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 .
This application is made special under Track I, granted August 29, 2023.
Claim Status
The claim set and Applicant’s remarks filed November 06, 2025 have been entered. Claims 1-8 continue to be withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 13-14 are canceled. Thus, claims 9-12 and 15-20 as amended are examined on the merits herein.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
With respect to the objections and/or rejections mailed in the non-final office action on June 06, 2025:
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in view of Applicant canceling claim 14 as discussed in the Claim Status section above.
Response to Arguments
The rejections of claims 9-12 and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Applicant argues:
(A) The present claims go beyond a mere functional outcome, particularly, the claims recite generation of an objective function using a linear program and/or optimization process, wherein the objective function is expressly directed to minimizing potential allergic reactions as a function of the specific composition of the injectable filler, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 6 of 10, last paragraph of the page – pg. 7 of 10, paragraph 1.
(B) Claim 1 now recites “wherein the linear program maximizes or minimizes a total score across parings of users and dermal filler compositions, subject to constraints requiring that each dermal filler is assigned to only one user and each user is assigned to only one dermal filler which is not disclosed in Nguyen, Mayle and Ortiz, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7 of 10, paragraph 2.
(C) The Examiner’s reliance of Nguyen, Mayle and Ortiz does not address the specific algorithmic structure set forth in the present claims, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7 of 10, paragraph 3.
(D) The references do not teach or suggest the explicit generation and solving of an optimization problem using linear programming to minimize allergic reactions in dermal filler selection, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7 of 10, paragraph 3.
(E) The Office has not asserted that Heydenrych, Pollock and Gravett teach, suggest, or motivate the use of a linear program as recited in claim 9, pg. 3 of 11, lines 12-17, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 7 of 10, paragraph 4.
(F) Nguyen is doing something fundamentally different. It’s workflow is about image-guided placement and shaping of filler with an automatic injector to match a target anatomy and about how to inject and form a filler in the patient; whereas Applicant’s claims are about how to compute and select a patient-specific composition, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 8 of 10, paragraph 2.
(G) A skilled person in the art would not reasonably arrive at what is claimed from the teachings of Nguyen by layering in Heydenrych, Mayle, Ortiz, Pollock and Gravett without undue experimentation, where the leap from the cited teachings to the claimed allergy aware optimization pipeline would require substantial trial and error and is not the predictable or straight forward product of their combination, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 8 of 10, paragraph 3.
(H) The Office has not asserted that Olsson teaches, suggests, or motivates the use of a linear program as recited in claim 9, pg. 3 of 11, lines 12-17, see Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9 of 10, last paragraph of the page.
With respect to Applicant’s arguments (A)-(H), the Examiner respectfully notes the incorporation of the Neumann reference which specifically teaches a computing device including an objective function which may be formulated as a linear objective function which the computing device may solve using a linear program, such as without limitation, a mixed-integer program, wherein a “linear program” as used in Neumann is a program that optimizes a linear objective function, given at least a constraint, wherein a non-limiting illustrative example of a given constraint might be a food allergy as discussed in greater detail in the new 103 rejections below.
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to have included the teachings of the linear program of Neumann as discussed above, into the method of Nguyen above, in order to identify specific substrates that may be indicated for use in order to improve pre-operative to post-operative outcomes for patients as taught by Mayle above, and is particularly useful in the case of hyaluronic acid dermal fillers where allergic reaction is a common adverse event as taught by Ortiz above; as Nguyen teaches the amounts of the agents that compose the polymeric compositions vary according to a variety of factors including the past medical history of the subject and is discussed in further detail in the new 103 rejections below.
Thus, Applicant’s arguments (A)-(H) have been fully considered but are not found persuasive.
New Claim Rejections
The following are new ground(s) or modified rejections necessitated by Applicant's amendment, filed on November 06, 2025, where the limitations in pending claims 9-12 and 15-20 as amended now have been changed. Therefore, rejections from the previous Office Action, dated June 06, 2025, have been modified and are listed below.
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.
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.
(I) Claims 9-12, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (Published 2017 February 7, US-9561095-B1, see PTO-892 mailed 03/28/2024) in view of Heydenrych et al. (Published 23 November 2018, Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, Vol. 11, pp. 603-611, PTO-892 mailed 12/10/2024), Mayle et al (Published 07 October 2021, US-20210308386-A1, PTO-892 mailed 06/06/2025), Ortiz et al. (Published July 2020, Dermatological Surgery, Vol. 46, Issue 7, pp. 958-961, PTO-892 mailed 06/06/2025), Neumann (Published 30 June 2022, US-20220208337-A1, PTO-892), Pollock et al. (Published 12/19/2023, Filed 07/31/2019, US-11844878-B2, see PTO-892 mailed 03/28/2024) and Gravett et al. (Filed 02 December 2021, US-20240033283-A1, PTO-892 mailed 08/23/2024).
Regarding claims 9-12, 15 and 17-20, Nguyen teaches a method for body augmentation for cosmetics enhancements comprising capturing a 3D model of a patient from body patient data (e.g. a user data collection, required in claim 9, line 3) using a camera communicating with a processor (e.g. a computing device, required in claim 9, line 3), modeling shape and size changes in a body portion of the patient due to an amount of filler to be placed in the patient using an injector (e.g. a composition for the injectable filler based on the user data collection, required, in claim 9, lines 5-6); iteratively adjusting the shape and size of the model until the patient is satisfied to determine a desired amount of filler to be placed in the patient corresponding to a desired shape and size of the body portion (e.g. receiving, using the computing device, user feedback regarding the composition, required in claim 9, line 16; obtaining the injectable filler, required in claim 9, line 17; and a concentration based on the user feedback, required in claim 9, lines 18-19); and placing, by the processor controlling the injector, the desired amount of filler into the patient in order to achieve the desired shape and size of the body portion (e.g. transferring the diluted injectable filler, claim 9, line 20), see Col. 57, paragraph #17.
Nguyen teaches an apparatus comprising a processor for performing the cosmetic enhancements, see Col. 56, paragraph #1, lines 1-5. Nguyen teaches the amounts of the agents that compose the polymeric compositions vary according to a variety of factors including the past medical history of the subject (e.g. a user’s allergy information related to injectable fillers, required in claim 9, line 3), see Col. 51, lines 30-35.
Nguyen shows in Figures 5-6 exemplary injector configurations that can be human operated, computer operated, or a combination of human and computerized motor actuation; and wherein the exemplary injector contains a syringe barrel (e.g. a syringe to reduce particle size of the injectable filler, required in claim 9, lines 20-21), see Col. 25, lines 33-36 and Figures 5-6; and wherein the method includes injecting a bolus of hyaluronic acid deep into the skin, see Col. 4, lines 3-4.
Nguyen teaches that the injector injects hyaluronic acid (HA) with polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) to form a HA-PVA hydrogel, see Col. 58, claim #18, and wherein the HA-PVA hydrogel is exposed to an amount of energy effective to crosslink the HA and the PVA (e.g. a biosynthetic polymer comprising a hyaluronic acid derivative, required in claim 9, lines 7-8), see Col. 3, lines 10-13 and Col. 58, claim #19.
Nguyen teaches the methods of the invention involve administering injections into the deep part of the skin (i.e., deep fat or just above the bone) using large injections of a hyaluronic acid composition; wherein the hyaluronic acid bolus is injected into the skin using a needle (e.g. required in claim 19) or can be injected using a small canullae (e.g. required in claim 20), see Col. 14, lines 43-61.
Nguyen shows in Figure 5 wherein the syringe is used with a blunt tip cannula wherein the cannula comprise flexible polyurethane tubing, see Figure 5, Sheet 5 of 15.
