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 02/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 and 11-12 are amended. Claims 9-10 and 13-15 are cancelled.
Claims 1-8 and 11-12 are pending and being examined on merits herein.
Priority
The instant application 18485188, filed on 10/11/2023, claims foreign priority of Republic of Korea 10-2022-0132484, filed on 10/14/2022. No English copy is in record.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
All previous claim Objection(s) / Rejection(s) as set forth in the previous Office action (mailed 12/01/2025) that are not repeated and/or maintained in the instant Office action are withdrawn, in light of applicant’s amendment and remark filed on 02/25/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “(A) an average length of one or more selected from the group consisting of the natural fiber and the regenerative fiber is …”. Because there are only two in the group as “consisting of the natural fiber and the regenerative fiber”, the “one or more selected from” is recommended to rephrase as “at least one fiber selected from”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “wherein one or more selected from the group consisting of the natural fiber and the regenerative fiber has a ratio exceeding 1 …”. It is unclear whether “one or more selected from” is meant to be “at least one” selected from the natural fiber and the regenerative fiber having the ratio, or it is meant to refer to all the fibers recited in claim 1 “one or more selected from the group consisting of the natural fiber and the regenerative fiber” as a whole, having a ratio exceeding 1. The latter is interpreted as what it is meant to be for the purpose of examination. If it is meant to be the latter, the definite article “the” is recommended to be added in front of “one or more selected” to read as “wherein the one or more selected from the …” to overcome this rejection.
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.
Claims 1-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toru et al. (CN104487629, 04/01/2015, machine translation relied upon below, record of 12/01/2025).
Toru, throughout the reference, teaches a liquid-retaining sheet formed from a nonwoven fiber aggregate comprising a liquid-retaining layer capable of absorbing a liquid component (e.g., Abstract).
Regarding instant claim 1, Toru teaches facial masks (corresponding to the application tool), as a representative of skincare products, having the function of delivering beauty essence (corresponding to the cosmetic composition), which is absorbed in the sheet material that makes up the mask to the skin (e.g., [0004]) (corresponding to the structured body carrying the cosmetic composition is in use and applied to the application tool), and the materials used for face masks are usually fabrics or non-woven fabrics made of fibers [0007] (corresponding to the structured body comprising fibers as filament structures). There are no limitations as long as it is hydrophilic fiber, it can be made by natural fibers, regenerative fibers, dissolving synthetic fibers, natural plant and animal protein fibers [0047] (corresponding to structured body comprising natural fiber and regenerative fiber). Cellulose fibers (natural fiber) and ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer fibers (regenerative fiber) can be mixed to control liquid retention and release properties of liquids [0054] (corresponding to a portion of the cosmetic composition carried in the structured body being collected in the filament trap structure).
Regarding instant claim 1 (A), Toru indicates that there is no particular limitation on fiber length, they can be continuous filaments, and the average fiber lengths of short fibers can be selected from the range of 5 mm to 300 mm (e.g., 10 to 100 mm). In the case of dry nonwoven fabric obtained by carding, considering the ease of passing through the carding machine, fibers are with an average fiber length of, for example, 20 to 70 mm, preferably 25 to 60 mm, and more preferably 30 to 55 mm, while the average fiber length can be appropriately adjusted according to the application (e.g., [0070]; [0028]; Claim 10) (overlapping with fiber average length 40-80 mm as instantly claimed).
Regarding instant claim 1(B), Toru exemplifies combining solvent-spun cellulose fibers (natural fiber) and rayon (regenerative fiber) to adjust softness, the ratio (mass ratio) of solvent-spun cellulose fiber to rayon is as follows: former/ latter= 99/1 to 10/90, preferably 98/2 to 30/70, more preferably around 97/3 to 50/50 (especially 95/5 to 70/30) (e.g., [0067]), 30/70 (Claims 1-6) (overlapping with natural fiber to regenerative fiber weight ratio of 85:15 to 20:80 as instantly claimed).
Regarding instant claim 1(C), Toru teaches fiber average diameter (corresponding to fiber thickness as instantly claimed) of the fibers is, for example, 0.1 to 30 μm, preferably 0.5 to 20 μm, and more preferably about 1 to 15 μm (especially 3 to 13 μm) (e.g., [0071], Claim 9) (overlapping with 15 to 25 um as instantly claimed).
Regarding “eco-friendly”, it is interpreted as property of the structured body, because the structured body comprises same natural fiber and regenerative fiber, having one or more of characteristics of (A) to (C) as instantly claimed, this property therefore is necessarily and obviously present in the structured body which is already taught by prior art.
Regarding instant claim 2, Toru teaches cellulose fibers are preferred, and solvent-spun cellulose fibers (such as TENCEL solvent-based cellulose fibers) obtained by solvent spinning (a direct method without chemical conversion of cellulose) are particularly preferred (e.g., [0054-0055]). Natural plant and animal protein fibers can be used since there are no particular limitations as long as the fiber is hydrophilic [0047]. Examples of natural fibers include cotton or cotton cloth, silk, linen, silk, wool, etc. These natural fibers can be used alone or in combination of two or more. Among them, cotton and other materials were widely used [0050].
Regarding instant claim 3, Toru teaches regenerative fibers include rayon such as viscose rayon, acetate fiber, Tencel fiber [0051]. Toru also teaches that although ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer fibers (especially core-sheath type composite fibers with ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymers in the sheath) have lower liquid retention performance than cellulose fibers, they have good solubility with liquid components such as cosmetics, and the fibers themselves do not absorb liquid components. They are also easy to release under pressure. Considering these aspects, ethylene-vinyl alcohol copolymer fibers are preferred [0054]. Toru also teaches hydrophobic fibers, examples include fibers formed from polyolefin resins such as polyethylene and polypropylene, commonly used in nonwoven fabrics; polyester resins such as polyethylene terephthalate, polybutylene terephthalate, and polyethylene naphthalate; polyamide resins such as polyamide 6, polyamide 6,6, and polyamide 4,6; polyurethane resins such as polyester polyol-type urethane resins; and polyacrylonitrile resins. They can be used alone or in combination. Among them, polyester fiber is preferred due to its high versatility and excellent mechanical properties [0062].
Although Toru does not expressly teach that the hydrophobic fibers, e.g., polyester, or the natural fibers are eco-friendly fibers, 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."), for this instance, the fiber species taught in prior art, e.g., polyester, natural fiber, constitutes the same properties as eco-friendly fibers as instantly claimed.
Regarding instant claims 4 and 5, Toru teaches throughout the reference the fiber material and product properties and fiber species (e.g., [0127-0171], and exemplifies manufacturing processes without limit to examples ([0172-0202]) , e.g., Example 21 [0196] or 23 [0201], the fiber is manufactured and wound up (representing the fiber is twisted), and in Example 21, T-shaped polyester fiber is blended into cotton entangled by high-pressure water jets to create an entangled fiber web (nonwoven fabric) [0197], obviously having unevenness, bumps, or twists on the resulted in entangled fiber web surface. 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) (Appellant argued that the presence of DEHP as the plasticizer in a blood collection bag unexpectedly suppressed hemolysis and therefore rebutted any prima facie showing of obviousness. However, the closest prior art utilizing a DEHP plasticized blood collection bag inherently achieved same result, although this fact was unknown in the prior art.).
Regarding instant claim 6, Toru teaches that there are no particular restrictions on the cross-sectional shape of the fibers (transparent fibers, or transparent and opaque fibers) that constitute the liquid retaining layer, while circular cross-sections and elliptical cross-sections are widely used [0069]. Toru teaches considering factors such as close adherence to the skin, the fiber diameter of the fibers constituting the sealing layer is an extremely fine diameter that is smaller than that of the fibers constituting the liquid-retaining layer, and specifically, the fiber diameter (number average fiber diameter) can be less than 10 μm, for example, 0.1 to 9 μm, preferably 0.5 to 8 μm (e.g., 1 to 8 μm), more preferably 1 to 7 μm (especially 1.5 to 6 μm), and particularly preferably 2 to 6 μm (e.g., 2 to 5 μm) [0100], and if the average fiber diameter is too small, the ability to transfer liquid components (liquid active ingredients) such as cosmetics supplied from the liquid-retaining layer to the skin will decrease; and if the average fiber diameter is too large, it will feel rough when in contact with the skin, and the liquid film formed at the interface with the skin cannot expand evenly, reducing the sealing performance [0100]. Therefore, a general cross section constituting both sealing layer and liquid-retaining layer fibers in Toru, the ratio resulting from the longest diameter (from liquid-retaining layer) to the shortest diameter (from sealing layer) of the cross section would by default obviously exceed 1.
Regarding instant claim 7, Toru teaches the density of the liquid-retaining layer is for example, 0.03 to 0.20 g/cm3 , preferably 0.05 to 0.17 g/cm3, and more preferably 0.08 to 0.15 g/cm3, however, Toru teaches that the density depends on the viscosity of the liquid components such as cosmetics that are impregnated, and that if the density is too low, the liquid retention capacity of the liquid-retaining tablet will be reduced, and liquid dripping is likely to occur during use; On the other hand, if the density is too high, the liquid retention capacity will decrease, and there is a tendency for the liquid to move more slowly into the sealing layer (e.g., [0073], Claim 10). Toru also teaches the density of the sealing layer is for example 0.05 to 0.35 g/cm3, preferably 0.08 to 0.25 g/cm3, and indicates that if the density of the diaphragm is too low, there will be insufficient surface fibers on the skin side to form the diaphragm, making it difficult to form a uniform, extremely fine fiber layer on the skin surface; Conversely, if the density of the sealing layer is too high, the ability of the liquid active ingredients, such as cosmetics, supplied from the liquid-retaining layer to transfer to the skin side decreases [0103].
Regarding instant claim 8, Toru teaches that increasing bulkiness can improve liquid retention in the liquid-retaining layer (e.g., [0077]); and also teaches that if the thickness of the non-porous transparent layer is too large, the flexibility of the liquid-retaining sheet will decrease; and if the thickness of the non-porous transparent layer is too small, it will be difficult to form, and the effect of inhibiting the drying of liquid components will decrease due to the formation of pinholes, etc. [0090]. Similarly, Toru teaches that if the sealing layer is too thin, there will be insufficient amount of fibers to form the diaphragm, making it difficult to form a uniform, extremely fine fiber layer on the skin surface; Conversely, if the sealing layer is too thick, the transferability of liquid from the liquid-retaining layer to the skin decreases [0105].
Toru teaches that the thickness of the liquid-retaining layer can be selected from the range 100 to 3000 μm, for example, 200 to 2000 μm, preferably 300 to 1500 μm, and more preferably 400 to 1200 μm (especially 500 to 1000 μm) (e.g., [0075]). Toru teaches other layers’ thickness, for instance, non-porous transparent layer, 3 to 200 um [0090], sealing layer from the range of 10 to 500 um (e.g., [0105]). All thickness ranges overlap with the claimed thickness range of 0.1 to 10 mm (equals 100 to 10,000 um).
Regarding instant claim 11, Toru teaches that the liquid-retaining layer constitutes necessary wettability for impregnation of liquid components especially aqueous liquid components containing cosmetic or medicinal ingredients, e.g., moisturizing ingredients, cleansing ingredients, antiperspirant ingredients, fragrance ingredients, whitening ingredients, blood circulation promoting ingredients, cooling ingredients, ultraviolet absorbing ingredients, and skin antipruritic ingredients, as well as the porosity for liquid retention, and has the following functions: during use, no liquid dripping occurs, it maintains coverage on the predetermined part of the body (e.g., the face), and the liquid cosmetic can be transferred little by little to the skin side when applied or left to stand (e.g., [0041]). Toru mentions that the skin care fiber sheet can be soaked in the liquid ingredients, e.g., cosmetic composition, during use (e.g., [0118-0119]).
Toru does not explicitly teach the fiber sheet material as the structured body comprising filament trap structure with plurality of storage spaces as recited in instant claim 1.
Toru teaches eco-friendly natural fibers and fiber effectiveness of carrying cosmetic composition by the porous structure of the liquid retaining layer as discussed above, it is obvious that the fiber sheet eco-friendly structured body is capable of absorbing liquids resulting from the filament trap structures. Without limit to examples, Toru exemplifies manufacturing processes in Examples ([0172-0202]) , e.g., Example 1 [0172], Example 21 [0196-0197], Example 23 [0202], showing that the fiber web is manufactured and wound up with an opening ratio of 25% and a pore size of 0.3 mm, indicating that the fiber sheet material as the structured body comprising multiple openings as plurality of storage spaces in the filament trap structure as in instant claim 1. MPEP 2144.01 points out "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). For this instance, the multiple openings with porosity in prior art would reasonably allow one skilled in the art to draw therefrom as the structured body comprising plurality of storage spaces for absorbing and trapping cosmetic liquid compositions.
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art prior to filing date to select the fiber product for carrying cosmetic composition taught by Toru to arrive at current invention. Toru specifies that liquid-retaining layer is used for applications that absorb liquid components, preferably used for applications infused with cosmetic or medicinal ingredients that are closely adhered to the skin, such as face masks, makeup remover sheets or cleansing sheets, body wash sheets, cooling sheets, medicinal or therapeutic sheets, and various skin care sheets (e.g., [0117], [0238], [0041], [0119]). Moreover, 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, the same eco-friendly fibers having one or more characteristics (A) to (C) form the structured body as instantly claimed, the filament trap structures with plurality of storage spaces are properties obviously present in fiber sheet materials of prior art teaching, as evidenced by the structured body capable of absorbing and retaining cosmetic liquid among the plurality of storage spaces. It would have motivated scientists to choose eco-friendly fiber sheets to make the structured body for reasonable expectation of success.
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 fiber length, weight ratio, thickness, and diameter ratio, overlap with those taught by Toru. 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). For this instance, even though the density of the fiber layers in Toru does not overlap with those in instant claim 7, a person with ordinary skills of the art would be able to optimize through nothing more than “routine experimentation”.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toru et al. (CN104487629, 04/01/2015, machine translation relied upon below, record of 12/01/2025) as applied to claims 1-8 and 11 above, further in view of Lechanoine (WO2017016608, 02/02/2017, IDS of 10/11/2023).
Toru teaches a cosmetic product comprising eco-friendly structured body capable of carrying liquid cosmetic compositions, a cosmetic composition, and an application tool, e.g., face mask, skin care sheet, etc., wherein the structured body can comprise a natural fiber and a regenerative fiber, having filament trap structure with plurality of storage spaces in which cosmetic composition is collected, and having an average fiber length of 20 to 70 mm, preferably 25 to 60 mm, and more preferably 30 to 55 mm, a weight ratio of natural fiber to the regenerative fiber at 99/1 to 10/90, preferably 98/2 to 30/70, more preferably around 97/3 to 50/50 (especially 95/5 to 70/30), average thickness (diameter) at 0.1 to 30 μm, preferably 0.5 to 20 μm, and more preferably about 1 to 15 μm (especially 3 to 13 μm) as discussed above in detail regarding instant claims 1-8 and 11 above and incorporated herein.
Toru specifies that liquid-retaining layer comprising the suitable fibers is used for applications that absorb liquid components, preferably used for applications infused with cosmetic or medicinal ingredients that are closely adhered to the skin, such as face masks, makeup remover sheets or cleansing sheets, body wash sheets, cooling sheets, medicinal or therapeutic sheets, and various skin care sheets (e.g., [0041], [0117], [0119]). Toru states that the sheet is used in a skin care sheet or face mask impregnated by a liquid component containing a cosmetic (e.g., Abstract).
Toru does not teach the cosmetic composition having a viscosity of 5,000 to 20,000 centi poise (cps) as recited in instant claim 12.
Lechanoine teaches impregnated cosmetic articles comprising a fiber carrier (defined as an absorbing substrate comprising fibers, Pg. 4, bottom line), impregnated with a cosmetic composition (e.g., Abstract).
Lechanoine teaches that the viscosity of the composition may be between about 1,000 and 20,000 cps (e.g., Claim 12; Pg, 4, 2nd paragraph), and that the range of the viscosity is very broad, and thus various types of compositions can be used, for example, about 1,000 to 10,000 cps in first embodiment, and about 10,000 to 20, 000 cps in second embodiment (Pg. 4, 2nd-4th paragraphs), overlapping with the range of 5,000 to 20,000 cps in instant claim 12. As Lechanoine points out that the material of the fibers is not limited. Preferably, the fiber material comprises a non-woven. The fibers may be prepared from synthetic resins such as polyolefins (in particular, polyethylene and polypropylene), polyesters, and polyethylene terephthalate; or natural fibers such as cotton, cellulose and silk (Pg. 9, top paragraph). Lechanoine teaches that the article can be used in almost all kinds of cosmetic compositions including mask (Pg. 13, 2nd paragraph).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one person with ordinary skills in the art prior to filing date to incorporate the cosmetic composition viscosity taught by Lechanoine into the fiber structured product taught by Toru to arrive at current invention. Because both prior art teach articles comprising fiber carrier for the same intended use of carrying cosmetic compositions, especially Toru teaches the liquid-retaining layer density is dependent on the viscosity of the liquid components such as cosmetics that are impregnated [0073], artisans in the field would have the motivation to adjust and optimize the viscosity taught by Lechanoine for reasonable expectation of success of improving the fiber carrier properties. This renders obviousness as “use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way” or as “applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results”. See MPEP §2143. (I)(C) and (I)(D).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed on 02/25/2026 have been fully considered.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C.112
Applicant request to withdraw the rejection because amendment of claim 6 has overcome the rejection.
The amendment of claim 6 clarifies the antecedent issue addressed in previous office action, but introduces a new 35 U.S.C.112 issue as presented above.
Art rejections
Applicant asserts that the amended claim 1 constituting limitations that are not disclosed, or taught, or suggested by the cited references, for the advantage of the claimed cosmetic product capable of maintaining a predetermined volume for a long period of time without collapsing and appropriately discharging the cosmetic composition without oil separation due to the eco-friendly structured body characteristics.
In response, the office action as presented above has fully considered the amended claim 1 limitation scope, and all the claimed components in claimed including the characteristics of structured body are taught by prior art. The advantage is necessarily present in prior art because the prior art teaches the structured body having the characteristics as instantly claimed. Regarding applicant’s recitation from specification of characteristics (A) to (C) with further details, please refer to the office action sessions regarding instant claim 1 (A) to (C). Please note that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
Applicant asserts that the cosmetic composition is “locally accumulated in a plurality of storage spaces within a filament trap structure formed by the fibers of the structured body. This prevents separation of the oil phase of the cosmetic composition during storage and allows for the composition to be discharged in a finely diffused manner when pressure is applied”.
This feature “plurality of storage spaces within a filament trap structure formed by the fibers of the structured body” as part of the amended claim is addressed in the office action and copied the most relevant part below for reference:
Toru teaches eco-friendly natural fibers and fiber effectiveness of carrying cosmetic composition by the porous structure of the liquid retaining layer as discussed above, it is obvious that the fiber sheet eco-friendly structured body is capable of absorbing liquids resulting from the filament trap structures. Without limit to examples, Toru exemplifies manufacturing processes in Examples ([0172-0202]) , e.g., Example 1 [0172], Example 21 [0196-0197], Example 23 [0202], showing that the fiber web is manufactured and wound up with an opening ratio of 25% and a pore size of 0.3 mm, indicating that the fiber sheet material as the structured body comprising multiple openings as plurality of storage spaces in the filament trap structure as in instant claim 1. MPEP 2144.01 points out "[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). For this instance, the multiple openings with porosity in prior art would reasonably allow one skilled in the art to draw therefrom as the structured body comprising plurality of storage spaces for absorbing and trapping cosmetic liquid compositions.
In response to the feature or property “this prevents separation of the oil phase of the cosmetic composition during storage and allows for the composition to be discharged in a finely diffused manner when pressure is applied”, because this is not recited in the rejected claim, although the claim is interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims, See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).; moreover, prior art teaches the internal fiber structure of the structured body as presented above, the property would necessarily and obviously be present in the structured body that is taught by prior art.
In conclusion, prior art Toru and Lechanoine teaches the cosmetic product as instantly claimed.
Please refer to the entire office action as a complete response to the remarks/arguments based upon the amended claims.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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