DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s Response to Restriction Requirement filed June 15, 2026.
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 the Claims
No claims have been amended, cancelled, or newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-28 remain pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-23) in the reply filed on June 15, 20226 is acknowledged.
Claims 24-28 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
A species election was further requested in the Restriction Requirement dated 5/15/2026. After further consideration, said species election is hereby withdrawn.
Accordingly, claims 1-23 are currently under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed June 15, 2026 has been considered. A signed copy is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: said claim recites, “the least one at least partially occlusive layer” in lines 2-3 of the claim. The word “at” appears to be missing between “the” and “least one...”. Appropriate correction is requested.
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 2, 7, 14-16 and 18-20 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 2 recites, “wherein the predetermined sequence of ingredient exposure is independent of user application behavior due to the predefined spatial order of the layers and their differential dissolution behavior upon application”. Said claim is indefinite because it is unclear what structural element is responsible for the claimed function. The claim is being interpreted as being a necessary result of the skincare mask during normal use.
Claim 7 recites, “wherein the layers are configured to physically separate ingredients that are chemically or physically incompatible when co-formulated, by isolating such ingredients in separate layers prior to use”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear what structural element is responsible for the claimed function. The claim is being interpreted as being a necessary result of the ingredients being in separate layers as claimed in claim 1.
Claim 14 recites, “wherein the skincare mask comprises two primary functional layers, including: a humectant-rich layer for use in skin hydration; and an emollient and/or at least partially occlusive-rich layer for use in skin barrier protection”. Claim 14 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 sets out at least one humectant or hydrophilic layer and at least one at least partially occlusive layer. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the layers of claim 14 are further limiting the layers of claim 1 or if they are in addition to the layers of claim 1.
Claim 15 recites, “wherein the skincare mask comprises at least four functional layers, including: a toning layer; an essence layer; a serum layer; and a moisturizer layer”. Claim 15 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 sets out at least one humectant or hydrophilic layer and at least one at least partially occlusive layer. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the layers of claim 15 are further limiting the layers of claim 1 or if they are in addition to the layers of claim 1.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "wherein at least one of the layers further comprises an additive configured to improve electrospinning continuity, nanofiber mechanical integrity, and dissolution behavior". Claim 16 depends from claim 1. There is no reference to electrospinning, nanofibers, or dissolution in claim 1. Thus, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites, “wherein the at least one humectant or hydrophilic layer comprises at least one of a toning layer; an essence layer; or a serum layer”. Claim 18 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 sets out “at least one humectant or hydrophilic layer”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the layers of claim 18 are further limiting the at least one humectant/hydrophilic layer of claim 1 or if they are in addition to the at least one humectant/hydrophilic layer of claim 1.
Claim 19 recites, “wherein the at least partially occlusive layer comprises at least one of a serum layer or a moisturizing layer”. Claim 19 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 sets out “at least one partially occlusive layer”. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear if the layers of claim 19 are further limiting the at least one partially occlusive layer of claim 1 or if they are in addition to the at least one partially occlusive layer of claim 1.
Claim 20 recites, “substantially a hydrating layer”. The term “substantially” in claim 20 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. The claim in indefinite because the metes and bounds of what amounts constitute substantially hydrating are not readily ascertained.
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.
Claims 2 and 8 are 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.
Claim 2 recites, “wherein the predetermined sequence of ingredient exposure is independent of user application behavior due to the predefined spatial order of the layers and their differential dissolution behavior upon application”. Claim 2 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites, wherein the layers “are arranged in a predefined spatial order that structurally encodes a predetermined sequence of ingredient exposure to skin upon a single application of the skincare mask”. Claim 1 sets out that the layers on a predefined spatial order and the ingredients have a predetermine sequence of exposure. Accordingly, the subject matter of claim 2 does not appear to further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 8 recites, “wherein the layers comprise physically discrete layers”. Claim 8 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 sets out at least one humectant or hydrophilic layer and at least one at least partially occlusive layer. Accordingly, the layers are set out as separate layers in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 does not further limit the subject matter of claim 1.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11-14 and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deckner et al. (WO 01/78678 A1, Oct. 25, 2001, hereafter as “Deckner”) as evidenced by Michigan State University (“Exploring Ingredients – Occlusives & Emollients”, Apr. 26, 2021, hereafter as “MSU”) and Purnamawati et al. (“The Role of Moisturizers in Addressing Various Kinds of Dermatitis: A Review, Cin Med Res. 2017 Dec; 15 (3-4): 75-87; hereafter as “Purnamawati”).
The claimed invention is drawn to a skincare mask comprising at least one humectant or hydrophilic layer and at least one at least partially occlusive layer, wherein the at least one humectant or hydrophilic layer and the at least one at least partially occlusive layer are arranged in a predefined spatial order that structurally encodes a predetermined sequence of ingredient exposure to skin upon a single application of the skincare mask.
Regarding instant claim 1, Deckner teaches pre-formed devices such as masks for delivering benefit agents to the skin, hair or nails, the device comprising a solid gel sheet having opposed first and second surfaces, wherein the gel sheet comprises one or more gelling gents and at least 10% dermatologically acceptable hydrophilic solvent, characterized in that the first surface is at least partially coated with a discrete coating composition comprising at least one benefit agent for the skin, hair or nails (page 3, lines 15-20). Deckner teaches the coating may be applied in two or more layers of different composition to provide for sequential release of ingredients (page 14, lines 5-6). Deckner teaches various benefit agents including humectants as well as mineral oil, petrolatum, hydrocarbons, vegetable oil and silicones (page 15, lines 13-14; page 16, lines 13-20; page 20, lines 16-28). Deckner further teaches the gel sheets and coating compositions can comprise one or more surfactants and/or emulsifiers including silicone materials (page 21, lines 1-2 and 11; page 22, lines 21-22). It is noted that mineral oil, petrolatum, hydrocarbons, vegetable oil and silicones are known in the art as occlusives as evidenced by MSU.
Deckner does not explicitly teach an embodiment having at least one humectant layer or hydrophilic layer and at least one at least partially occlusive layer.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include at least one humectant layer or hydrophilic layer and at least one at least partially occlusive layer with a reasonable expectation of success because Deckner teaches that an occlusive material (e.g., a silicone) can be included in either the gel sheet or a coating composition and humectants can be incorporating in a coating composition. Deckner also teaches that the coating can comprise two or more layers of different composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected a skincare mask that comprises a gel sheet comprising a silicone and a coating layer comprising a humectant or a skincare mask comprising multiple coating layers wherein one coating layer comprises a humectant and another coating layer comprises an occlusive material such as mineral oil, petrolatum, hydrocarbons, vegetable oil or silicones.
Regarding instant claim 2, Deckner, as discussed above, teaches that the coating may be applied in two or more layers of different composition to provide for sequential release of ingredients (page 14, lines 5-6). The limitations of claim 2 are being interpreted as a necessary result of the skincare mask while in use. Deckner’s teachings meet the limitations of the claim.
Regarding instant claim 3, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above. Deckner also teaches that the skincare mask is applied such that the coated surface is in contact with the target area (claim 12). In the embodiment of a gel sheet comprising a silicone and a coating layer comprising a humectant, Deckner’s teachings imply that the coating layer would be positioned closer to a skin-contacting surface than the gel sheet layer.
Regarding instant claim 4, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above. Deckner also teaches that the skincare mask is applied such that the coated surface is in contact with the target area (claim 12). Deckner also teaches that the gel sheet 2 is opposed to the coating composition 4 (Fig. 1; paragraph bridging pages 31-32). In the embodiment of a gel sheet comprising a silicone and a coating layer comprising a humectant, Deckner’s teachings imply that the gel sheet is positioned outwardly relative to the coating layer comprising a humectant.
Regarding instant claim 5, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above. Deckner also teaches that the gel sheets comprise as essential components, one or more gelling agents and at least 10% dermatologically acceptable hydrophilic solvent (page 7, lines 4-5) whereas the coating composition is described as having at least one benefit agent and is applied to the gel sheet as a distinctly different composition, in particular one having a different chemical composition which is separately prepared from the gel sheet and is laid down as a separate layer (page 13, lines 20-28).
Regarding instant claim 6, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above. Deckner also teaches that the gel sheets comprise as essential components, one or more gelling agents and at least 10% dermatologically acceptable hydrophilic solvent (page 7, lines 4-5) whereas the coating composition is described as having at least one benefit agent and is applied to the gel sheet as a distinctly different composition, in particular one having a different chemical composition which is separately prepared from the gel sheet and is laid down as a separate layer (page 13, lines 20-28). Decker describes the gel sheet and coating compositions as having different compositions and, as such, one would expect the different compositions to possess different properties such as different dissolution rates.
Regarding instant claim 7, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above. The limitations of claim 7 are being interpreted as the necessary result of the ingredients being in separate layers. As discussed above, Deckner teaches separate layers. Thus, the teachings of Deckner meet the limitations of the claim.
Regarding instant claim 8, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above include a gel sheet and a coating as being physically discrete as well as multiple coating layers having different compositions (i.e., physically discrete).
Regarding instant claim 11, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above including the coating may be applied in two or more layers of different composition to provide for sequential release of ingredients (page 14, lines 5-6). Deckner also teaches that the skincare mask is applied such that the coated surface is in contact with the target area (claim 12) and that the gel sheet 2 is opposed to the coating composition 4 (Fig. 1; paragraph bridging pages 31-32). In the embodiment of a gel sheet comprising a silicone and a coating layer comprising a humectant, Deckner’s teachings imply that the coating layer comprising a humectant will be released (dissolve) more rapidly than the gel sheet layer.
Regarding instant claim 12, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above. Humectants are hygroscopic substances which help the stratum corneum to absorb water by attracting water from dermis and a humid environment into the epidermis and hydrate the skin as evidenced by Purnamawati (page 75, col. 1, 1st paragraph – col. 2, 1st paragraph). Accordingly, one would reasonably expect the layer comprising a humectant in Deckner would necessarily provide the function of attracting and bonding water molecules for increasing skin hydration.
Regarding instant claim 13, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above. Occlusives are a type of moisturizer which are mostly oil based and serve the function of maintaining skin water content by creating a hydrophobic barrier over the skin and blocking trans-epidermal water loss as evidenced by Purnamawati (page 75, col. 1, 1st paragraph). Accordingly, one would reasonably expect the layer comprising an occlusive in Deckner would necessarily provide the function of reducing transepidermal water loss by forming a temporary barrier on the skin surface.
Regarding instant claim 14, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above. Humectants are hygroscopic substances which help the stratum corneum to absorb water by attracting water from dermis and a humid environment into the epidermis and hydrate the skin as evidenced by Purnamawati (page 75, col. 1, 1st paragraph – col. 2, 1st paragraph). Occlusives are a type of moisturizer which are mostly oil based and serve the function of maintaining skin water content by creating a hydrophobic barrier over the skin and blocking trans-epidermal water loss as evidenced by Purnamawati (page 75, col. 1, 1st paragraph). Accordingly, one would reasonably expect the layer comprising a humectant in Deckner would necessarily provide the function of skin hydration and the layer comprising an occlusive in Deckner would necessarily provide the function of forming a temporary barrier on the skin surface.
Regarding instant claim 18, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above. Deckner does not explicitly teaches wherein the at least one humectant or hydrophilic layer comprises at least one of a toning layer, an essence layer, or a serum layer. However, Deckner further teaches additional benefit agents including allantoin, aloe, chamomile, tocopherol, coenzyme Q10, retinol, salicylic acid, niacinamide, etc. (pages 15-20). It is noted that said benefit agents fall within toning, essence or serum categories (see instant specification [0050]-[0053]). Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include a layer comprising any of the above benefit agents with a reasonable expectation of success because Deckner teaches said benefit agents are suitable in a coating layer and selecting the particular benefit agent is dependent on the particular effect being sought.
Regarding instant claim 19, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above. Occlusives are a type of moisturizer which are mostly oil based and serve the function of maintaining skin water content by creating a hydrophobic barrier over the skin and blocking trans-epidermal water loss as evidenced by Purnamawati (page 75, col. 1, 1st paragraph). Accordingly, one would reasonably expect the layer comprising an occlusive in Deckner would also be a moisturizing layer.
Regarding instant claim 20, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above. Humectants are hygroscopic substances which help the stratum corneum to absorb water by attracting water from dermis and a humid environment into the epidermis and hydrate the skin as evidenced by Purnamawati (page 75, col. 1, 1st paragraph – col. 2, 1st paragraph). Accordingly, one would reasonably expect the layer comprising a humectant in Deckner would necessarily provide the function as a substantially hydrating layer.
Regarding instant claim 21, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above. Occlusives are a type of moisturizer which are mostly oil based and serve the function of maintaining skin water content by creating a hydrophobic barrier over the skin and blocking trans-epidermal water loss as evidenced by Purnamawati (page 75, col. 1, 1st paragraph). Accordingly, one would reasonably expect the layer comprising an occlusive in Deckner would be hydrophobic.
Regarding instant claim 22, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above. It is noted that any ingredients that can be included in an amount of 0% are considered optional ingredients and thereby not required. Deckner teaches that the coating composition can be a gel (page 14, line 16). Deckner teaches Deckner also teaches that the coating compositions and gel sheets of the present invention comprise from about 1.0% to about 50%, preferably from about 5% to about 45%, more preferably from about 10% to about 40% by weight of a humectant (page 20, lines 26-28). Deckner teaches coating compositions comprising polymers, e.g., polyacrylamide and polysaccharides; humectants, e.g., glycerin; and penetration enhancers, e.g., butylene glycol and amounts thereof (Table at pages 29-30).
While Deckner does not teach an embodiment having a layer comprising the claimed ingredients and amounts thereof, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the claimed elements and optimize the amounts thereof by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Deckner teaches the general conditions of the claim and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable combinations and ranges by routine experimentation. It is the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known and determine where in a disclosed set is the optimum combination.
Regarding instant claim 23, Deckner teaches the elements discussed above. It is noted that any ingredients that can be included in an amount of 0% are considered optional ingredients and thereby not required. Deckner teaches that the gel sheets comprise as essential components, one or more gelling agents and at least 10% dermatologically acceptable hydrophilic solvent (page 7, lines 4-5). Deckner also teaches that the gel sheets comprise less than 70%, preferably less than 50%, more preferably less than 30% and especially less than 10% by total weight of a gelling agent. Many types of gelling agents, or gellants, are known in the art, including water-soluble and water-insoluble polymer gellants, e.g., silicone materials. Highly preferred herein are polymeric gelling agents from the point of view of the structure that they provide to the gels (page 7, lines 11-16; page 8, lines 5-7). Deckner teaches the solid gel sheet preferably also comprises one or more benefit agents including emollients (page 15, lines 10-11; page 16, lines 13-20). Deckner further teaches that the amount by weight of the benefit agent will vary with the specific agent, the ability of the agent to penetrate through the skin or into, or onto the hair and/or nails, the user's age, the user's health condition, and the condition of the skin, hair or nails of the user, and other like factors (page 15, lines 18-21). Deckner further teaches the optional inclusion of penetration enhancers (page 23, lines 18-19).
While Deckner does not teach an embodiment having a layer comprising the claimed ingredients and amounts thereof, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the claimed elements and optimize the amounts thereof by way of routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Deckner teaches the general conditions of the claim and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable combinations and ranges by routine experimentation. It is the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known and determine where in a disclosed set is the optimum combination.
Thus, the teachings of Deckner render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Claims 9, 10, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deckner et al. (WO 01/78678 A1, Oct. 25, 2001, hereafter as “Deckner”) as evidenced by Michigan State University (“Exploring Ingredients – Occlusives & Emollients”, Apr. 26, 2021, hereafter as “MSU”) and Purnamawati et al. (“The Role of Moisturizers in Addressing Various Kinds of Dermatitis: A Review, Cin Med Res. 2017 Dec; 15 (3-4): 75-87; hereafter as “Purnamawati”), as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (“Preparation of Quick-Dissolving Nanofiber Face Masks Based on Needleless Electrostatic Spinning”, Polymers (Basel), 2024 Jun 5;16(11):1602, pp. 1-17; hereafter as “Hu”).
The claimed invention is described above.
Deckner teaches the elements discussed above.
Deckner is silent to nanofiber layers that are electrospun (instant claims 9 and 10). It is noted that claim 10 is deemed a product-by-process claim due to the limitation, “electrospun” and as such, determination of patentability is based on the product itself, not by the method in which it is made. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113).
Hu teaches that nanofiber masks based on electrospinning technology can efficiently capture active ingredients within fibers or meshes (page 2, 1st paragraph). Hu teaches that the nanofiber mask is able to be stored in a solid-state and will absorb water and become moist when applied to the skin, which greatly enhances product stability (page 2, 1st paragraph). Hu teaches that when the facial mask becomes wet, the components within it rapidly dissolve and release active ingredients, ensuring maximum penetration into the skin and restoring its youthful state (page 2, 1st paragraph). Hu teaches that the nanofiber mask is not only softer than traditional masks, but its nutrients are also more readily released onto the skin’s surface, enhancing skin permeability and restoring its youthful state (page 2, 1st paragraph).
Both Deckner and Hu are drawn to skincare facial masks, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate one or more electrospun nanofiber layers containing one or more of the claimed ingredients into the invention of Deckner, as suggested by Hu, with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Hu teaches that electrospun nanofibers improve product stability as well as allow for more readily released actives onto the skin’s surface, thereby, enhancing skin permeability and restoring its youthful state.
Regarding instant claim 16, Deckner and Hu teach the elements discussed above. Hu also teaches that different ratios of polyethylene oxide (PEO)/collagen peptide solutions were compared and it was found that PEO in a concentration of 9% and collagen peptide in an amount of 0%, 10%, 15% and 20% yielded a viscosity that allowed for continuous fibers (page 4, 2nd paragraph). Hu meets the claim limitations for two reasons. Hu teaches the inclusion of nanofibers allow for quick release of actives which would alter dissolution behavior and Hu further teaches that an additive that adjusts the viscosity improves electrospinning continuity.
Regarding instant claim 17, Deckner and Hu teach the elements discussed above. Deckner further teaches the optional inclusion of penetration enhancers (page 23, lines 18-19) and Hu further teaches that PEO is a crystalline and thermoplastic water-soluble material that is completely soluble in water and has high solution viscosity (page 2, 2nd paragraph). The instant specification states that penetration enhancing ingredients may additionally function as plasticizers, humectants, solvents, and/or viscosity-modifying agents within the composition and names the particular penetration enhancer, polyethylene glycol (PEG) ([0040]-[0041]). It is noted that PEO and PEG are known as chemical synonyms. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a penetration enhancer in the invention of Deckner/Hu with a reasonable expectation of success because both Deckner generally teaches that penetration enhancers are suitable in a skincare mask and Hu exemplifies PEO as a known penetration enhancer, viscosity-modifying agent and effective in electrospinning continuity.
Thus, the combined teachings of Deckner and Hu render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deckner et al. (WO 01/78678 A1, Oct. 25, 2001, hereafter as “Deckner”) as evidenced by Michigan State University (“Exploring Ingredients – Occlusives & Emollients”, Apr. 26, 2021, hereafter as “MSU”) and Purnamawati et al. (“The Role of Moisturizers in Addressing Various Kinds of Dermatitis: A Review, Cin Med Res. 2017 Dec; 15 (3-4): 75-87; hereafter as “Purnamawati”), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kiehl’s (see PTO-892).
The claimed invention is described above.
Deckner teaches the elements discussed above.
Deckner is silent to the particular layers, a toning layer, an essence layer, a serum layer and a moisturizer layer.
Kiehl’s teaches that the correct skincare routine order is important in order to get the most out of your chosen products (1st paragraph). Kiehl’s teaches a toner step, an essence step, a serum step, and a moisturizing step as steps that are effective in layering your skincare products.
Both Deckner and Kiehl’s are drawn to skincare, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the particular layers, a toning layer, an essence layer, a serum layer and a moisturizer layer in the invention of Deckner, as suggested by Kiehl’s, with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Deckner generally teaches a skincare mask that can have multiple layers that release sequentially as well as toning, essence, serum, and moisturizing ingredients and Kiehl’s teaches the particular order in which the ingredients should be separately applied. One of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected a skincare mask having multiple layers including a toning layer, an essence layer, a serum layer and a moisturizer layer that release sequentially to the skin.
Thus, the combined teachings of Deckner and Kiehl’s render the instant claim prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
All claims have been rejected; no claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY HAGOPIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6097. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 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, Sue Liu can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CASEY S HAGOPIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights