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 . Claims included in the prosecution are claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-15, 17-23 and 25.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Applicants' arguments, filed 10/13/2025, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 12 fails to further limit claim 1 since claim 12 recites less than or equal to 50% of at least two fillers, which is the same as up to 50% of at least two fillers recited in claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
1. Claims 1-3, 7, 10-12, 15, 17, 18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herve (US 2010/0009189, Jan. 14, 2010) in view of Canova et al. (US 2015/0147364, May 28, 2015) (hereinafter Canova), La Grande et al. (US 2004/0242788, Dec. 2, 2004) (hereinafter La Grande), and Gyobu et al. (JP 2001172411 A, Jun. 26, 2001) (hereinafter Gyobu).
Herve discloses a process for the preparation of a powder composed of particles based on a thermoplastic polymer (¶ [0001]). The particles obtained from the process are spherical particles (¶ [0136]). The process comprises a. forming a melt blend of a thermoplastic material P with at least one additive A and at least one compound B in order to obtain a dispersion of discrete particles of the thermoplastic material P dispersed in a continuous phase formed by the additive A and the compound B, b. cooling said blend to a temperature below the softening temperature of the thermoplastic material P, and c. treating said cold blend in order to bring about the separation of the discrete particles of thermoplastic material P (¶ [0011]-[0015]). Separation occurs instantaneously when the cooled blend is introduced into a liquid, such as water (¶ [0127]). The particles of polymer P are optionally isolated from the solvent/additive A/compound B solution. This can be carried out by any means which makes it possible to separate a liquid phase and a suspended solid phase (¶ [0131]). The particles of polymer P thus obtained can be washed and dried (¶ [0133]). Stage a) is preferably carried out in an extruder, more preferably in a twin-screw or multi-screw extruder (¶ [0119]). The temperatures of the various zones of the extruder are between 275 and 295°C (¶ [0152]). The process makes it possible to manufacture powders starting from any thermoplastic material (¶ [0032]). Suitable thermoplastic polymers include polyamides, polyesters, and polyolefins (¶ [0033]). The process can employ one or more additive A (¶ [0063]). Additive A is advantageously a polymer of the block type (¶ [0064]). The concentration of additive A in the blend ranges from 1% to 50% (claim 41). Examples of compound B include polysaccharides, polyoxyalkylene glycols, polyolefins, silicones, and waxes (i.e., claimed compound P) (¶ [0115]). The concentration of compound B in the blend ranges from 1% to 50% (claim 42). The concentration of thermoplastic polymer P may range from 63.5% to 88.25% (Table 1). The mean particle diameter desired is advantageously between 0.1 and 800 µm (¶ [0138]). The thermoplastic polymer can comprise various additives, such as fillers (¶ [0062]).
Herve differs from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the thermoplastic polymer comprises at least two fillers dispersed therein.
However, Canova discloses a cosmetic composition that includes particles of a polymeric composition that includes a polymer matrix and one or a plurality of mineral filler(s), uniformly dispersed in the polymer matrix, having properties of absorption and/or emission in the far infrared region ranging from 2 µm to 20 µm (abstract). The plurality of fillers may be a titanium dioxide, barium sulfate, and tourmaline combination (claim 27). The weight proportion of mineral filler(s) relative to the total weight of the polymeric composition is greater than equal to 1.0% and less than or equal to 50% (¶ [0040]-[0041]). The polymer matrix may be polyesters, polyolefins, or polyamides (claim 2). The application to skin of a dispersion of particles formed from said polymeric composition has the effect of reducing the signs of aging already present on the skin and of preventing or delaying the appearance of new signs (¶ [0011]).
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. See MPEP 2144.07. Herve discloses wherein the thermoplastic polymer may comprise fillers. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have dispersed 1-50% titanium dioxide, barium sulfate, and tourmaline into the thermoplastic polymer of Herve since these are known and effective fillers that also provide an anti-aging effect to skin when dispersed in a thermoplastic polymer as taught by Canova.
The combined teachings of Herve and Canova do not disclose wherein agent C is an ethoxylated/propoxylated block copolymer.
However, La Grande discloses a process for preparing a thermoplastic polymer (abstract). The thermoplastic polymer comprises at least one polyalkylene oxide block, which can be introduced as an additive (¶ [0012]).
Gyobu discloses a thermoplastic polyester elastomer film. The elastomer contains copolymerized polyether glycol containing two or more types of alkylene units. The copolymerized polyether glycol of molecular weight 500-4000 comprises alkylene unit arranged randomly or in blocks. The copolymerized polyether glycol may be a block copolymerized polyether glycol containing propylene oxide (PO) and ethylene oxide (EO) at both terminals. The block copolymerized glycol contains PO/EO in a molar ratio of 90/10 – 30/70 (abstract).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have a block copolymerized glycol containing PO/EO in a molar ratio of 90/10-30/70 and having a molecular weight of 500-4000 as an additive A for the composition of Herve since a polyalkylene oxide block copolymer is a known and effective additive for thermoplastic polymer compositions as taught by La Grande and a block copolymerized glycol containing PO/EO in a molar ratio of 90/10-30/70 and having a molecular weight of 500-4000 is a known and effective polyalkylene oxide block copolymer as taught by Gyobu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success since Herve discloses wherein additive A is of the block type.
In regards to instant claim 1 reciting wherein agent C is an amphiphilic compound having a first part of its structure that can react chemically or physically with the thermoplastic polymer matrix and a second part of its structure that can react chemically or physically with the at least one compound P, the random polymer of the prior art has EO and PO. As noted in the instant specification in paragraph [0074], EO is hydrophilic and PO is hydrophobic. As noted in the instant specification in paragraph [0075], the EO block is solubilized in compound P, while the PO block is solubilized in thermoplastic polymeric matrix M. Thus, the random polymer of the prior art meets the claim limitation.
In regards to instant claim 22, reciting wherein the spherical particles contain migrated fillers in an amount not more than 5000 mg/kg, as noted in the instant specification in paragraph [00106], the amount of migrated fillers appears to depend on the amount of agent C added. Table 1 of the instant specification shows wherein agent C may be 10 wt. %. Therefore, since composition of the prior art comprises substantially the same agent C claimed in substantially the same amount as claimed, as discussed above, the composition of the prior art would necessarily have substantially the same claimed amount of migrated fillers.
2. Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herve (US 2010/0009189, Jan. 14, 2010) in view of Canova et al. (US 2015/0147364, May 28, 2015) (hereinafter Canova), La Grande et al. (US 2004/0242788, Dec. 2, 2004) (hereinafter La Grande), Gyobu et al. (JP 2001172411 A, Jun. 26, 2001) (hereinafter Gyobu), and further in view of Dadey et al. (US 2008/0299168, Dec. 4, 2008) (hereinafter Dadey).
The teachings of Herve, Canova, La Grande, and Gyobu are discussed above. Herve, Canova, La Grande, and Gyobu do not disclose wherein the thermoplastic polymer is PHA.
However, Dadey discloses an implant including a biodegradable thermoplastic polymer (abstract). The biodegradable thermoplastic polymer may be polyhydroxybutyrate (claim 9).
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. See MPEP 2144.07. Herve discloses wherein any thermoplastic polymer material may be used. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used polyhydroxybutyrate as the thermoplastic polymer since it is a known and effective thermoplastic polymer as taught by Dadey.
3. Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herve (US 2010/0009189, Jan. 14, 2010) in view of Canova et al. (US 2015/0147364, May 28, 2015) (hereinafter Canova), La Grande et al. (US 2004/0242788, Dec. 2, 2004) (hereinafter La Grande), Gyobu et al. (JP 2001172411 A, Jun. 26, 2001) (hereinafter Gyobu), and further in view of Natarajan et al. (US 2008/0132631, Jun. 5, 2008) (hereinafter Natarajan).
The teachings of Herve, Canova, La Grande, and Gyobu are discussed above. Herve, Canova, La Grande, and Gyobu do not disclose wherein compound B is PEG with a molecular weight ranging from 1500 to 60000 g/mol.
However, Natarajan discloses a method of preparing a thermoplastic polymer (abstract). Polyethylene glycol having a number-average molecular weight greater than about 150 is a polyoxyalkylene glycol (¶ [0060]).
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. See MPEP 2144.07. Herve discloses wherein compound B may be a polyoxyalkylene glycol. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used PEG having a molecular weight greater than about 150 as compound B since it is a known and effective polyoxyalkylene glycol as taught by Natarajan.
4. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herve (US 2010/0009189, Jan. 14, 2010) in view of Canova et al. (US 2015/0147364, May 28, 2015) (hereinafter Canova), La Grande et al. (US 2004/0242788, Dec. 2, 2004) (hereinafter La Grande), Gyobu et al. (JP 2001172411 A, Jun. 26, 2001) (hereinafter Gyobu), Dadey et al. (US 2008/0299168, Dec. 4, 2008) (hereinafter Dadey), and further in view of Natarajan et al. (US 2008/0132631, Jun. 5, 2008) (hereinafter Natarajan).
The teachings of Herve, Canova, La Grande, Gyobu, and Dadey are discussed above. Herve, Canova, La Grande, Gyobu, and Dadey do not disclose wherein compound B is PEG.
However, Natarajan discloses a method of preparing a thermoplastic polymer (abstract). Polyethylene glycol having a number-average molecular weight greater than about 150 is a polyoxyalkylene glycol (¶ [0060]).
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. See MPEP 2144.07. Herve discloses wherein compound B may be a polyoxyalkylene glycol. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used PEG as compound B since it is a known and effective polyoxyalkylene glycol as taught by Natarajan.
5. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herve (US 2010/0009189, Jan. 14, 2010) in view of Canova et al. (US 2015/0147364, May 28, 2015) (hereinafter Canova), La Grande et al. (US 2004/0242788, Dec. 2, 2004) (hereinafter La Grande), Gyobu et al. (JP 2001172411 A, Jun. 26, 2001), and further in view of Buretea et al. (US 2004/0095658, May 20, 2004) (hereinafter Buretea).
The teachings of Herve, Canova, La Grande, and Gyobu are discussed above. Herve, Canova, La Grande, and Gyobu do not disclose wherein the spherical particles have a spherical shape factor ratio being selected from 0.5 to 1.0.
However, Buretea discloses a composite comprising nanoparticles (abstract). A nanoparticle can be spherical particles having an aspect ratio of about 0.9 to about 1.2 (¶ [0031]).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the particles of Herve with an aspect ratio about 0.9 to about 1.2 since the particles are to be spherical and this ratio would produce spherical particles as taught by Buretea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because new rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment have been made.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-15, 17-23 and 25 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5 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.
/TRACY LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614