of 80 to 800 nm into a sheet on a support such as a nonwoven fabric. As indicated in MPEP §2144.05(I): “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”. (Paragraph 0023). Aiko et al. disclose that the nanofiber membrane is on a support (Paragraph 0015). Aiko et al. disclose that the support can be made from polyvinyl alcohol (Paragraph 0029).
Ascertainment of the Difference between the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP 2142-2143)
The relevant disclosure of Aiko et al. is set forth above.
Regarding claim 1, Aiko et al. is silent to the use of pullulan as an electrospinning promoter. This deficiency, however, is cured by Li et al.
Li et al. disclose that using pullulan as a carrier can improve the electrospinnability of proteins and naturally occurring polyelectrolytes (abstract).
Aiko is also silent with respect to the patch product being suitable to be absorbed by the skin (instant claim 1) or having a molecular weight less than 10000 Da (instant claim 6).
Regarding claims 1 and 6, Kravchenko et al. discloses the use of low molecular weight hyaluronic acid of 5-100 kDa in a cosmetic cream. Kravchenko et al. also discloses that low molecular weight hyaluronic acid penetrates into the deep layers of the skin to moisturize the skin from the inside whereas high-molecular weight hyaluronic acid creates a film on the surface of the skin that protects it from moisture loss from the outside (Machine translation page 2, 14th and 15th full paragraphs).
Finding a case of prima facie obviousness Rational and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use pullulan as a spinning promoter in the cosmetic patch of Aiko et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because pullulan improves the electrospinnability of proteins and naturally occurring polyelectrolytes. The skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would simply entail electrospinning both hyaluronic acid and pullulan to make the cosmetic patch of Aiko et al.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hyaluronic acid of Aiko et al. to be of a low molecular weight because low molecular weight hyaluronic acid allows for penetration into deeper layers of the skin than high molecular weight hyaluronic acid and therefore allows for deep moisturization, as disclosed by Kravchenko et al. The skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would simply entail the electrospinning of low molecular weight hyaluronic acid instead of high molecular weight hyaluronic acid.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiko et al. (JP2018193393A), Li et al. (Li et al. Polymers, 9(1), 32. 2017), and Kravchenko et al. (UA139601U)as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 13 above, and further in view of Rashid et al. (Cosmetics, 6(4), 59. (2019)).
Applicant’s Claim:
The scope and content of the scope and content of the claimed invention is discussed above.
Claim 7 adds the further limitation of the membrane substrate being made in a mixture of linear hyaluronic acid with cross-linked hyaluronic acid.
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claim 7, the relevant disclosure of Aiko et al. is set forth above.
Ascertainment of the Difference between the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
Aiko et al. is silent to the membrane substrate being made in a mixture of linear and cross-linked hyaluronic acid. This deficiency, however, is cured by Rashid et al.
Rashid et al. discloses that hyaluronic is a key ingredient in cosmetic and nutricosmetic products but that hyaluronic acid has a short half-life as it undergoes rapid degradation by enzymes present in body tissues (Introduction, Paragraph 3).
Rashid et al. also discloses that cross-linked hyaluronic acid hydrogel films can overcome can provide a more robust cosmetic platform than linear hyaluronic acid because they have lower enzymatic degradation rates and lower swelling ratios compared to linear polymers (Introduction, Paragraph 3).
Finding a case of prima facie obviousness Rational and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hyaluronic acid of Aiko et al. to have an optimized degree of cross-linking. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that cross-linking hyaluronic acid lowers its enzymatic degradation rates and lowers its swelling ratios compared to the linear polymer, as disclosed by Rashid et al. Varying the degree of crosslinking in the nonwoven membrane of Aiko et al. could be done in order to optimize the degradability and physical characteristics of the hyaluronic acid in the nanofiber membrane to serve a desired purpose. (See MPEP 2144.05.) The skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would simply entail the addition of cross-linked hyaluronic acid to the mixture to be electrospun.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. as being unpatentable over Aiko et al. (JP2018193393A), Li et al. (Li et al. Polymers, 9(1), 32. 2017), and Kravchenko et al. (UA139601U), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 13 above, and further in view of Yaqin (CN110105729A).
Applicant’s claims:
The scope and content of the scope and content of the claimed invention is discussed above.
Claim 10 adds the further limitation of the support base being made of PLA or PBSA.
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 10, the relevant disclosure of Aiko et al. is set forth above.
Ascertainment of the Difference between the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP 2142-2143)
The relevant disclosure of Aiko et al. and Li et al. is set forth above.
Regarding claim 10, Aiko et al. is silent to the support base being made of PBSA or PLA. This deficiency, however, is cured by Yaqin.
Yaqin discloses that polylactic acid is useful in preparing composite packaging material for cosmetics. Polylactic acid is a biodegradable polymer. Polylactic acid is non-toxic and non-irritating and has excellent biocompatibility, biodegradability and absorption, high strength, good plasticity, and easy processing and molding. Yaquin also discloses that using polylactic acid as a base material to prepare cosmetic packaging materials can effectively enhance the mechanical strength of the packaging materials. Its non-toxicity and oil resistance ensure that the cosmetics inside will not be contaminated by the migration of toxic and harmful substances, thereby improving the shelf life and safety of the cosmetics.
Finding a case of prima facie obviousness Rational and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the support base of Aiko et al. to be made of PLA as required by the instant claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do so because polylactic acid is non-toxic and non-irritating, biocompatible, biodegradable, absorptive, has high strength, has good plasticity, and has easy processing and molding. Polylactic acid functions as a good base material to prepare cosmetic packaging materials and can effectively enhance the mechanical strength of the packaging materials. Its non-toxicity and oil resistance ensure that the cosmetics inside will not be contaminated by the migration of toxic and harmful substances, thereby improving the shelf life and safety of the cosmetics. The skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would simply entail using PLA to make the support base.
Claims 9, 11, 12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aiko et al. (JP2018193393A), Li et al. (Li et al. Polymers, 9(1), 32. 2017), and Kravchenko et al. (UA139601U), as applied to claims 1-4, 6, 8, and 13 above, and further in view of Halla et al. (Molecules, 23(7), 1571. (2018)) and Kuribayashi et al. (JP2011006094A).
Applicant’s Claim:
The scope and content of the claimed invention is discussed above.
Claims 9, 11, 12, and 17-19 add the further limitation of a wrapping for the cosmetic patch product.
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Regarding claims 9, 11, 12, and 17-19, the relevant disclosure of Aiko et al. is set forth above.
Ascertainment of the Difference between the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP 2141.01
Aiko et al. is silent to a wrapping for the cosmetic patch product. This deficiency, however, is cured by Kuribayashi et al. and Halla et al.
Kuribayashi et al. discloses a packaging bag for placing a face mask (i.e. a cosmetic patch product). Kuribayashi et al. discloses that the material of the packaging bag, in which the face mask is placed, can be selected from a group of resins including polylactic acid (PLA) (Section 0015).
Kuribayashi et al. discloses a mounting member that is part of the face packaging body and on which the face mask is placed (i.e. a support base that is part of the wrapper) (Section 0014).
Kuribayashi et al. discloses a packaging bag for placing a face mask (i.e. a cosmetic patch product). The packaging bag serves the purpose of a protective coating layer (Section 0015).
Kuribayashi et al. also discloses that the face mask packaging seal is sealed by heat sealing or ultrasonic bonding (Section 0008).
Halla et al. discloses that cosmetics are exposed to microbial contamination and should be protected in packaging (Section 2.3 Paragraph 1). Halla et al. discloses that two levels of protection can be provided by the packaging of cosmetics including protection against contamination during use and protection against accumulation of contamination in the distribution system (Section 3.2.1).
Finding a case of prima facie obviousness Rational and Motivation
(MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify nanofiber sheet of Aiko et al. by placing it in a packaging bag such as that disclosed by Kuribayashi et al. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it protects the nanofiber sheet against contamination as disclosed by Halla et al. The skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success as the modification would simply entail placing the nanofiber sheet in the packaging.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The current examiner has reviewed the prosecution history, arguments filed 09/24/2025, and advisory action mailed 12/29/2025 and agrees with the response to arguments in the advisory action. The examiner also points to the new grounds of rejection above, which cite Kravchenko as teaching inclusion of low molecular weight hyaluronic acid. The response to arguments from the advisory action are replicated here for Applicant’s convenience:
Applicant argues that the instantly claimed cosmetic product comprises a skin-absorbable membrane substrate. The cosmetic product is suitable to be absorbed by the skin and is made up of at least one electrospun fiber comprising hyaluronic acid and a spinning promoter, where the spinning promoter comprises pullulan or a mixture of alginate and polyethylene oxide (1:1). Applicant points to the specification, particularly par. [0061] which discloses that "The latter form is preferred, since hyaluronic acid with a molecular mass lower than or equal to 10,000 Da in the electrospun form, once placed in contact with the skin is completely absorbable and is able to penetrate the stratum corneum...". Applicant argues that Aiko teaches transdermal delivery of drugs and Aiko teaches away from a membrane substrate that is suitable to be absorbed by the skin. Applicant states that there is no motivation to combine the teachings of Aiko and Li, Aiko concerns drug delivery and cosmetics while Li is directed to the food industry. Applicants arguments have been fully considered but are not found persuasive. Applicant is reminded that the claims are directed to the cosmetic product and not the method of use, where the cosmetic product is applied to the skin, e.g., "once placed in contact with the skin is completely absorbable and is able to penetrate the stratum corneum. With respect to the cosmetic product of the prior art being capable or suitable to be absorbed by the skin, Kravchenko as cited, teaches the use of low molecular weight hyaluronic acid penetrates deep into the layers of the skin whereas high molecular weight hyaluronic acid creates a film on the surface of the skin. Further, as evidenced by applicants specification at par. [0061] as noted by Applicant, hyaluronic acid with a molecular mass lower than or equal to 10,000 Da in the electrospun form will necessarily be absorbed by the skin once placed in contact with the skin. Further, it is noted that applicants arguments focus on Aiko and Li, but do not address Kravchenko. With respect to the lack of motivation of Aiko and Li, Li was relied upon as teaching pullulan for improving the electrospinnability of proteins and naturally occurring polyelectrolytes. To the extent that Aiko and Li do not specifically suggest that the cosmetic patch is suitable to be absorbed by the skin, applicant is reminded that 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 discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Furthermore, "[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed…." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For these reasons, the prior art rejections set forth in the Final Office action mailed 6/26/2025 are maintained.
The examiner also notes Applicant’s argument on page 6 that Aiko and Li are non-analogous art (Aiko directed to drug delivery and cosmetics and Li to the food industry). The examiner respectfully disagrees. Aiko and Li are both directed, inter alia, to objects formed from electrospun polymers and thus are sufficiently related to have been within the purview of the artisan of ordinary skill. Moreover, they solve the same problem of electrospinning naturally occurring polyelectrolytes. See MPEP 2143(A), Example 7:
In the case of Wyers v. Master Lock Co., 616 F.3d 1231, 95 USPQ2d 1525 (Fed. Cir. 2010), the Federal Circuit held that the claimed barbell-shaped hitch pin locks used to secure trailers to vehicles were obvious.
The court discussed two different sets of claims in Wyers, both drawn to improvements over the prior art hitch pin locks. The first improvement was a removable sleeve that could be placed over the shank of the hitch pin lock so that the same lock could be used with towing apertures of varying sizes. The second improvement was an external flat flange seal adapted to protect the internal lock mechanism from contaminants. Wyers had admitted that each of several prior art references taught every element of the claimed inventions except for the removable sleeve and the external covering. Master Lock had argued that these references, in combination with additional references teaching the missing elements, would have rendered the claims obvious. The court first addressed the question of whether the additional references relied on by Master Lock were analogous prior art. As to the reference teaching the sleeve improvement, the court concluded that it dealt specifically with using a vehicle to tow a trailer, and was therefore in the same field of endeavor as Wyers’ sleeve improvement. The reference teaching the sealing improvement dealt with a padlock rather than a lock for a tow hitch. The court noted that Wyers’ specification had characterized the claimed invention as being in the field of locking devices, thus at least suggesting that the sealed padlock reference was in the same field of endeavor. However, the court also observed that even if sealed padlocks were not in the same field of endeavor, they were nevertheless reasonably pertinent to the problem of avoiding contamination of a locking mechanism for tow hitches. The court explained that the Supreme Court’s decision in KSR "directs [it] to construe the scope of analogous art broadly." Id. at 1238, 95 USPQ2d at 1530. For these reasons, the court found that Master Lock’s asserted references were analogous prior art, and therefore relevant to the obviousness inquiry. (Emphasis added.)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 17798002 (reference application)
claims 1-5, 8, 9-13, 16-18, and 20-25 of copending Application No. 17798008 (reference application)
claims 1-5, 87, 10, 12-15, 18, 20, and 21 of copending Application No. 17798010 (reference application)
claims 1, 4-10, 15, and 16 of copending Application No. 17798028 (reference application)
claims 1, 4, 5-7, 8, 11-13, and 21-23 of copending Application No. 17798029 (reference application)
claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18844848 (reference application); and
claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19101023 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending claims render obvious the instant claims.
Inter alia, the claims of the copending applications embrace an electrospun mat (i.e. nonwoven fiber) or method for making a electrospun mat comprising fibers electrospun of hyaluronic acid having either pullulan or a 1:1 by weight mixture of alginate and PEO.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 4 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 17798002 (reference application)
claims 1-5, 8, 9-13, 16-18, and 20-25 of copending Application No. 17798008 (reference application)
claims 1-5, 87, 10, 12-15, 18, 20, and 21 of copending Application No. 17798010 (reference application)
claims 1, 4-10, 15, and 16 of copending Application No. 17798028 (reference application)
claims 1, 4, 5-7, 8, 11-13, and 21-23 of copending Application No. 17798029 (reference application)
claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18844848 (reference application); and
claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19101023 (reference application)
as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Garcia et al. (US2015/0072008A1; publication date: 03/12/2015; of record).
The relevant limitations of the copending claims are set forth above and do not recite any limitation requiring the presence of an active ingredient.
Garcia et al. discloses a nonwoven membrane comprising at least one therapeutic or cosmetic active agent entangled between the nanofibers, i.e. a membrane substrate comprising at least one active ingredient (Paragraph 0060). The Artisan of skill would have been motivated to add an active agent or cosmetic agent to the composition embraced by the copending claims in order for composition to function as a cosmetic.
Claim 6 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 17798002 (reference application)
claims 1-5, 8, 9-13, 16-18, and 20-25 of copending Application No. 17798008 (reference application)
claims 1-5, 87, 10, 12-15, 18, 20, and 21 of copending Application No. 17798010 (reference application)
claims 1, 4-10, 15, and 16 of copending Application No. 17798028 (reference application)
claims 1, 4, 5-7, 8, 11-13, and 21-23 of copending Application No. 17798029 (reference application)
claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18844848 (reference application); and
claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19101023 (reference application)
as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Kravchenko et al. (UA139601U; publication date: 1/10/2020; of record).
The relevant limitations of the copending claims are set forth above and do not recite any limitation requiring a molar mass of less than 10000 Da.
Kravchenko et al. discloses the use of low molecular weight hyaluronic acid of 5-100 kDa in a cosmetic cream. Kravchenko et al. also discloses that low molecular weight hyaluronic acid penetrates into the deep layers of the skin to moisturize the skin from the inside whereas high-molecular weight hyaluronic acid creates a film on the surface of the skin that protects it from moisture loss from the outside (Machine translation page 2, 14th and 15th full paragraphs).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use low molecular weight hyaluronic acid because low molecular weight hyaluronic acid allows for penetration into deeper layers of the skin than high molecular weight hyaluronic acid and therefore allows for deep moisturization, as disclosed by Kravchenko et al. The skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would simply entail the electrospinning of low molecular weight hyaluronic acid instead of high molecular weight hyaluronic acid.
Claim 7 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 17798002 (reference application)
claims 1-5, 8, 9-13, 16-18, and 20-25 of copending Application No. 17798008 (reference application)
claims 1-5, 87, 10, 12-15, 18, 20, and 21 of copending Application No. 17798010 (reference application)
claims 1, 4-10, 15, and 16 of copending Application No. 17798028 (reference application)
claims 1, 4, 5-7, 8, 11-13, and 21-23 of copending Application No. 17798029 (reference application)
claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18844848 (reference application); and
claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19101023 (reference application)
as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Rashid et al. (Cosmetics, 6(4), 59. (2019); publication date: 10/01/2019; of record).
The relevant limitations of the copending claims are set forth above and do not recite a limitation requiring a mixture of linear and crosslinked hyaluronic acid.
Rashid et al. discloses that hyaluronic is a key ingredient in cosmetic and nutricosmetic products but that hyaluronic acid has a short half-life as it undergoes rapid degradation by enzymes present in body tissues (Introduction, Paragraph 3). Rashid et al. also discloses that cross-linked hyaluronic acid hydrogel films can overcome can provide a more robust cosmetic platform than linear hyaluronic acid because they have lower enzymatic degradation rates and lower swelling ratios compared to linear polymers (Introduction, Paragraph 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a mixture of hyaluronic acid with an optimized degree of cross linking in the ‘848 composition because cross-linking hyaluronic acid lowers its enzymatic degradation rates and lowers its swelling ratios compared to the linear polymer, as disclosed by Rashid et al.. Varying the degree of crosslinking in the composition could be done in order to optimize the degradability and physical characteristics of the nonwoven membranes to serve a desired purpose. (See MPEP 2144.05.) The skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success because the modification would simply entail the addition of cross-linked hyaluronic acid to the composition mixture.
Claims 8-12 and 17-17 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over
claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 17798002 (reference application)
claims 1-5, 8, 9-13, 16-18, and 20-25 of copending Application No. 17798008 (reference application)
claims 1-5, 87, 10, 12-15, 18, 20, and 21 of copending Application No. 17798010 (reference application)
claims 1, 4-10, 15, and 16 of copending Application No. 17798028 (reference application)
claims 1, 4, 5-7, 8, 11-13, and 21-23 of copending Application No. 17798029 (reference application)
claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18844848 (reference application); and
claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19101023 (reference application)
as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Kuribayashi et al. (JP2011006094A; publication date: 01/13/2011) and Halla et al. (Molecules, 23(7), 1571. (2018); publication date: 06/28/2018).
The relevant limitations of the copending claims are set forth above and do not recite a limitation requiring the packaging structures recited in instant claims 8-12 and 17-19.
Kuribayashi et al. discloses a packaging bag for placing a face mask (i.e. a cosmetic patch product). Kuribayashi et al. discloses that the material of the packaging bag, in which the face mask is placed, can be selected from a group of resins including polylactic acid (PLA) (Section 0015).
Kuribayashi et al. discloses a mounting member that is part of the face packaging body and on which the face mask is placed (i.e. a support base that is part of the wrapper) (Section 0014).
Kuribayashi et al. discloses a packaging bag for placing a face mask (i.e. a cosmetic patch product). The packaging bag serves the purpose of a protective coating layer (Section 0015).
Kuribayashi et al. also discloses that the face mask packaging seal is sealed by heat sealing or ultrasonic bonding (Section 0008).
Halla et al. discloses that cosmetics are exposed to microbial contamination and should be protected in packaging (Section 2.3 Paragraph 1). Halla et al. discloses that two levels of protection can be provided by the packaging of cosmetics including protection against contamination during use and protection against accumulation of contamination in the distribution system (Section 3.2.1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the ‘848 electrospun composition by placing it in a packaging bag such as that disclosed by Kuribayashi et al. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because it protects the nonwoven membrane against contamination as disclosed by Halla et al.. The skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success as the modification would simply entail placing the electrospun composition in the packaging.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE PEEBLES whose telephone number is (571)272-6247. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday: 9 am to 3 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ali Soroush can be reached at (571)272-9925. 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.
/KATHERINE PEEBLES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617