DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-14, 16-23 are pending and represent all claims currently under consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1 and 21 were amended. No new material was added.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the previous rejection of claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 6, 8-14, 16-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been modified to address the amendments and maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the pattern of application of droplets improves the contractive effect as compared to the case where the fine droplets are uniformly applied over a whole surface area (Remarks, pages 11-13). This argument is not persuasive, because the data referenced by the Applicant compares the application of droplets in a specific row pattern to a uniform application over a whole surface area (instant specification, paragraph 0084), while Rabe teaches an application of an array which can be in multiple rows (Rabe, page 3, paragraph 0029). Rabe further teaches the cosmetic process is for softening wrinkles (i.e., contracting skin; Rabe, page 6, paragraph 0051). Therefore, the observed skin contraction is not an unexpected technical effect over Rabe.
Applicant argues that while Rabe discloses that the droplets may be applied with an array which can be multiple rows, there is nothing about the timing of the application of the separate rows and nothing to suggest the benefit obtained (Remarks, page 13). While Rabe does not specify timing of the application, Rabe teaches the treatment composition can be applied in a sequence and by making multiple passes (Rabe, page 5, paragraph 0042-0043). As stated previously, Rabe teaches the treatment composition can comprise an oil phase which is a hydrocarbon oil (Rabe, page 5, paragraph 0046), and Ayakawa teaches the use of isododecane (i.e., a preferred volatile hydrocarbon oil as defined by the instant specification, pages 39-40, paragraph 0060; Ayakawa, page 17, line 1). It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a volatile solvent would be subject to volatilization upon application, and it would be reasonable to expect at least partial volatilization would occur between the multiple passes taught by Rabe.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claims 1-2, 6-14, 16-23 are considered to have an effective filing date of 03/25/2021.
Modified/Maintained 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.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8-14, 16-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabe (US 20170056303 A1; IDS reference, 04/24/2024), further in view of Ayakawa (EP 2444062 B1), as evidenced by PubChem. The references were previously cited by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Rabe teaches a system for skin treatment (Rabe, abstract) wherein a treatment composition is applied to the skin in discrete droplets (Rabe, claim 29) which comprises a polymer (i.e., a polymer A; Rabe, claim 5) and can be in the form of an ink (i.e., fine liquid droplets of a liquid composition; Rabe, page 5, paragraph 0045) which is ejected from an inkjet system (Rabe, claim 11). Rabe further teaches compositions can be cured (i.e., dried) after application (Rabe, page 6, paragraph 0050) and application can tighten (i.e., contract) skin and soften wrinkles (Rabe, page 6, paragraph 0051). Rabe does not specifically state that such tightening is in association with the drying step, but it is stated that skin tightening is known in the field (Rabe, page 6, paragraph 0051). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the drying of the skin treatment would result in contracting of the skin. Rabe further teaches a deposition pattern of the droplets (i.e., an interval between the fine liquid droplets applied to the skin) of between about 0.1-50 micrometers (Rabe, claim 29), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.01-2 mm (i.e., 10-2000 micrometers). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Rabe teaches the droplets are between 100-2000 micrometers in size (Rabe, claim 3), which overlaps the claimed range of 10-500 micrometers. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Rabe teaches the treatment composition can comprise an oil phase which is a hydrocarbon oil (Rabe, page 5, paragraph 0046), but does not specifically state the hydrocarbon oil is volatile as claimed, and does not teach a deformation ratio, but as stated in the claim, the deformation ratio is a measurement dependent on the drying of a solution of the polymer and the solvent. Ayakawa teaches a liquid cosmetic product which comprises a tris(trimethylsiloxy)silylnorbornene/norbornene copolymer (Ayakawa, page 16, line 3, ”polymer I-1”) in isododecane (i.e., a preferred volatile hydrocarbon oil as defined by the instant specification, pages 39-40, paragraph 0060; Ayakawa, page 17, line 1) and teaches the polymer shrinks (i.e., deforms) when it forms a film (i.e., dries; Ayakawa, page 17, line 38). Though the art is silent to the method used to measure a deformation ratio, the patentability rests in the final structure and not in the manner in which the deformation is measured. Because the same polymer and solvent are taught by Ayakawa and in the instant specification (page 29, paragraph 0041) resulting in the same final structure, it would be reasonable to expect a similar deformation ratio if it were measured.
Rabe teaches an application of an array which can be in a linear configuration or multiple rows, and teaches those skilled in the printing arts will appreciate the various configurations of arrays that are possible (Rabe, page 3, paragraph 0029). Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect one of ordinary skill in the art would utilize parallel rows based on the teaching of a linear configuration. Rabe further teaches the treatment composition can be applied in a sequence and by making multiple passes (Rabe, page 5, paragraph 0042-0043), suggesting applying a second pass of linear rows after the first pass of rows would be expected based on the teachings of Rabe. It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that a volatile solvent would be subject to volatilization upon application, and it would be reasonable to expect at least partial volatilization would occur between the multiple passes taught by Rabe.
Rabe and Ayakawa are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because all are in the same field of liquid anti-wrinkle cosmetic compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rabe to have included the specific polymer/solvent combination taught by Ayakawa to arrive at the claimed invention, because Rabe teaches it would be obvious to those skilled in the art to make modifications without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention (Rabe, page 10, paragraph 0089), which includes treating wrinkles (Rabe, page 1, paragraphs 0002-0004), while Ayakawa found the polymer greatly shrinks when it forms a film as an antiwrinkle cosmetic product (Ayakawa, page 17, paragraph 0107), and products containing such a polymer capable of forming a film with ideal properties such water resistance and longevity (Ayakawa, page 4, line 3).
Rabe does not measure droplet mass per one droplet as claimed, but does state the droplets are between 100-2000 micrometers in size (Rabe, claim 3), which matches the average diameter of fine liquid droplets in examples 1-39 in the instant specification (tables 1-1, 2-2, 3-2, and 4-2). Ayakawa teaches a liquid cosmetic product which comprises a tris(trimethylsiloxy)silylnorbornene/norbornene copolymer (Ayakawa, page 16, line 3, ”polymer I-1”), but also does not measure droplet mass per one droplet as claimed. As stated in the instant specification, the molecular weight of the tris(trimethylsiloxy)silylnorbornene/norbornene copolymer is 360,000 g/mol (page 71, line 18) and the polymer represents 10% of the total composition, along with low molecular weight solvents (examples 1-15) which would not expected to produce a significant change in mass (e.g., example composition 1 contains 10% of the polymer at 360,000 g/mol and 90% of hexamethyl disiloxane at 162.88 g/mol [as evidenced by PubChem], which results in an average molecular weight of 36,146 g/mol with the polymer accounting for 99.6% of the overall weight). Because the tris(trimethylsiloxy)silylnorbornene/norbornene copolymer is the same, it would be reasonable to assume the same applies for the composition taught by Ayakawa, with the claimed polymer accounting for the majority of the droplet weight. A composition comprising the droplet size taught by Rabe and the polymer taught by Ayakawa would be reasonably expected to have a similar mass per droplet as claimed. The U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the exact same ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise.
Regarding claim 2, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Rabe does not measure a droplet mass in milligrams as claimed, but does state the droplets are between 100-2000 micrometers in size (Rabe, claim 3), which matches the average diameter of fine liquid droplets in examples 1-39 in the instant specification (tables 1-1, 2-2, 3-2, and 4-2), suggesting the droplets are similar in size and therefore, a similar mass per droplet would be expected. Rabe further teaches a deposition pattern of the droplets (i.e., an interval between the fine liquid droplets applied to the skin) of between about 0.1-50 micrometers (Rabe, claim 29), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.01-2 mm (i.e., 10-2000 micrometers). Because the size and spacing of the droplets is the same, it is reasonable to assume the amount of droplets per unit area of the skin in terms of mg/cm2 would be the same as well. The U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the exact same ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise.
Regarding claim 6, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Rabe does not measure the volatilization rate of the solvent, but does teach the treatment composition can comprise an oil phase which is a hydrocarbon oil (Rabe, page 5, paragraph 0046). Ayakawa teaches a liquid cosmetic product which comprises isododecane (i.e., a preferred volatile hydrocarbon oil as defined by the instant specification, pages 39-40, paragraph 0060; Ayakawa, page 17, line 1), which is listed as a reasonable solvent B in the instant specification with a volatilization rate of 33% (page 40, paragraph 0060), within the claimed range of 5% or greater.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rabe to have included the specific polymer/solvent combination taught by Ayakawa to arrive at the claimed invention, because Rabe teaches it would be obvious to those skilled in the art to make modifications without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention (Rabe, page 10, paragraph 0089), which includes treating wrinkles (Rabe, page 1, paragraphs 0002-0004), while Ayakawa found the polymer greatly shrinks when it forms a film as an antiwrinkle cosmetic product (Ayakawa, page 17, paragraph 0107), and products containing such a polymer capable of forming a film with ideal properties such water resistance and longevity (Ayakawa, page 4, line 3).
Regarding claim 8, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Rabe teaches the composition comprises polymers (i.e., polymer A) in a concentration of from about 0.1-5% by weight (Rabe, claim 5), which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1-30% by mass of the liquid composition. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 9, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Rabe teaches the composition comprises polymers (i.e., polymer A) in a concentration of from about 0.1-5% by weight (Rabe, claim 5) and exemplifies a composition containing volatile solvents (66.40% water + 15.00% propylene glycol; Rabe, page 8, example 2) in 82.90% by weight, which suggests a possible mass ratio of the content of the polymer A to the content of the volatile solvent B to be 0.001 to 0.06, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.05 to 0.3. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). As stated above, Rabe does not specifically teach the volatile solvent from the claimed list. Ayakawa, however, teaches a liquid cosmetic product which comprises a polymer in isododecane (i.e., a preferred volatile hydrocarbon oil as defined by the instant specification, pages 39-40, paragraph 0060; Ayakawa, page 17, line 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rabe to have included the specific polymer/solvent combination taught by Ayakawa to arrive at the claimed invention, because Rabe teaches it would be obvious to those skilled in the art to make modifications without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention (Rabe, page 10, paragraph 0089), which includes treating wrinkles (Rabe, page 1, paragraphs 0002-0004), while Ayakawa found the polymer greatly shrinks when it forms a film as an antiwrinkle cosmetic product (Ayakawa, page 17, paragraph 0107), and products containing such a polymer capable of forming a film with ideal properties such water resistance and longevity (Ayakawa, page 4, line 3).
Regarding claim 10, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Rabe exemplifies a composition comprising a total content of polymer (1.50% of VP/VA copolymer in water) and volatile solvents (66.40% water + 15.00% propylene glycol; Rabe, page 8, example 2) which is 82.90%, within the claimed range of 80-100% by mass of the liquid composition. As stated above, Rabe does not specifically teach the volatile solvent from the claimed list. Ayakawa, however, teaches a liquid cosmetic product which comprises a polymer in isododecane (i.e., a preferred volatile hydrocarbon oil as defined by the instant specification, pages 39-40, paragraph 0060; Ayakawa, page 17, line 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rabe to have included the specific polymer/solvent combination taught by Ayakawa to arrive at the claimed invention, because Rabe teaches it would be obvious to those skilled in the art to make modifications without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention (Rabe, page 10, paragraph 0089), which includes treating wrinkles (Rabe, page 1, paragraphs 0002-0004), while Ayakawa found the polymer greatly shrinks when it forms a film as an antiwrinkle cosmetic product (Ayakawa, page 17, paragraph 0107), and products containing such a polymer capable of forming a film with ideal properties such water resistance and longevity (Ayakawa, page 4, line 3).
Regarding claim 11, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Rabe does not teach a polymer from the claimed list. Ayakawa, however, teaches a liquid cosmetic product which comprises a polymer (i.e., polymer A) having a repeating unit represented by “formula (i)” below (i.e., a silicone polymer comprising a structure represented by the claimed general formula) wherein R2 (i.e., R1) is independently an alkyl group having 1 to 12 carbon atoms and c (i.e., p) is an integer of 1 to 5 (Ayakawa, claim 1).
Ayakawa formula (i) is represented by:
PNG
media_image1.png
98
185
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Ayakawa, claim 1).
As above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rabe to have included the specific polymer/solvent combination taught by Ayakawa to arrive at the claimed invention, because Ayakawa found cosmetic products containing such a polymer capable of forming a film with ideal properties such water resistance and longevity (Ayakawa, page 4, line 3).
Regarding claim 12, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Rabe teaches application of the composition to the skin of the face can tighten skin and soften wrinkles (i.e., wrinkles on the skin are improved; Rabe, page 6, paragraph 0051).
Regarding claim 13, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 12. Rabe teaches application of the composition to the skin of the face can tighten skin and soften wrinkles (i.e., wrinkles on the skin are improved; Rabe, page 6, paragraph 0051) and teaches application adjacent to skin deviations (i.e., applied to peripheral portions of the wrinkles on the skin; Rabe, page 2, paragraph 0031).
Regarding claim 14, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Rabe does not specifically teach that an undulation on the skin is formed upon application of the composition, but does teach the application of the composition to the skin of the face can tighten skin and soften wrinkles (i.e., wrinkles on the skin are improved; Rabe, page 6, paragraph 0051) and that skin deviations can be treated (Rabe, page 1, paragraph 0005). When the prior art composition is the same as a composition described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See MPEP § 2112.02(I). Therefore, it would be reasonable to expect an undulation on the skin to be formed when performing the method taught by Rabe.
Regarding claim 16, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Rabe further teaches ink-jet printing (Rabe, claim 17) in a deposition pattern (Rabe, claim 29).
Regarding claim 17, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 16. Rabe further teaches a deposition pattern of the droplets (Rabe, claim 29) and teaches the ink-jet has a nozzle array which can be linear or in multiple rows (i.e., a grid; Rabe, claim 36) with a window which can be triangular, square, or rectangular (Rabe, page 4, paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 18, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Rabe further teaches a deposition pattern of the droplets (i.e., an interval between the fine liquid droplets applied to the skin) of between about 0.1-50 micrometers (Rabe, claim 29), and teaches the droplets are between 100-2000 micrometers in size (Rabe, claim 3), resulting in a possible ratio of between 0.00005 to 0.5, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 to 3. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 19, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 11. As above, Rabe does not teach a polymer from the claimed list. Ayakawa, however, teaches the cosmetic product comprises a polymer (i.e., polymer A) represented by “formula (1)” below (i.e., a norbornane structure-containing silicone-modified polymer; Ayakawa, claim 1).
Ayakawa formula (1) is represented by:
PNG
media_image2.png
201
179
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(Ayakawa, claim 1).
As above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rabe to have included the specific polymer/solvent combination taught by Ayakawa to arrive at the claimed invention, because Ayakawa found cosmetic products containing such a polymer capable of forming a film with ideal properties such water resistance and longevity (Ayakawa, page 4, line 3).
Regarding claim 21, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Rabe teaches the solvent (i.e., volatile solvent B) is water (Rabe, claim 5). Rabe further teaches the treatment composition can comprise an oil phase which is a hydrocarbon oil (Rabe, page 5, paragraph 0046). Ayakawa teaches a liquid cosmetic product which comprises isododecane (Ayakawa, page 17, line 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rabe to have included the specific polymer/solvent combination taught by Ayakawa to arrive at the claimed invention, because Rabe teaches it would be obvious to those skilled in the art to make modifications without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention (Rabe, page 10, paragraph 0089), which includes treating wrinkles (Rabe, page 1, paragraphs 0002-0004), while Ayakawa found the polymer greatly shrinks when it forms a film as an antiwrinkle cosmetic product (Ayakawa, page 17, paragraph 0107), and products containing such a polymer capable of forming a film with ideal properties such water resistance and longevity (Ayakawa, page 4, line 3).
Regarding claim 22, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Rabe exemplifies a composition comprising a total content of volatile solvents (66.40% water + 15.00% propylene glycol; Rabe, page 8, example 2) which is 81.40%, within the claimed range of 1-99% by mass of the liquid composition. As stated above, Rabe does not specifically teach the volatile solvent from the claimed list. Ayakawa, however, teaches a liquid cosmetic product which comprises a polymer in isododecane (i.e., a preferred volatile hydrocarbon oil as defined by the instant specification, pages 39-40, paragraph 0060; Ayakawa, page 17, line 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rabe to have included the specific polymer/solvent combination taught by Ayakawa to arrive at the claimed invention, because Rabe teaches it would be obvious to those skilled in the art to make modifications without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention (Rabe, page 10, paragraph 0089), which includes treating wrinkles (Rabe, page 1, paragraphs 0002-0004), while Ayakawa found the polymer greatly shrinks when it forms a film as an antiwrinkle cosmetic product (Ayakawa, page 17, paragraph 0107), and products containing such a polymer capable of forming a film with ideal properties such water resistance and longevity (Ayakawa, page 4, line 3).
Regarding claim 23, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. As above, Rabe exemplifies a composition comprising a total content of volatile solvents which is 81.40% (Rabe, page 8, example 2). Rabe does not measure the volatilization rate of the volatile solvent, but does teach the solvent can be water (Rabe, claim 5), which is listed as a reasonable solvent B in the instant specification with a volatilization rate of 100% (page 40, paragraph 0060), which according to the claimed formula would result in a value of 81.40, within the claimed range of 5 to 99.9. As stated above, Rabe does not specifically teach the volatile solvent B from the claimed list. Ayakawa, however, teaches a liquid cosmetic product which comprises a polymer in isododecane (i.e., a preferred volatile hydrocarbon oil as defined by the instant specification, pages 39-40, paragraph 0060; Ayakawa, page 17, line 1), which is listed as a reasonable solvent B in the instant specification with a volatilization rate of 33%. Using the same total content as taught by Rabe, this would result in a value of 26.86, which also lies within the claimed range. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rabe to have included the specific polymer/solvent combination taught by Ayakawa to arrive at the claimed invention, because Rabe teaches it would be obvious to those skilled in the art to make modifications without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention (Rabe, page 10, paragraph 0089), which includes treating wrinkles (Rabe, page 1, paragraphs 0002-0004), while Ayakawa found the polymer greatly shrinks when it forms a film as an antiwrinkle cosmetic product (Ayakawa, page 17, paragraph 0107), and products containing such a polymer capable of forming a film with ideal properties such water resistance and longevity (Ayakawa, page 4, line 3).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rabe (US 20170056303 A1) and Ayakawa (EP 2444062 B1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-14, 16-19, and 21-23, and further in view of David (WO 2007106457 A2). The references were previously cited by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 20, Rabe and Ayakawa together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 11. Rabe and Ayakawa do not teach a polymer from the claimed list, but Rabe does teach a composition wherein the polymer is polyethylene glycol (Rabe, page 7, example 1). David teaches a method of skin treatment (David, abstract), with a kit comprising a polymer from the list comprising polyethylene glycol or polymethacrylic acid (David, claim 2), suggesting these two polymers are reasonable alternatives.
Rabe, Ayakawa, and David are all considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because all are in the same field of liquid cosmetic compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Rabe to have included any of the polymers taught by David to be reasonable alternatives, thereby arriving at the claimed invention, because Rabe teaches wrinkle/texture reducing polymers are known in the field (Rabe, page 6, paragraph 0051) and David teaches both polymers to be useful in a composition which corrects wrinkles (David, page 8, paragraph 0050).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASITY P JANOSKO whose telephone number is (703)756-5307. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/C.P.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights