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 .
Priority
The present application is a National Stage entry of International application PCT/US2021/049910 filed 09/10/2021, which claims the benefit of Provisional US application 63076630 filed 09/10/2020.
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s claimed invention, filed 03/10/2023, in the matter of Application N° 18/025,790. Said documents have been entered on the record. The latest claim date is found filed on 07/12/2023. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Claims 1-7 are presented for examination and rejected as set forth below.
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.
Claims 2 and 7 are 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 2 recites exemplary language (by reciting “PPE that is other than a mask, including PPE that is selected from face shields or goggles). It is unclear whether to interpret the broader definition “other than a mask” or the narrow definition of the “including” phrase. For examination purposes, the examples provided by the exemplary language are not considered limitations of the claim, and the broadest reasonable interpretation is used.
Claim 7 recites exemplary language (‘such as’ which ends in “etc.”) that is indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the examples provided by the exemplary language are not considered limitations of the claim, and the broadest reasonable interpretation is used.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US20040161435A1), and in further view of Zhou (Int J Dermatol Venereol, 2020; published June 2020).
Applicant’s claims are directed to a method of treating or preventing one or more skin conditions in a subject caused by extended use of personal protective equipment (PPE), comprising applying a skin mask composition to the face of the subject. The instant method defines a patient population of a “one or more skin conditions in a subject cause by extended use of PPE.” Claims 3 and 4 recite ingredients that are defined by their functional effect, in which examples are not provided in the Specification tying an effect to a set of ingredients. Thus, a broad interpretation is taken for these ingredients that relies on identifying the ingredient class in the art.
Gupta teaches a cosmetic face mask to benefit the skin (abstract, [0057]) and methods of use [0042-0056], where the appearance of face is the most important concern for mankind [0005].
Regarding claim 1: Gupta teaches a method of treating skin conditions [0057] using cosmetic masks with various methods [0042-0056] and of different materials, including gels [0006-0023, 0061-0064]. Gupta specifies a cosmetic mask where the mask is cut with holes for nose, lips, and eyes to cover the full face such that the mask is applied to specific areas of the face in need of treatment (reads on “nighttime skin mask” since “nighttime” does not impose any structural limitations) [0050]. Gupta also teaches various skin damage originating from scenarios such as physical abrasion [0002].
Furthermore, it would be obvious to cut the mask accordingly (similarly to how Gupta cuts holes for the nose, lips, and eyes) to allow for treatment that targets specific areas of the face as set forth in claims 1b, 1c, 1d, and 1e. Finally, Gupta teaches application of compositions to specific areas such as face, chin, neck [0041] and eyes, nose lips [0050] such that the mask could be constructed to target specific areas of the head and neck, and Gupta also teaches optimizing synergistic ingredient compositions that have different purposes in different parts of the body [0041-0042], which suggests the 2-piece skin mask of claim 1a.
Regarding claim 3: Gupta teaches conditioning and soothing agents (reads on soothing, calming) and anti-inflammatory, vitamins, hormones, benzoyl peroxide, and antioxidants (reads on controlling blemishes and acne) (Gupta – claim 11 and 19, [0016]).
Regarding claim 4: Gupta teaches moisturizers (reads on hydrating and moisturizing) (Gupta – claim 19).
In summary, Gupta teaches the elements of the instant invention except for a subject in need of treatment or prevention of one or more skin conditions caused by extended use of personal protective equipment (PPE) (such as masks, face shields, and/or goggles) (instant claims 1 and 2).
Zhou teaches that PPE can cause skin damage in workers that use PPE for a long period of time (pg 1, introduction), and PPE comprises equipment (e.g., masks, googles, face shields, and protective clothing on pg 2) that protects mouth nose, eyes, ears, bare skin, and head (pg 1, ‘classification’; pg 2, ‘characteristics of skin damage caused by PPE’)). Zhou teaches PPE causes a series of skin problems due to long-term sealing, friction, and pressure (pg 1, ‘introduction’). Zhou shows damage (especially on the nose and cheek, below the eye) from use of facial googles (pg 2, figure 1), leading to injuries of allergic/infectious skin conditions and acne, and teaches hydrogel dressing and active ingredients to treat injuries (pg 4-5, ‘Treatment of skin injury cause by PPE’).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of applying a cosmetic face mask of Gupta with using the face mask for subjects with skin damage caused by PPE (including from masks, googles, and face shields) because PPE causes a series of skin problems of the face/head area due to long-term sealing, friction, and pressure that can be treated by hydrogel dressing and active ingredients to treat injuries (pg 4-5, ‘Treatment of skin injury caused by PPE’), as taught by Zhou. Gupta also teaches various skin damage originating from scenarios such as physical abrasion [0002] that can be treated by a facial mask and active ingredients (abstract).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupta (US20040161435A1) and Zhou (Int J Dermatol Venereol, 2020; published June 2020), as applied to claims 1-4, and in further view of Manzo (Dermascope 2019), Waghule (Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 2019), and Brewer (JAMA Dermatology, 2013).
As discussed above, Gupta and Zhou teach a method for applying a cosmetic facial mask for treatment of PPE-related skin injuries. However, they do not teach microinfusion prior to application of the skin mask (instant claim 5), microneedling to apply the skin mask (instant claim 6), and mobile application use with applying the cosmetic mask (instant claim 7).
Manzo teaches microinfusions to improve aesthetic of injured skin by delivering/flooding the immediate area with a formulated serum (pg 2, ‘purpose’) and overcoming the barrier function of skin that impedes typical topical formulations to improve bioavailability of ingredients (pg 2-3, ‘skin anatomy’).
Waghule teaches microneedling in various modes (pg 1252, figure 3) in order to enhance delivery of ingredients in contrast to conventional formulations (abstract).
Brewer teaches mobile applications in dermatology as a way to conveniently and remotely diagnose skin problems (pg 1300, paragraph 3 and pg 1301, paragraph 1). Brewer also teaches that dermatology-related apps allow patients to document personal skin disease and even attempt self-diagnosis (pg 1303, paragraph 3) (i.e., the diagnosis and recommendations are built around personalized skin data from the user). Brewer teaches SpotMole as an example app that analyzes photos of moles for signs of melanoma using image processing and pattern-recognition techniques (pg 1203, paragraph 2 and Table 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gupta and Zhou to incorporate microinfusion with skin serums prior to application of the skin mask, because Manzo teaches microinfusions to improve bioavailability of cosmetic ingredients, where Gupta teaches incorporation of cosmetic ingredients in masks (Gupta – claim 11 and 19, [0016]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gupta and Zhou to incorporate microneedling with application of the skin mask, because Waghule teaches microneedling to enhance delivery of cosmetic ingredients, where Gupta teaches incorporation of cosmetic ingredients in masks (Gupta – claim 11 and 19, [0016]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gupta and Zhou to incorporate mobile applications to scan facial features because mobile applications in dermatology are a way to screen for skin problems remotely without having to travel to a doctor’s office, as taught by Brewer.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong (US20100055161A1), and in further view of Zhou (Int J Dermatol Venereol, 2020; published June 2020).
Applicant’s claims are interpreted as described above.
Dong teaches a method of applying a hydrogel face mask for delivering skin care agents (title, abstract, Dong – claim 19) to treat or prevent a skin condition [0004].
Regarding claims 1 and 3-4: Dong teaches a full mask (pictorial representations in figure 1-2) for blemishes and acne (Dong – claim 13) that includes moisturizers [0052], which are useful to treat skin damage from physical injury [0002].
In summary, Dong teaches the elements of the instant invention except for a subject in need of treatment or prevention of one or more skin conditions caused by extended use of personal protective equipment (PPE) (instant claims 1 and 2).
Zhou teaches that PPE can cause skin damage in workers that use PPE for a long period of time (pg 1, introduction), and PPE comprises equipment (e.g., masks, googles, face shields, and protective clothing on pg 2) that protects mouth nose, eyes, ears, bare skin, and head (pg 1, ‘classification’; pg 2, ‘characteristics of skin damage caused by PPE’)). Zhou teaches PPE causes a series of skin problems due to long-term sealing, friction, and pressure (pg 1, ‘introduction’). Zhou shows damage (especially on the nose and cheek, below the eye) from use of facial googles (pg 2, figure 1), leading to injuries of allergic/infectious skin conditions and acne, and teaches hydrogel dressing to treat injuries (pg 4-5, ‘Treatment of skin injury cause by PPE’).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of applying a cosmetic face mask of Dong with using the face mask for subjects with skin damage caused by PPE (including from masks, googles, and face shields) because PPE causes a series of skin problems of the face/head area due to long-term sealing, friction, and pressure that can be treated by hydrogel dressing and active ingredients to treat injuries (pg 4-5, ‘Treatment of skin injury caused by PPE’), as taught by Zhou. Furthermore, Dong teaches face masks in combination with treatment agents that are useful to treat skin damage from physical injury (abstract, [0002]).
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJAN PRAGANI whose telephone number is (703)756-5319. The examiner can normally be reached 7a-5p EST (M-Th).
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 on 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.
/R.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1614 12/15/2025
/SEAN M BASQUILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614