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/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II, claims 20, 22, and 27-41, and the species of a cosmetic wet wipe, claims 20, 22, 27, 29, and 36-38, in the reply filed on June 17, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 24-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 28, 30-35, and 39-41 are withdrawn as being drawn to nonelected species. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 17, 2026.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “Glycerine” appears to be a typo for glycerin, also known as glycerol. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities.
In the phrase “a substrate comprising, as the only polymer, a thermally bonded non-woven polyvinyl alcohol fibre of at least 94% (w/w) of the substrate”, the phrase structure and the underlined “of” render the phrase confusing. For the purposes of examination now it is construed as “a substrate comprising at least 94% (w/w) of a thermally bonded non-woven polyvinyl alcohol fiber as the only polymer”.
In the ratios, “1,5” and “8,5” should use periods in lieu of commas.
“Glycerine” appears to be a typo for glycerin, also known as glycerol.
Claim 36 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a comma is missing after the first “included”;
an “if…then” is preferred over “where … , …”;
“glycerine” appears to be a typo for glycerin, also known as glycerol; and
in lieu of “0% and “>0%”, an affirmative statement such as “free of …” or another affirmative statant should be used as “0%” could be interpreted as including a 0.01%, 0.001%,etc.
Claim 37 is objected to because of the following informalities: in “… : % (w/w), ” the colon is objected to as vague, which issue could be avoided by affirmatively reciting “at” or a similar word.
Appropriate corrections are 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.
Claims 20, 22, 27, 29, and 36-38 are 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 20 recites “a ratio of about 1:1,5 up to about 1:8,5…”. The “about” is not defined or otherwise elaborated on in the disclosure sufficiently to indicate the term’s meaning. The reference to “about” in the disclosure consists of the statement, “[a]ll ranges described herein are modified by the term "about" unless indicated to the contrary”. (Specification para.[0068].) Therefore one would not be apprised of the metes and bounds of this claim phrase, and therefore claim 20.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 20 recites the broad recitation “at least 5%”, and the claim also recites “10%” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 20 also recites “of the total liquid infusion”. The “of” is inapposite in this instance (similar to “of at least 94% (w/w) of the substate”). Presumably it means that the water comprises at least 5% or 10% (w/w) relative to the total liquid infusion or the total liquid infusion comprises at least 5% or 10% (w/w) of water. Moreover due to the placement of the phrase after water it is ambiguous whether the “of the total liquid infusion” applies (i) just to the weight concentration of the water, or (ii) also to the glycerin, and the alcohol and/or the metal salt in the liquid infusion. If the former, then it is ambiguous what the weight concentrations of the glycerin and the alcohol and/or the metal salt are relative to, i.e., the entire “wet wipe” or the substrate.
None of the dependent claims resolves both of these issues and therefore they are also rejected on this ground.
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.
Claim(s) 20, 22, 27, 29, 36, and 38, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simon (US 2011/0033509).
Simon teaches “a cosmetic article comprising: at least one cosmetic composition; and at least one sheet of fibers that are soluble in water, preferably at a temperature lower than 20°C.” (paras.0022-24, 0028-30). The composition can be deposited on the medium by the user (para.0158). Such deposition amounts to “infusing”.
The medium or the substrate includes more than 95% by weight of a water-soluble fiber, specifically including Kuralon K-II WN2, as a non-woven fabric formed by heat-bonding (paras.0059, 0086-89). It may be in the form of a mask (Fig.7 and accompanying text).
Simon teaches compositions comprising the following:
glycerin (e.g., at 5%, Examples G, H, paras.0181, 0186; see para.0109, 0152);
“at least 15% water” (paras.0181-82, 0186-87) or more accurately about 29% water (para.0181: water in the 70% sodium laureth sulfate, at 50% of the composition (0.3*50%) + disodium cocoamphodiacetate at 39% in briny water at 24.9% + sodium lauroyl sarcosinate at 90% in water at 16.9%);
alcohol including ethanol (paras.0152-53, 0173); and
various metal salts including “insoluble salts of sodium, potassium, …” (para.0120; see paras.0141, 0176, 0181 (sodium laureth sulfate, disodium cocoamphodiacetate, and disodium cocoamphodiacetate)).
“The cosmetic or dermatological composition carried by the medium may represent between 10% and 1000% by weight relative to the weight of the medium, for example.” (Para.0098). Thus the ratio of the medium or the substrate to the composition or the liquid infusion is 1:0.1 up to 1:10, which overlaps that in claim 20. For result-effective variables, in the case where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05 (citations omitted). Furthermore, optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation does not support patentability absent comparative evidence of criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (citations omitted).
Simon does not specifically teach an example embodiment precisely as recited in claim 20. However it would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to practice the method of preparation recited in the instant claim(s). The skilled person would have been motivated to do so because Simon expressly teaches depositing a cosmetic composition onto the medium by the user, wherein the composition includes glycerin and water in amounts within the ranges in claim 20, and further includes alcohols and/or metal salts (see, e.g., Examples G, H). Furthermore the skilled person could optimize the weight ratio of the medium to the composition within Simon’s guidelines, depending on the composition ingredients and the cosmetic effect desired.
Regarding claim 22, Simon teaches “a set of medium that are intended to be used successively” (para.0158), such as individual wipes provided in an interfitted packaging (para.0157), or on a roll of perforated sheets. Regarding the latter official notice is taken that such forms are well known in common household items, e.g., toilet paper rolls.
Regarding claim 29, Simon teaches “the composition may”, i.e., need not, “include one or more solvents,… such as inferior alcohols including 1-6 carbon atoms” such ethyl alcohol (para.0152).
Regarding claim 36, Simon teaches water, glycerin, and metal salt content in Examples G and H. Simon further teaches active agents including vitamin E and essential oils (para.0110) and emollients such as cemarid[e]s (para.0108). “All of said active ingredients may be used in concentrations in the range 0 to 20%, for example, and in particular in the range 0.001% to 15% relative to the total weight of the composition.” (Para.0110). This range overlaps those in claim 36. Simon also teaches chelating agents (para.0106), emulsifiers and surfactants (paras.0139-43) at various concentrations such as 5% (Example H, Disodium cocoamphodiacetate) and 15% (Example G, Sodium lauroyl sarcosinate), and antioxidants and preservatives (para.0138) at various concentrations such as 0.3% (Examples G, H). Regarding the concentrations of each ingredient, for result-effective variables, in the case where claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05 (citations omitted). Furthermore, optimization within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation does not support patentability absent comparative evidence of criticality of the claimed range. See MPEP § 2144.05 (II) (citations omitted).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to H. S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-5258. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays.
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.
/H. SARAH PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights