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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 06/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 11 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informality:
Claim 3 recites “a styrene isoprene styrene block copolymer” twice (in lines 2 and 3).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 113384501 A) and as evidenced by “Pressure Sensitive Adhesives” and “J-WAFS”.
Claim 1 is anticipated because Li discloses a hydrocolloid patch for the skin with a rubber elastomer (“pressure-sensitive adhesive”), hydrophilic polymers (“absorbent”), and the exfoliant, salicylic acid (English translation pg. 3, Example 2, full table translation provided at end of document). One side of the patch is attached to release paper and the other side is attached to a polyurethane film protective layer (pg. 3). The rubber elastomer of Li is necessarily a “pressure-sensitive adhesive”, as claimed, because Li teaches that the rubber elastomer is any one of poly(styrene/isoprene/styrene), polyisoprene, and natural rubber (pg. 2, paragraph 10). Poly(styrene/isoprene/styrene) is an instantly claimed pressure-sensitive adhesive and as evidenced by “Pressure Sensitive Adhesives” each of polyisoprene and natural rubber are also known in the art to be pressure sensitive adhesives (pg. 2). The hydrophilic polymers of Li are necessarily “absorbents” because Li teaches that the hydrophilic polymers are any one of sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, medicinal pectin, and polyethylene glycol (pg. 2, paragraph 11). Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose and pectin are instantly claimed absorbents and as evidenced by “J-WAFS” polyethylene glycol is also a known absorbent (pg. 1).
While Li does not explicitly teach that the patch has exfoliation performance, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. MPEP 2112.01 II. Therefore, because the prior art discloses a patch with the same components (i.e., claimed components of the hydrocolloid layer), the properties the applicant discloses and/or claims (i.e., exfoliation performance) are reasonably expected to be necessarily present.
Claim 2 is anticipated because the salicylic acid is present in an amount of 1.5 wt.%, the rubber elastomer (“pressure-sensitive adhesive”) is present in an amount of 35 wt.%, and the hydrophilic polymers (“absorbent”) are present in an amount of 10.5498 wt.% (English translation pg. 3, Example 2). The weight ratio of the hydrophilic polymers (“absorbent”) is 30.14 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the rubber elastomer (“pressure-sensitive adhesive”). The weight ratio of the salicylic acid (“exfoliant”) is 4.29 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the rubber elastomer (“pressure-sensitive adhesive”). If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03.
Claim 3 is anticipated because Li discloses poly(styrene/isoprene/styrene) as the rubber elastomer (“pressure-sensitive adhesive”) (pg. 2, paragraph 10).
Claim 4 is anticipated because Li discloses sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as the hydrophilic polymers (“absorbents”) (pg. 2, paragraph 11).
Claims 5 and 6 are anticipated because Li discloses salicylic acid (pg. 3).
Claim 8 is anticipated because the hydrocolloid layer has a thickness of 0.3 mm which is 300 µm (pg. 3). If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03.
Claim 9 is anticipated because the polyurethane film “base layer” has a thickness of 25 µm (pg. 3). If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. See MPEP 2131.03.
Claim 10 is anticipated because the base layer is polyurethane (pg. 3).
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.
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 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Li et al. (CN 113384501 A).
Li is believed to be anticipatory as described above, but in the interest of completeness of prosecution, purely arguendo, and for the purposes of this ground of rejection only, Li will be interpreted as if it is not anticipatory.
In that case, Li could be construed as not clearly and unequivocally disclosing the claimed invention or directing those skilled in the art to the claimed invention without any need for picking, choosing and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference. Namely, one skilled in the art would need to choose a “pressure-sensitive adhesive”, such as poly(styrene/isoprene/styrene), as the rubber elastomer (pg. 2, paragraph 10) and an “absorbent”, such as sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, as the hydrophilic polymers (pg. 2, paragraph 11) to include in the composition taught at pg. 3.
In that case, claim 1 is rendered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Li, because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods, to yield predictable results. In the instant case, all the claimed elements (e.g., pressure-sensitive adhesive, such as poly(styrene/isoprene/styrene; absorbent, such as sodium carboxymethyl cellulose; salicylic acid) were known in the prior art (e.g., Li) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results (e.g., a hydrocolloid sheet) to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
Claim 1 is rendered prima facie obvious because Li discloses a hydrocolloid patch for the skin with a rubber elastomer, such as poly(styrene/isoprene/styrene (pg. 2, paragraph 10) (“pressure-sensitive adhesive”), hydrophilic polymers, such as sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (pg. 2, paragraph 11) (“absorbent”), and the exfoliant, salicylic acid (English translation pg. 3, Example 2, full table translation provided at end of document). One side of the patch is attached to release paper and the other side is attached to a polyurethane film protective layer (pg. 3).
While Li does not explicitly teach that the patch has exfoliation performance, a chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. MPEP 2112.01 II. Therefore, because the prior art discloses a patch with the same components (i.e., claimed components of the hydrocolloid layer), the properties the applicant discloses and/or claims (i.e., exfoliation performance) are reasonably expected to be necessarily present.
Claim 2 is rendered prima facie obvious because Li discloses the salicylic acid is present in an amount of 1.5 wt.%, the rubber elastomer (“pressure-sensitive adhesive”) is present in an amount of 35 wt.%, and the hydrophilic polymers (“absorbent”) are present in an amount of 10.5498 wt.% (English translation pg. 3, Example 2). The weight ratio of the hydrophilic polymers (“absorbent”) is 30.14 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the rubber elastomer (“pressure-sensitive adhesive”). The weight ratio of the salicylic acid (“exfoliant”) is 4.29 parts by weight with respect to 100 parts by weight of the rubber elastomer (“pressure-sensitive adhesive”). 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 A.
Claim 3 is rendered prima facie obvious because Li discloses poly(styrene/isoprene/styrene) as the rubber elastomer (“pressure-sensitive adhesive”) (pg. 2, paragraph 10).
Claim 4 is rendered prima facie obvious because Li discloses sodium carboxymethyl cellulose as the hydrophilic polymers (“absorbents”) (pg. 2, paragraph 11).
Claims 5 and 6 are rendered prima facie obvious because Li discloses salicylic acid (pg. 3).
Claim 8 is rendered prima facie obvious because Li discloses the hydrocolloid layer has a thickness of 0.3 mm, which is 300 µm (pg. 3). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 9 is rendered prima facie obvious because Li discloses the polyurethane film “base layer” has a thickness of 25 µm (pg. 3). A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 10 is rendered prima facie obvious because Li discloses the base layer is polyurethane (pg. 3).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Li et al. (CN 113384501 A) in view of Park (US 2018/0243141 A1).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Li was previously discussed.
Regarding claim 7, Li does not disclose the release layer has a thickness of 50 to 150 µm.
Park discloses a patch for the skin with release paper with a thickness of 20 to 300 µm (abstract) [0017] [0061]. Park teaches that this thickness allows for the paper to have a predetermined restoring force so that the paper may be quickly restored to the original position even in a case where the paper is bent. Park teaches that if the thickness is below 20 µm the thickness is too small such that the restoring force is insufficient and if the thickness is above 300 µm the paper is not well separated [0061].
Since Li generally teaches a patch for the skin with release paper, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a thickness of 20 to 300 µm for the release paper, within the teachings of Li, because Park teaches a patch for the skin with release paper of this thickness. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use a thickness of 20 to 300 µm because Park teaches that this thickness allows for the paper to have a predetermined restoring force so that the paper may be quickly restored to the original position even in a case where the paper is bent. Park teaches that if the thickness is below 20 µm the thickness is too small such that the restoring force is insufficient and if the thickness is above 300 µm the paper is not well separated [0061]. In regards to the claimed thickness, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashlee E Wertz whose telephone number is (571)270-7663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 5 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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/ASHLEE E WERTZ/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights