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 .
Election/Restriction
Inventor’s election, without traverse, of the claims of Group I (claims 1-7, 11 and 12) as the Group elected to begin prosecution is acknowledged. The election/restriction is hereby made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: for grammatical, spelling and syntactical reasons, the items listed below should be corrected.
In claim text line 9, the term “…provide…” should, for syntactical consistency, be the word: providing;
In claim text line 13, the term “…coving…” should properly be the term: covering.
In claim text lines 17 and 24, the term “…homogenize…” should, for syntactical consistency, be the word: homogenizing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: for grammatical reasons the limitation “…dead sea salt…” should properly be: Dead Sea salt.
Appropriate correction is required.
Inventor’s assistance is respectfully requested in correcting any other minor grammatical, spelling and or syntactical errors which may be present in the claim set.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1 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.
In claim text lines 3 and 4, it is unclear if the maltodextrin and gum acacia are actually dissolved in the first volume of distilled water. The examiner respectfully suggests a slight rewording, something along the lines of: …providing a first volume of distilled water, then dissolving maltodextrin and gum acacia in the first volume of distilled water….
In claim text line 8, the phrase “…for subsequent use…” is unclear because these subsequent uses are undefined. The examiner respectfully suggests deleting the phrase.
In claim text line 10, the term “…desired…” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What is, or is not, desired would seem to be the most subjective of determinations. Clarification is in order.
In claim text line 13, the phrase “…while preparing other steps…” is unclear because these other steps are undefined. The examiner respectfully suggests deleting the phrase.
Finally, in the last line of the claim, the claim explicitly teaches that a water soluble powdered proliposome is created (as a result of the preceding process steps). However, the preamble of the claim explicitly teaches that the process is a method of creating a liposome therapeutic electrolyte. It is thus unclear what exactly the claimed method creates. Clarification is in order.
Claim 2 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “…the first step…” in the claim.
Furthermore, the % amounts are unclear. Are these volume percentages? Weight percentages?
Clarification on both points is in order.
Claim 3 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “…the ingredients…” in the claim.
Clarification is in order.
Claim 4 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.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “…the ingredients…” in the claim.
Furthermore, the % amounts are unclear. Are these volume percentages? Weight percentages?
Clarification on both points is in order.
Claim 5 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.
The limitation “…with a sheer mixer on high…” is unclear because what is, or is not, a high setting will intrinsically depend upon the model, design and manufacturer of any particular sheer mixer. The instant limitation is not an objective measure of mixing speed, and that being the case, the public would have no realistic way of determining the metes and bounds of the claim with respect to mixing speed.
Clarification is in order.
Claim 7 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.
There is no antecedent basis for the limitation “…replacing the distilled water of the salty water phase, with the hydrogen water…”. Independent claim 1, the claim from which claim 7 immediately depends, teaches distilled water. There is no basis in claim 1 for substituting another solvent for the distilled water.
Claim 11 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.
Which step, or steps, of mixing are done by blending with an emulsifier at high pressure is/are unclear. Independent claim 1, the claim from which claim 11 immediately depends, is a complex, multi-step process with various steps/procedures which are explicitly taught as mixing steps, or which are intrinsically so.
Furthermore, The term high (“…high pressure…”) is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Clarification on both points is in order.
Claim 12 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.
It is unclear how potassium can be described as an electrolyte. Potassium is a metal (not a salt).
Clarification is in order.
Claim 6 is also 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.
The claim depends from an indefinite claim yet does not relieve the indefiniteness. Dependent claim 6 is also, therefore, indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. In the present instance, the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 7 actually expands the scope of the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends (independent claim 1), since the claim from which it depends only teaches the utilization of distilled water.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Allowable Subject Matter
The subject matter of claims 1-7, 11 and 12 would be allowable once the 112 rejections outlined above have been overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art appears to be DE 19914646 A1, whose corresponding English language machine translation has been relied upon for purposes of this Office Action. The reference teaches a method for the preparation of a skin care composition comprising a colostral milk product or extract, minerals (e.g. Dead Sea salt) and plant components or extracts (e.g. tea tree oil) (abstract; page 1, [0001]; page 2, “An example”). This is not the instant liposome electrolyte composition, nor is the prior art method of preparation related to that of the instant invention. Nor would one of ordinary skill have sufficient motivation to modify the method of the prior art in order to arrive at the method and resulting composition of the instant invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 7,300,649 B2 is cited to show the preparation of a related skin care composition comprising calcium and magnesium ions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM 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, Ali Soroush, can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/BRIAN J DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614 2/5/2026