The Examiner reasonably interprets that once the hyaluronic acid is cross-linked with the PVA, then one or more compounds are particularly added to the hydrogel diluting the dermal filler which corresponds to the claimed method, wherein Nguyen teaches the product produced by one embodiment may also comprise other ingredients, preferably one or more active ingredient, see Col. 18, lines 2-7; wherein non-limiting examples of an active ingredient includes general anesthetic drugs, such as lidocaine (e.g. an anesthetic, required in claim 11), see Col. 18, line 12; wherein the system can inject anesthetics, such as lidocaine to reduce or eliminate acute inflammatory reactions to the pharmaceutical substance, see Col. 3, lines 57-59; and that a water-soluble excipient may be included for the purpose of stabilizing the active ingredient(s) and can include mannitol or sorbitol (e.g. diluting the injectable filler using a sugar alcohol, required in claim 9, lines 18-19), see Col. 18, lines 25-27 and 31.
Nguyen teaches many types of buffers have been envisioned as suitable for the swelling and neutralizing of the crosslinked gel of the invention, see Col. 25, lines 1-3; in a preferred embodiment the buffer comprises a buffer with a pH value which results in that the hydrogel has a pH value between 5.0 and 7.5, see Col. 25, lines 8-11; where the buffer can be a phosphate and/or saline buffer (e.g. a physiological buffer, required in claim 15), and in the swelling step the buffer must have sufficient volume for it to accommodate the swelling gel until the gel is fully swollen, wherein the buffer of step (c) has a volume of at least 3 times the volume of the gel of step (b), see Col. 25, lines 11-15.
Regarding claims 17-18, Nguyen teaches as set forth above. In addition, the Examiner reasonably interprets that once the dermal filler composition is obtained the order of “adding the at least an anesthetic to the injectable filler prior to the dilution” as recited in claim 17 or “adding the at least an anesthetic to the injectable filler after the dilution” as recited in claim 18 would have been prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
Although, Nguyen does not teach wherein the injectable filler comprises (a) a user data collection which comprises inputting a user’s allergy information related to injectable fillers into a composition machine-learning model trained with at least a composition training datum correlating one or more ingredients of dermal filler compositions with one or more allergy tolerant effects and outputting the composition for injectable filler as a function of the user’s allergy information related to injectable fillers required in claim 9, lines 10-15; (b) at least a transplant fat of a user, required in claim 9, lines 6-7; (c) generating at least an objective function, using a linear program, required in claim 9, pg. 3 of 10, lines 12-17; and (d) a hyaluronic acid, required in claims 10 and 12.
However, in the same field of endeavor of injectable fillers, with respect to limitation (a), Heydenrych teaches complication management and recognition are the most significant unmet needs with hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers, see pg. 607, right column, algorithms and protocols, paragraph 1.
Heydenrych teaches it is preferable to avoid injecting patients with multiple, severe allergies and a history of anaphylaxis since drug allergies might preclude optimal management of complications, see pg. 605, left column, paragraph 1, last line – right column, lines 1-3.
Therefore, Heydenrych teaches that obtaining patient allergy information is mandatory, see pg. 605, left column, history and selection, paragraph 1; and that allergies are used as other exclusionary criteria, see abstract. Thus, Heydenrych’s teachings include a patient’s allergy information before the potential use of a dermal filler in a cosmetic procedure is a known consideration.
Moreover, Mayle teaches injectable devices, see title; wherein the injectable device is especially useful for delivery of viscous fluid, for example dermal filler, see paragraph [0189].
Mayle teaches any of the apparatuses described herein may work with a database of injection information that may be generic (e.g. not specific to the patient); may be analyzed and used to optimize treatments for patients, for example a system including a database of injection information may identify specific substrates that may be indicated for use in order to improve pre-operative to post-operative outcomes for patients; these databases may receive information; and this information may be correlated with the functional aspects of the apparatuses delivering the treatment. Mayle teaches a machine learning agent may interpret this information (e.g. a composition machine-learning model, required in claim 9, lines 10-11), and may also identify the efficacy of substrates injected as it pertains to the specific composition (e.g. outputting the composition as a function of the user’s allergy information related to injectable fillers, required in claim 9, lines 14-15). See paragraph [0252].
Mayle teaches any of these apparatuses described herein may be configured to provide operational information to a remote database for processing, the operating information may be correlated with treatment information that may be patient specific or unaffiliated with a particular patient, see paragraph [0253]. Mayle teaches a particular operational instance may include pre-operative functional data of the patient (e.g. inputting the user’s allergy information related to injectable fillers, required in claim 9, line 10); and wherein the remote processor may assess the efficacy of the method and/or the type of substrate injected (e.g. correlating one or more ingredients of dermal filler compositions with one or more allergy tolerant effects, required in claim 9, lines 12-13), see paragraph [0253].
In addition, Ortiz teaches analysis of U.S. Food and Drug Administration data on soft-tissue filler complications, wherein the objective was to identify and review reports of adverse events involving cosmetic injectable soft-tissue fillers from the FDA Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) database, see pg. 958, abstract, objective; wherein the authors conducted a search of adverse events within the MAUDE database that involved injectable dermal fillers for soft tissue augmentation, see pg. 958, abstract, material and methods; wherein three thousand seven hundred eighty-two complications involving dermal fillers were identified in the MAUDE database; where forty-four percent of complications implicate hyaluronic acid fillers and common adverse events included allergic reaction (e.g. a composition training datum correlating dermal filler ingredients with one or more allergy tolerant effects, required in claim 9, lines 11-12); which underscores the importance of appropriate skill and training when administering dermal fillers where physicians using injectable dermal fillers should be trained to recognize potential complications, see pg. 958, abstract, results.
Additionally, within the same field of endeavor of using allergy information of a user, with respect to limitation (c), Neumann teaches systems and methods exemplified for generating a cancer alleviation nourishment plan, see title.
Neumann teaches in Figure 1 a computing device 104 may search according to a set of instructions including allergies present in a cancer profile 112, provided by a physician, user, or the like, and subtract each identified nutrition element 120 and nutrient amount from nutrient amount 124 until a combination of nutritional elements 120 that represents a solution is found. Once a solution is found, computing device 104 may generate a file of nutrition elements 120 and store in a database, see paragraph [0052] and Figure 1.
Neumann teaches an objective function may be formulated as a linear objective function which computing device 104 may solve using a linear program, such as without limitation, a mixed-integer program, where a “linear program” as used in this disclosure is a program that optimizes a linear objective function, given at least a constraint, wherein a non-limiting illustrative example of a given constraint might be a metabolic disorder of a user, e.g. a food allergy, and a linear program may use a linear objective function to calculate combinations, considering how these limitations effect combinations, see paragraph [0055] and Figure 1.
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the invention’s effective filing date to have included the teachings of Mayle using a machine-learning agent, the MAUDE database of Ortiz, and the linear program of Neumann as discussed above into the method of Nguyen as discussed above, in order to identify specific substrates that may be indicated for use in order to improve pre-operative to post-operative outcomes for patients as taught by Mayle above, and is particularly useful in the case of hyaluronic acid dermal fillers where allergic reaction is a common adverse event as taught by Ortiz above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to have incorporated the teachings of Mayle, Ortiz and Neumann into the method of Nguyen above, as Mayle teaches these databases may receive information that is either patient specific or generic as discussed above; wherein a machine learning agent may interpret this information and may also identify the efficacy of substrates injected as it pertains to the specific composition; the generic information may be the MAUDE database as taught by Ortiz; the method to indicate specific substrates that may be indicated for use in order to improve pre-operative to post-operative outcomes may be the linear program of Neumann; and wherein the remote processor taught by Mayle may assess the efficacy of the method and/or the type of substrate injected as discussed above. Moreover, Nguyen teaches an apparatus comprising a processor for performing the cosmetic enhancements and the amounts of the agents that compose the dermal filler vary according to a variety of factors including the past medical history of the subject as discussed above.
In addition, by similar reasoning, broadly providing a machine-learning model as taught by Mayle and a linear program as taught by Neumann to automate the optimization of the specific substrates in dermal fillers that vary based on a subject’s past medical history, e.g. allergy information, in order to improve pre-operative to post-operative outcomes for patients as taught by the combination of Nguyen, Mayle and Neumann above to replace the manual process of trained physicians administering dermal fillers as taught by Ortiz above to accomplish the same result would have been obvious, see MPEP 2144.04(III).
With particular respect to the limitations of “the linear program maximizes or minimizes a total score across pairings of users and dermal filler compositions”, required in claim 9, pg. 3 of 11, lines 13-16; and “subject to the constraints requiring that each dermal filler is assigned to only one user and each user is assigned only one dermal filler”, required in claim 9, pg. 3 of 11, lines 16-17; the Examiner reasonably interprets these limitations are functional consequences of the linear program used to minimize potential allergic reactions of a specific composition of the injectable filler.
The Examiner respectfully notes since Nguyen teaches a method of generating a dermal filler; Mayle teaches injectable devices for dermal fillers where pre-operative functional data of the patient is used for the specific composition; Heydenrych teaches a patient’s allergy information before the potential use of a dermal filler in a cosmetic procedure is a known consideration; and Neumann exemplifies the use of a linear program with the constraint of a patient’s allergy information, for example a food allergy, as discussed above, the physical constraint of using the linear program of Neumann would meet the physical limitations discussed above as the objective of Mayle is to identify specific substrates that may be indicated for use in order to improve pre-operative to post-operative outcomes of the specific dermal filler composition and Heydenrych teaches it is a known consideration in the art to use a patient’s allergy information before use of a dermal filler.
With respect to limitation (b), Pollock teaches a hydrogel or a hydrogel composition may include a cellular component, for example, components of human adipose tissue, for example, adipose-derived stem cells, stromal vascular fraction cells, etc., see Col. 6, lines 30-33. Pollock teaches promoting or supporting cell proliferation or survival, for example, in fat grafting procedures or other augmentation or reconstructive procedures, see ‘878, Col. 2, lines 45-51.
Pollock teaches in some methods the hydrogel or a hydrogel composition may be mixed with tissue, for example, adipose tissue or fat tissue from the human being, such as human lipoaspirate, (e.g. transplant fat of a user, required in claim 9, line 7), see Col. 8, lines 40-43. Pollock teaches a combination or mixture of human fat tissue and the hydrogel composition may then be injected or implanted into soft tissue of a human being, see Col. 8, lines 57-59.
Moreover, with respect to limitation (d), Gravett teaches functionalized and crosslinked polymers, see title; crosslinked forms of hyaluronic acid (HA) derivatives; formulations of HA derivatives and crosslinked forms thereof and methods of using such compositions and HA derivative polymers, see paragraph [0007]; maybe used in biomedical and other applications, see abstract; wherein the compositions can be used as a dermal filler (e.g. a hyaluronic acid, required in claim 10 and a crosslinked hyaluronic acid, required in claim 12), see paragraph [0259].
Gravett includes crosslinked versions thereof that have a degradation rate that is slower than that of unmodified hyaluronic acid when exposed to hyaluronidase under similar in vitro conditions, see paragraph [0098].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have modified the method of making the dermal filler composition of Nguyen by including limitations (a)-(d) as taught by Heydenrych, Mayle, Ortiz, Neumann, Pollock and Gravett respectively as within the scope of the artisan as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because Heydenrich would have avoided injecting patients with multiple, severe allergies and a history of anaphylaxis since drug allergies might preclude optimal management of complications; Mayle may identify specific substrates indicated for use in order to improve pre-operative to post-operative outcomes for patients; the linear program of Neumann would have minimized potential allergic reactions by using the allergy information of the patient, the mixture of Pollock would have provided a method of promoting or supporting cell proliferation or survival, for example, in fat grafting procedures or other augmentation or reconstructive procedures, and wherein the derivatized hyaluronic acid polymers of Gravett, including crosslinked versions thereof, would have had a degradation rate that is slower than that of unmodified hyaluronic acid when exposed to hyaluronidase under similar in vitro conditions as discussed above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to have included limitations (a)-(d) into the method of Nguyen, as Nguyen, Heydenrych, Mayle, Ortiz, Pollock, and Gravett are all related to injectable fillers; Heydenrych is specifically drawn to avoiding dermal-filler related complications; Nguyen, Heydenrych and Neumann are drawn to using a user’s allergy information; and wherein Nguyen explicitly teaches the amounts of the agents that compose the dermal filler vary according to a variety of factors including the past medical history of the subject.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art.
(II) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (Published 2017 February 7, US-9561095-B1, see PTO-892 mailed 03/28/2024), Heydenrych et al. (Published 23 November 2018, Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, Vol. 11, pp. 603-611, PTO-892 mailed 12/10/2024), Mayle et al (Published 07 October 2021, US-20210308386-A1, PTO-892 mailed 06/06/2025), Ortiz et al. (Published July 2020, Dermatological Surgery, Vol. 46, Issue 7, pp. 958-961, PTO-892 mailed 06/06/2025), Neumann (Published 30 June 2022, US-20220208337-A1, PTO-892), Pollock et al. (Published 12/19/2023, Filed 07/31/2019, US-11844878-B2, see PTO-892 mailed 03/28/2024) and Gravett et al. (Filed 02 December 2021, US-20240033283-A1, PTO-892 mailed 08/23/2024) as applied to claims 9-12, 15 and 17-20 above, and further in view of Olsson et al. (Published 10/07/2021, Filed 06/14/2021, US-20210308332-A1, see PTO-892 mailed 03/28/2024).
Nguyen, Heydenrych, Mayle, Ortiz, Neumann, Pollock and Gravett address claims 9-12, 15 and 17-20. Although, Nguyen does not teach wherein a total quantity of 3 mg/ml – 30 mg/ml of hyaluronic acid is utilized for the injectable filler, required in claim 16.
However, in the same field of endeavor of generating an injectable filler, Olsson teaches manufacturing of a composition comprising solid particles encapsulated within crosslinked polysaccharide molecules forming a hydrogel, and wherein the disclosure comprises the composition, method for producing the composition and use of the composition as a dermal filler, see abstract.
Olsson teaches the disclosure is generally drawn to methods of manufacturing a composition comprising a crosslinked glycosaminoglycan hydrogel comprising solid particles embedded in the hydrogel, see para. [0009]; wherein some aspects the glycosaminoglycan is hyaluronic acid, see para. [0010]. Olsson teaches that the final crosslinked polysaccharide concentration in the final product is 10 to 30 mg/ml, see para. [0075].
Olsson also teaches products which seek to mitigate, alleviate, or eliminate deficiencies and disadvantages singly or in any combination in the state of the art, see Olsson, para. [0008], including to improve the mechanical properties and prolong the duration of hyaluronic acid (HA) in vivo, see Olsson, para. [0006].
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the invention was filed to have modified the method of making the dermal filler composition of Nguyen by including the final crosslinked polysaccharide concentration as taught by Olsson above as within the scope of the artisan as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because it would provide products which seek to mitigate, alleviate, or eliminate deficiencies and disadvantages singly or in any combination in the state of the art, including to improve the mechanical properties and prolong the duration of HA in vivo as taught by Olsson above.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to have modified Nguyen with the teachings of Olsson because both the compositions of Nguyen and Olsson are dermal fillers containing hyaluronic acid as discussed above.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed in this action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JARET J CREWS whose telephone number is (571)270-0962. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:00am-5:30pm EST.
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, Renee Claytor can be reached at (571) 272-8394. 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.
/JARET J CREWS/Examiner, Art Unit 1691
/RENEE CLAYTOR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691