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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 3, 4-5, 10 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “waistline a female” should read “waistline of a female”
In claim 1, “legs narrowing” should read “legs, narrowing”
In claim 3, “contain” should read “contains”
In claim 4, “rosa rugosa” should read “Rosa rugosa”
In claim 5, “aloe barbadensis” should read “Aloe barbadensis”
In claim 10, “minutes; and” should read “minutes and”
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.
Instant claims 1, 5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushbalm from Wayback Machine dated 11/3/22 (https://bushbalm.com/products/vajacial-hydrogel-mask) in view of Chu (https://meche.mit.edu/news-media/hydrogel-superglue-90-percent-water).
Regarding claim 1, Bushbalm teaches a hydrogel vajacial mask, which reads on the vaginal mask (page 1). As evidenced by Chu, a hydrogel is a natural adhesive, so it serves as the attachment method in Bushbalm’s masks (page 1). Bushbalm teaches 3 x triangle masks, for the pubic region (What’s included, page 2), which reads on the instantly claimed upper portion configured to attach along the waistline of a female. Bushbalm’s 3 x 2- pair strip mask for the bikini line and inner thighs (What’s included, page 2) reads on the instantly claimed lower portion configured to attach between the legs. Based on pictures, Bushbalm’s triangle masks also match what is instantly claimed: they narrow as the lower portion extends downward from the upper portion (page 1). Bushbalm’s masks are made from a water-soluble material (page 2) that reads on the instantly claimed outer layer, and they are formulated with water, Aloe Barbadensis (Aloe Vera), as well as other ingredients (Full ingredient list, page 4) that read on the instantly claimed inner fluid layer.
Regarding claims 5, 7-9, Bushbalm teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches the mask contains Aloe barbadensis leaf extract, potassium chloride, glycerin, and sodium hyaluronate (Full ingredient list, page 4).
Regarding claim 10, Bushbalm teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches steps on how to apply the mask: Step 1: place hydrogel on bikini area, Step 3: relax for 10-15 minutes, Step 4: remove the mask (How to use it, page 2), which read onto the instantly claimed method of applying the vaginal mask of claim 1, comprising: placing the mask on the vaginal area for between 15 to 20 minutes; and removing the mask. Further, the range of 10-15 minutes in Bushbalm’s step 3 touches on the range of 15-20 minutes in the instantly claimed method.
Bushbalm does not teach with sufficient specificity to anticipate but render obvious the instant range of placing the mask on the vaginal area for between 15-20 minutes in claim 10.
At the time of filing, the person of ordinary skill in the art would know that Bushbalm’s ranges are obvious over the instant claims.
A reference is analyzed using its broadest teachings. MPEP 2123 [R-5]. “[W]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007)(quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. Here a skilled artisan would be motivated to rearrange the teaching of Bushbalm to arrive at the instant claimed invention.
Therefore, Bushbalm obviates that presently claimed. “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (See MPEP 2144.05 (I) regarding obviousness of ranges).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Bushbalm’s masks and method of application with the knowledge that hydrogel is an adhesive as taught by Chu in order to ease irritation, keep follicles hydrated, keep skin smooth, making hair removal easier when it grows back (Bushbalm Frequently Asked Questions, page 12). Further, this modification is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art because it combines a known method or technique to a known product for a similar purpose.
Instant claims 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushbalm in view of Victoria (https://incidecoder.com/products/victoria-beauty-24k-gold-silk-touch-collagen-mask) and Horng (US 20050112151 A1).
As disclosed above, Bushbalm teaches the vaginal mask of instant claim 1.
Bushbalm does not teach that the layers of the mask contain hydrolyzed collagen or Bergenia crassifolia root extract.
Victoria teaches a collagen mask containing hydrolyzed collagen and Bergenia crassifolia root extract (Ingredients overview, page 1 and 2). Horng teaches a hydrogel composition that contains a skin-hydrating agent selected from a group including hyaluronic acid and hydrolyzed collagen (claim 17), thus evidencing that hyaluronic acid and hydrolyzed collagen are alternatives.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to take the vaginal mask taught by Bushbalm and substitute the hyaluronic acid and an extract or fragrance of Bushbalm (Full ingredient list, page 4) with the hydrolyzed collagen and Bergenia crassifolia root extract taught by Victoria. Simple substitution of one known moisturizer in a skin care composition for another of Victoria is an obvious modification and within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Instant claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bushbalm in view of Kimoco (https://incidecoder.com/products/kimoco-hidrogel-eye-patch).
As disclosed above, Bushbalm teaches the vaginal mask of instant claim 1.
Bushbalm does not teach that layers of the mask contain a scented compound or that the scented compound is rosa rugosa flower oil.
Kimoco teaches an eye patch containing Rosa rugosa flower oil (Ingredients overview, page 2), which is a species of a scented compound.
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to take the vaginal mask taught by Bushbalm, and substitute one of the extracts or the fragrance of Bushbalm (Full ingredient list, page 4) with the Rosa rugosa flower oil taught by Kimoco. Simple substitution of one known fragrance for another of Kimoco in skin care is an obvious modification and within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLY S LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 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, Bethany P Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/ALLY S LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 1611