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 .
Status of Claims
Amendment filed on 02/19/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 10-11, and 15 are amended. Claims 12-14 are cancelled. Claims 16-18 are new.
Claims 1-11 and 15-18 are pending and being examined on the merits herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), filed on 05/04/2026, is in compliance with the
provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the
Examiner.
Priority
This instant application 18274595, filed on 07/27/2023, is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/052102, filed on 01/28/2022, which claims foreign priority of European Patent Office (EPO) 21305125.3, filed on 01/29/2021.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
All previous claim Objection(s) / Rejection(s) as set forth in the previous Office action (mailed 11/19/2025) that are not repeated and/or maintained in the instant Office action are withdrawn, in light of applicant’s amendment and remark filed on 02/19/2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 15-18 are interpreted as “intended use” or “method of using” of the composition. The phrases in claim 15 “for cleansing the skin”, in claim 17 “for controlling oiliness of the skin”, and in claim 18 “for reducing stratum corneum stiffness while controlling epidermis integrity” are interpreted as “intended use” or features of the methods, because these phrases do not structurally contribute to the steps of the methods.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (EP1604646, 12/14/2005, IDS of 07/10/2024), in view of Albert et al. (JP2018500279, 01/11/2018, translation replied upon below, in record of 11/19/2025).
Tanaka throughout the reference teaches compositions capable of treating or ameliorating itching accompanying mucocutaneous diseases or mucocutaneous disorders such as athlete’s foot, seborrheic eczema, acne vulgaris, etc. (e.g., [0001]; [0004]; [0065]) (corresponding to instant claim 16).
Tanaka teaches a topical composition (e.g., [0001-0003]) comprising keratolytic agents including succinic acid 1.0% and alpha hydroxy acid lactic acid 1.0% (corresponding to keratolytic agents consisting of succinic acid and lactic acid in instant claim 5), resulting in total amount 2.0% by weight to the total weight of the composition (falling within the range from about 1 to about 8% in instant claim 1), with purified water present at 91.6% (corresponding to carrier as water in instant claim 3), thickener sodium alginate 1.0%, crystalline cellulose 4.0% (Pg. 18, Table 7, Example 82), the composition is free of salicylic acid (corresponding to instant claim 9).
Tanaka also teaches succinic acid present in the composition at 1.0% or 2.0%, alpha hydroxy acids, e.g., citric acid, tartaric acid, lactic acid, at amount of 2.0% or 1.0% (e.g., Table 25, [0130]). When succinic acid is at 2.0% in the composition, while lactic acid is at 1.0%, the resulting in mass ratio of succinic acid to lactic acid equals to 2, which is falling within superior or equal to 1.2 as recited in instant claim 1, or superior to 1.5 and inferior to 4, as recited in instant claim 4. Tanaka also teaches that In the case of producing carbon dioxide using a carbonate and acid, the carbonate may be used in an amount of about 0.01-30 parts by weight and the acid may be used in an amount of about 0.01-30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the aqueous viscous composition (e.g., [0062]), explicitly teaching that acid total amount can be 0.01-30%, not limited to only 2% as shown in examples (Table 1-25). Tanaka also specifies that the acid can be used alone or in combination of two or more, either of organic acid or inorganic acid (e.g., [0036]), and emphasizes that the invention is not limited to the examples while the examples provide reference of the invention (e.g., [0066]; [0097]).
Tanaka indicates that the topical composition can be in the form of cream, gel, paste, cleansing foam, and the like (e.g., [0016]) (corresponding to topical cleansing composition in instant claim 2, and composition form in instant claim 6).
Tanaka teaches suitable surfactants in the composition including diglycerol dioleate, sorbitan fatty acid ester, glycerin monostearate, and many others (e.g., [0051]) (corresponding to surfactants as adjuvants in instant claim 7).
Regarding instant claims 15 and 17-18, Tanaka teaches that the composition can be applied to the affected area, and can be removed easily by wiping with tissue paper or washing with water, etc. (e.g., [0056]), also the composition can be applied to the abdomen or the like when taking a batch so that the composition can be easily washed away after a predetermined time (e.g., [0057]), indicating the specific area of skin is moistened before the composition being applied during shower, rinsing the skin in shower, and drying the skin after shower is a default as known by an ordinary person.
Tanaka does not teach the composition comprises adjuvants comprising an anti-seborrheic agent and/or a pore refiner as recited in instant claim 1, the adjuvants comprising Lens esculenta seed extract as the pore refiner as recited in instant claim 11.
Albert directs to pharmaceutical composition for treatments referring to treatment and/or prevention of acne, seborrheic dermatitis, hidradenitis suppurativa, or photoprotection of the skin, and other conditions (e.g., [0027]) (corresponding to instant claim 16). Albert teaches agent reducing sebum production, the anti-seborrheic agent, the anti-shine (controlling oily skin) agent, anti-acne agent can include P-Gum [INCI: Lens esculenta (Lentil) seed extract] (sold by Silab) (corresponding to anti-seborrheic agent in instant claim 1, pore refiner agent in instant claim 11), Phytessence purple ginseng, Syringa vulgaris, sesame seed extract, flaxseed extract, and many others [0056].
MPEP 2112.01.II states "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, as indicated in MPEP 2112.01.II. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty.").
It would have been convenient for a person with ordinary skills in the art to implement Lens esculenta seed extract taught by Albert into the composition taught by Tanaka to arrive at current invention. Because Albert specifically teaches that Lens esculenta seed extract is suitable for treatment and/or prevention of acne, seborrheic dermatitis, and photoprotection of skin, and it also can use as anti-shine cosmetic agent, implementing such an agent into Tanaka’s composition would be advantageous and would have provided reasonable expectation of success. It is well settled that it is a matter of obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to select a particular component from among many disclosed by the prior art as long as it is taught that the selection will result in the disclosed effect. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
MPEP 2145 II. states that “prima facie obviousness is not rebutted by merely recognizing additional advantages or latent properties present but not recognized in the prior art”, see In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991). For this instance, even though Albert does not explicitly teach Lens esculenta seed extract is a pore refiner, it is the property of the compounds. MPEP 2112.01.II states "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable, as indicated in MPEP 2112.01.II. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id. (Applicant argued that the claimed composition was a pressure sensitive adhesive containing a tacky polymer while the product of the reference was hard and abrasion resistant. "The Board correctly found that the virtual identity of monomers and procedures sufficed to support a prima facie case of unpatentability of Spada’s polymer latexes for lack of novelty."). Therefore, Albert teaches the same Lens esculenta seed extract, the instantly claimed properties are inherent in prior art.
Generally, 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. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP §2144.05(I) states that “A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For this instance, the amounts of succinic acid and lactic acid, mass ratios of succinic acid to lactic acid overlap with those taught by prior art. Furthermore, “[i]t would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize additive amount through nothing more than “routine experimentation,” because of a reasonable expectation of success resulting from the optimization for desirable features of intended use of the composition (MPEP §2144.05 (II)). See Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments." Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), and "Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments." In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). For this instance, although Tanaka does not exemplify embodiments with the ratio of succinic acid/lactic acid superior to 1.2, Tanaka specifies that the teaching is not limited to the examples, and acid species and amounts can be flexible and adjusted as necessary.
Further regarding instant claims 15 and 17-18, In light of claim interpretation, phrases in claim 15 “for cleansing the skin”, in claim 17 “for controlling oiliness of the skin”, and in claim 18 “for reducing stratum corneum stiffness while controlling epidermis integrity” are interpreted as “intended use” or features of the methods, which combined prior art Tanaka and Albert has already taught, and therefore, the features would necessarily present, or the intended use would be capable of being achieved.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (EP1604646, 12/14/2005, IDS of 07/10/2024), in view of Albert et al. (JP2018500279, 01/11/2018, translation replied upon, in record of 11/19/2025) as applied to Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 15-18 above, further in view of Olaf et al. (EP3222327, 09/27/2017, translation replied upon below, in record of 11/19/2025) and Honest (disodium coco glucoside citrate, Honest.com, 12/30/2014, in record of 11/19/2025).
Combined teaching of Tanaka and Albert teaches topical compositions in the form of cream, gel, paste, cleansing foam, and the like (e.g., [0016]) for treating broad range of skin conditions including acne-affected skin, and the compositions comprise keratolytic agents including succinic acid 1.0% and alpha hydroxy acid lactic acid 1.0%, resulting in total amount 2.0% by weight to the total weight of the composition, along with purified water present at 91.6%, thickener sodium alginate 1.0%, crystalline cellulose 4.0%, the composition is free of salicylic acid (Pg. 18, Table 7, Example 82), with additional adjuvants such as pore refiner Lens esculenta seed extract, ratio of succinic acid to lactic acid can be superior to 1.2 and total acid amounts can be flexible within 0.01-30% in the composition, as discussed above in great detail and incorporated herein.
Tanaka and Albert combined teaching teaches surfactants in the composition including diglycerol dioleate, sorbitan fatty acid ester, glycerin monostearate, castor oil, polysorbates, stearic acid, steareth-2, cocamidopropyl betaine (e.g., Tanaka, [0050]; Albert, [0044], [0055]).
Tanaka and Albert combined teaching fails to teach surfactants in the composition comprising a mixture of disodium cocoyl glutamate, disodium coco glucoside citrate, and decyl glucoside as recited in instant claim 8.
Olaf teaches an aqueous composition, e.g., aqueous foam (Claims 8-11; [0004]), as a skin protectant comprising at least one surfactant and at least one acidic pH regulator (e.g., [0001]), wherein acidic pH regulator can be selected from the group consisting of lactic acid, succinic acid, citric acid, acetic acid, ascorbic acid, hydrochloric acid, phosphoric acid, and adipic acid [0104]. Olaf teaches that at least one surfactant selected from the group consisting of amphoteric surfactants, anionic surfactants, and nonionic surfactants (e.g., Claim 1), including disodium cocoyl glutamate, coco glucoside, decyl glucoside, sodium coconut fatty acid amphoacetate, coco fatty acid diethanolamide, coco betaine, and others (e.g., Claim 2). Olaf points out that in the composition preferably at least one surfactant is selected from particularly preferably from the group consisting of amphoteric surfactants [0052], such as cocamidopropyl betaine, coco betaine, sodium coco fatty acid amphoacetate [0056]; preferably anionic surfactants including disodium cocoyl glutamate, disodium lauryl ether sulfosuccinate, disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate, sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium lauryl ether sulfate, sodium coconut fatty acid sulfate, MIPA lauryl ether sulfate, MEA lauryl sulfate, sodium lauroyl glutamate, and sodium lauryl sulfoacetate; preferably non-ionic surfactants are selected from the group consisting of coco glucoside, decyl glucoside, lauryl glucoside, coco fatty acid diethanolamide and others [0061].
Honest teaches that disodium coco glucoside citrate is a very mild anionic surfactant and emulsifier derived from citric acid and coco-glucoside (What it is; What it does).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art prior to filing date to incorporate surfactants taught by Olaf and Honest with the composition taught by Tanaka and Albert to arrive at current invention. Because Olaf teaches that the foam composition comprising these specific surfactants not only show good effectiveness skin protecting properties, in particular good absorption and good skin compatibility, especially good acceptance (e.g., [0009]), but also provide easy, even distribution and minimize overdosing for skin protection, and thus increase user acceptance [0013], moreover, the particular advantage of the composition is from a safety perspective and is especially environmental friendly [0012], and another advantage is that the aqueous foam leaves a barely noticeable film on the skin [0014], artisans in the field would have motivation to implement these advantageous surfactants into the composition taught by Tanaka and Albert for reasonable expectation of success resulting from the benefits of these surfactant species. Since Olaf teaches the suitable particularly preferrable species of surfactants including disodium cocoyl glutamate, decyl glucoside, and coco glucoside, and also teaches proper acids for the composition including citric acid, succinic acid, and lactic acid, with the additional information that Honest teaches disodium coco glucoside citrate is super mild surfactant for skin care, adding disodium coco glucoside citrate as an additional surfactant agent into the composition flows naturally. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (EP1604646, 12/14/2005, IDS of 07/10/2024), in view of Albert et al. (JP2018500279, 01/11/2018, translation replied upon, in record of 11/19/2025) as applied to Claims 1-7, 9, 11, 15-18 above, further in view of Ledul (JP2013514328, 04/25/2013, translation relied upon below, in record of 11/19/2025).
Combined teaching of Tanaka and Albert teaches topical compositions in the form of cream, gel, paste, cleansing foam, and the like (e.g., [0016]) for treating broad range of skin conditions including acne-affected skin, and the compositions comprise keratolytic agents including succinic acid 1.0% and alpha hydroxy acid lactic acid 1.0%, resulting in total amount 2.0% by weight to the total weight of the composition, along with purified water present at 91.6%, thickener sodium alginate 1.0%, crystalline cellulose 4.0%, the composition is free of salicylic acid (Pg. 18, Table 7, Example 82), with additional adjuvants such as pore refiner Lens esculenta seed extract, ratio of succinic acid to lactic acid can be superior to 1.2 and total amounts can be flexible within 0.01-30% in the composition, as discussed above in great detail and incorporated herein.
Combined teaching of Tanaka and Albert does not teach the composition may comprise an anti-seborrheic agent as adjuvants selected from the group consisting of 2,3-dihydroxypropyl dodecanoate, sabal extract, pumpkin seed oil, extract of Urtica dioica, and the mixtures thereof as recited in instant claim 10.
Ledul teaches anti-seborrheic composition comprising 2,3-dihydroxypropyl dodecanoate for treating seborrhea (e.g., Claims 5 and 9) associated with skin [Claim 6] or scalp [Claim 7], therefore, treating seborrheic dermatitis.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art prior to filing date to implement anti-seborrheic agent 2,3-dihydorxypropyl dodecanoate taught by Ledul into the composition taught by Tanaka and Albert to arrive at current invention. Because Tanaka and Albert combined teaching teaches the composition is intended for treating and preventing or ameliorating itching accompanying mucocutaneous diseases or mucocutaneous disorders such as seborrheic eczema, and many other skin disorders (e.g., [0001]; [0004]; [0008]; [0065]), while Ledul teaches the agent 2,3-dihydorxypropyl dodecanoate that can treat seborrheic dermatitis, it would have provided artisans the motivation and reasonable expectation of success implementing this agent into the composition taught by Tanaka and Albert. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed on 02/19/2026 have been fully considered. In light of claim amendments, the previous art rejections have been withdrawn and new grounds of rejections are presented above in this office action.
Applicant asserts that Tanaka compositions as presented in Tables 1 to 25 never contains more than 2% of acid in total, and whenever composition comprising more than one type of acids, e.g., succinic acid with lactic acid, each of these acids is present at 1%, and therefore, Tanaka fails to teach a succinic acid/a-hydroxy acid ratio greater than or equal to 1.2 as recited in instant claim 1.
“The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and "A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments." Merck & Co. v.Biocraft Labs., Inc. 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1989), and "Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments." In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). For this instance, although Tanaka does not exemplify embodiments with the ratio of succinic acid/lactic acid superior to 1.2, Tanaka specifies that the teaching is not limited to the examples, and acid species and amounts can be flexible and adjusted as necessary.
Also as Tanaka points out the teaching is not limited to examples (e.g., [0066]; [0097]). Tanaka teaches that acid amounts are flexible within 0.01-30% of the composition (e.g., [0062]), which would have easily achieved the ratios (e.g., superior to 1.2 or 1.5, or inferior to or equal to 4); not limited to examples of Tables 1-25 presenting total acid amounts as 2%, or succinic acid or lactic acid each at 1% or 2%, as presented in office action above, copied below the relevant paragraph for reference:
Tanaka also teaches succinic acid present in the composition at 1.0% or 2.0%, alpha hydroxy acids, e.g., citric acid, tartaric acid, lactic acid, at amount of 2.0% or 1.0% (e.g., Table 25, [0130]). When succinic acid is at 2.0% in the composition, while lactic acid is at 1.0%, the resulting in mass ratio of succinic acid to lactic acid equals to 2, which is falling within superior or equal to 1.2 as recited in instant claim 1, or superior to 1.5 and inferior to 4, as recited in instant claim 4. Tanaka also teaches that In the case of producing carbon dioxide using a carbonate and acid, the carbonate may be used in an amount of about 0.01-30 parts by weight and the acid may be used in an amount of about 0.01-30 parts by weight based on 100 parts by weight of the aqueous viscous composition (e.g., [0062]), explicitly teaching that acid total amount can be 0.01-30%, not limited to only 2% as shown in examples (Table 1-25). Tanaka also specifies that the acid can be used alone or in combination of two or more, either of organic acid or inorganic acid (e.g., [0036]), and emphasizes that the invention is not limited to the examples while the examples provide reference of the invention (e.g., [0066]; [0097]).
Furthermore, 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. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP §2144.05(I) states that “A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Furthermore, “[i]t would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize additive amount through nothing more than “routine experimentation,” because of a reasonable expectation of success resulting from the optimization for desirable features of intended use of the composition (MPEP §2144.05 (II)). See Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Applicant asserts that all rejections should be withdrawn because Tanaka does not anticipate the corresponding claims; and each prior art reference fails to teach all components in claim 1, e.g., Tanaka, Olaf, or Honest does not teach anti-seborrheic agent and/or pore refiner, Albert or Ledul does not teach composition comprising succinic acid or ratio of succinic acid/lactic acid (a-hydroxy acid), and the rejections have to be withdrawn.
These assertions are based upon previous office action mailed on 11/19/2025 for claim set prior to current amendments. In light of the remarks and claim amendments, new grounds of rejections have addressed the relevant issues by properly combined references for teaching the obviousness.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Because "[T]he test for obviousness is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to [a PHOSITA]." In re Mouttet, 686
F.3d 1322, 1333, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Individual reference does not have to teach all components of the limitations, because they are combined for obviousness type rejections, not anticipated rejections.
Please refer to the entire office action as presented above as a complete response to remarks/arguments.
Conclusion
Claims are not allowed.
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 DONGXIU ZHANG SPIERING whose telephone number is (703)756-4796. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm (Except for Fridays).
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, SUE X. LIU can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/DX.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights