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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, in line 7, there should be a comma after “onion juice”; in line 9, there should be a comma after “juice”; in line 10, there should be a comma after “xanthan gum”; lines 11, 13, and 14 should end with a comma; line 15 should end with “, and”; and line 16 should reference “a” water component.
Regarding claims 12 and 15-20, lines 5, 7, 8, and 11 should end with a comma; and line 12 should end with “, and”.
Regarding claim 13, in line 9, whites should not be plural.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-11, and 14, these claims depend from an objected to claim and include all of the limitations thereof. Therefore, they are also subject to the objection.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartolucci et al. (US 2021/0107263) in view of Wang (CN 111166929). For convenience, the citations for Wang are taken from an English language machine translation included herewith.
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 5, Bartolucci et al. teaches an open cell foam article that is a flexible, porous, and dissolvable solid sheet (substrate) (¶87-88) comprising at least one water-soluble polymer selected from polymers such as polyvinyl alcohol (¶104), xanthan gum, gelatin, and albumin (egg white) (¶105); a starch (¶111), polyethylene glycol with a molecular weight of from 200 to 600 (¶142), and water (¶96). Bartolucci et al. additionally teaches that the open cell foam article may comprise additional ingredients depending upon its application and these ingredients may be selected from those included in fabric care, dishwashing, hard surface cleaning, or skincare (¶149).
Bartolucci et al. does not teach that the gelatin is sourced from calves or bovines. However, Bartolucci et al. does teach that the gelatin derives from animal origin (¶105) and there are only a few animal sources for gelatin with cows being one of the two most common. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to choose calf or bovine gelatin for use in the substrate, and would have been motivated to do so because the choices for an animal source of gelatin are small and, barring unexpected results, making a popular choice from a small list is not difficult for one of ordinary skill.
Bartolucci et al. does not teach that the substrate comprises onion juice or aloe vera juice. However, Wang teaches a composition to be applied to the skin comprising polyvinyl alcohol, polyethylene glycol, onion extract, and aloe vera extract (¶8). These extracts are juices (¶12, 14). Bartolucci et al. and Wang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely compositions that contain polyvinyl alcohol and can be applied to the human body. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add onion extract and aloe vera extract, as taught by Wang, to the composition/substrate, as taught by Bartolucci et al., and would have been motivated to do so because Wang teaches that these components provide bactericidal and/or anti-inflammatory effects (¶17, 19).
The limitation regarding the substrate being configured in photovoltaic cells or solar panels obtained from these, electricity generation charging stations, or signal devices to be integrated into a human body, this is an intended use of the substrate. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). If a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble, then it meets the claim. See, e.g., In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP 2111.02 II. Even though this use is not recited in the preamble of the claim, it is still an intended use of the substrate. In this case, the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited and therefore meets the claim limitation.
As for the substrate not causing toxic effects for nature or human health, the structure of the prior art is not required to contain any components other the ones claimed. Additionally, the references teach that the composition is suitable for human uses. Therefore, it should meet this limitation.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9-11, and 14, Bartolucci et al. teaches that the water-soluble polymers are present in from about 3% to about 20% by weight in water (¶101). This amount overlaps the amount claimed for the polyvinyl alcohol in claim 10.
Bartolucci et al. does not teach that the starch is present in from 6 to 20 mg (claim 2), that the xanthan gum is present in from 10 to 30 mg (claim 3), that the polyethylene glycol is present from 100 to 200 mg (claims 6 and 14), that the egg white (albumin) is present in from 30 to 100 microliters (claim 7), that the gelatin is present in from 3 to 10 mg (claim 9), or that the aloe vera juice is present in from 10 to 100 microliters (claim 11).
However, Bartolucci et al. does teach that the starch is present in the open cell foam article in no more than 20% by weight, and most preferably no more than 1% by weight (¶111); the xanthan gum, the egg white (albumin), and gelatin are part of the water-soluble polymers present in total in from 3 to 20% by weight (¶101); and the polyethylene glycol is present in from 0.02 to 20% by weight (¶140). Wang teaches that the aloe vera juice is present in 5 to 15 parts by weight (¶8 of Wang).
Differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II.A. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the disclosed ranges of each of the components through routine experimentation to arrive at the claimed ranges, and would have been motivated to do so by a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a composition which has the desired amount of strength, flexibility, and/or medicinal/skincare effectiveness for the intended use thereof, as the amount of each component is a result effective variable.
Claims 12, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartolucci et al. (US 2021/0107263) in view of Wang (CN 111166929) as applied to claims 1-7 above, and further in view of Zhang (CN 107854696) and Dente et al. (US 2019/0224358). For convenience, the citations for Wang and Zhang are taken from English language machine translations included herewith.
Regarding claims 12 and 15-20, Bartolucci et al. and Wang teach the composition/substrate of claims 1-7 as set forth above.
Bartolucci et al. does not teach that the composition comprises fern powders. However, Zhang teaches a polyvinyl alcohol film (Page 2, lines 10-22) for medical uses that is applied to the skin (Page 1, lines 40-41; Page 2, lines 10-14) comprising 6 to 10 parts by weight of traditional Chinese medical extracts (Page 2, lines 21-22) that is 35 to 60 parts by weight of fern (Page 2, line 34). The fern is crushed to obtain a powder (Page 2, lines 37-40). Bartolucci et al. and Zhang are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely compositions that contain polyvinyl alcohol and can be applied to the human body. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add from 6 to 10 parts by weight of a mixture that contains 35 to 60 parts by weight of fern powder, as taught by Zhang, to the composition/substrate, as taught by Bartolucci et al., and would have been motivated to do so because it provides antibacterial activity (Page 4, lines 6-8).
Bartolucci et al. does not teach that the composition/substrate comprises a grass. However, Dente et al. teaches a film comprising polyvinyl alcohol and a fragrance composition (¶7) wherein the fragrance composition comprises natural fragrances of herbs and grasses such as tarragon, lemon grass, sage, and thyme (¶23) in an amount of up to about 60% by weight (¶26). Bartolucci et al. and Dente et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor as that of the instant invention, namely that of films containing polyvinyl alcohol and contain natural products. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add up to 60% by weight of grasses such as lemon grass, as taught by Dente et al., to the composition/substrate, as taught by Bartolucci et al., and would have been motivated to do so in order to have a film with a pleasant scent for end users, and would have been motivated to use a natural scent in order for the film to be able to come in contact with human skin either directly or indirectly (such as by use in a cleaning composition).
Regarding claim 13, Bartolucci et al. and Wang teach the composition/substrate of claim 1 as set forth above. Further, the added references of Zhang and Dente et al. teach the inclusion of fern powders and a grass as set forth above in the rejection of claim 12. These four references teach the included components of the composition/substrate as claimed. Additionally, Bartolucci et al. teaches that the water-soluble polymers are present in from about 3% to about 20% by weight in water (¶101). This amount overlaps the amount claimed for the polyvinyl alcohol.
However, neither Bartolucci et al, Wang, Zhang, or Dente et al. teach that the starch is present in from 6 to 20 mg, a mixture of the onion juice, fern powder, and grass are present in a combined range of 100 to 150 mg, the xanthan gum is present in from 10 to 30 mg, the polyethylene glycol is present from 100 to 200 mg, the egg white (albumin) is present in from 30 to 100 microliters, the gelatin is present in from 3 to 10 mg (claim 9), or the aloe vera juice is present in from 10 to 100 mg.
However, Bartolucci et al. does teach that the starch is present in the open cell foam article in no more than 20% by weight, and most preferably no more than 1% by weight (¶111); the xanthan gum, the egg white (albumin), and gelatin are part of the water-soluble polymers present in total in from 3 to 20% by weight (¶101); and the polyethylene glycol is present in from 0.02 to 20% by weight (¶140). Wang teaches that the aloe vera juice is present in 5 to 15 parts by weight (¶8 of Wang). Zhang teaches that the fern powder is present in 35 to 60 parts by weight of the 6 to 10 parts by weight of traditional Chinese medical extracts. Dente et al. teaches that the grass is present in an amount of up to 60% by weight.
Differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP 2144.05 II.A. At the time of the filing of the instant invention, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to optimize the disclosed ranges of each of the components through routine experimentation to arrive at the claimed ranges, and would have been motivated to do so by a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at a composition which has the desired amount of strength, flexibility, and/or medicinal/skincare effectiveness for the intended use thereof, as the amount of each component is a result effective variable.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C SCOTT whose telephone number is (571)270-3303. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00, 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, Mark Eashoo can be reached at 571-272-1197. 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.
/ANGELA C SCOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767