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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/02/2025 has been entered.
Current Status of 17/294,829
Claims 1-8, 13-16, and 18-25 are examined. Claims 1, 13-14, 16, and 19-21 are amended and claims 22-25 are new.
Applicants previously elected sodium dilauramidoglutamide lysine (as a species of anionic surfactant) and cedrol (as a species of poorly soluble ingredient).
Priority
The instant application is a national stage entry of PCT/KR2019/010157, filed 08/09/2019, and claims foreign priority to KR10-2018-0142721, filed 11/19/2018.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
A review of the file wrapper indicates a foreign language priority document. However, since it is not in English, a judgement cannot be made as to whether it supports the instant claims, which is required to perfect foreign priority. The conditions of 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f) are not met.
Therefore, the effective filing date for the instant claims is the international filing date of 8/9/2019.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ claim amendments and Remarks of 9/5/2025 are acknowledged and have been considered.
Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed or modified below is herein withdrawn.
In regard to the 103 rejection, this rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s remarks with Examiner’s reply are summarized below:
Claim 1 is amended to exclude high-pressure emulsion.
Applicants submit that conventional stabilization methods require high-pressure emulsification process. The instant method solves problems associated with conventional stabilization methods.
Applicants submit that the invention does this (see tables 1-9).
Lee is different from the claim method (since it uses a high-pressure emulsification process).
Applicants added new claims 22-25, which are enabled and have written support.
Response to Amendment
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 13-16, 18, 20-22, and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JUNG (WO2017030409).
JUNG anticipates a cosmetic composition (page 5) containing hydrogenated/saturated lecithin and dilauramidoglutamide lysine (page 4, Example 1’s Table 1). JUNG anticipates this composition being made by a method of stabilizing a poorly soluble ingredient (ceramide, table 1) by mixing (page 6). JUNG mixes using a “homomixer” (page 6) (which is not a high-pressure emulsifier). This anticipates claims 1-2. Ceramide is a poorly soluble ingredient of instant claim 8.
JUNG anticipates a weight ratio of (3.00%/0.10%=30) which is within range of claim 3.
JUNG anticipates hydrogenated lecithin is contained (3%/99.7% total = 0.3wt%) of claim 4.
JUNG anticipates the anionic surfactant (sodium Dilauramidoglutamide lysine) is (0.1%/99.7%= 0.1003%) relative to the total weight of the cosmetic composition of claim 5.
JUNG anticipates the cosmetic composition further comprises macadamia nut oil (table 1) of claim 6.
JUNG anticipates ceramide (table 1) of claim 8.
JUNG anticipates this composition is a stable composition (page 2) of claim 22. Applicants are reminded that the office does not have the facilities and resources to provide the factual evidence needed in order to establish that the product of the prior art does not possess the same material, structural and functional characteristics of the claimed product. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the burden is on the applicant to prove that the claimed product is different from those taught by the prior art and to establish patentable differences. See In re Best 562F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Gray 10 USPQ 2d 1922 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
JUNG anticipates the mixing ratio of the hydrogenated lecithin and the anionic surfactant is (3/.1=30) which anticipates claims 13-16 and 18.
JUNG anticipates the hydrogenated lecithin is 3wt% relative to the total weight of the composition (table 1) which anticipates claim 20.
JUNG anticipates the anionic surfactant is 0.10wt% relative to the total weight of the composition (table 1) which anticipates claim 21.
JUNG is silent on the storage and decomposition/stability properties of the composition. However, the storage and decomposition/stability properties of a chemical composition are an inherent property. See MPEP 2112.01: “Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical products, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established”. JUNG’s composition is identical to the instant composition. Furthermore, the decomposition/stability and storage of JUNG’s composition would occur identically to the instant composition. Additionally, the limitation “stable mixture” in instant claim 22 is not defined nor does it add any components which would enhance, and thus differentiate, the “stable mixture” from the composition of instant claim 1. This anticipates claims 22, 24 and 25.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8, 13-16, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JUNG (WO2017030409), in view of REDAVID (“Cedarwood Shampoo”, Redavid, April 4, 2019, previously cited) and in view of MARTIN (Nathalie Martin, “So what the heck is micellar shampoo anyway?”, WOAH STYLE, January 4, 2018, previously cited).
JUNG teaches claims 1-6, 8, 13-16, 18, 20-22, and 24-25 above.
JUNG teaches the cosmetic composition can be a hair care composition (page 3).
JUNG does not teach cedrol or micelles.
REDAVID teaches a Cedarwood Shampoo, containing cedarwood oil (oil of instant claim 6) which includes cedrol, (page 1). Cedarwood oil deep cleanses and invigorates hair as well as smells pleasant (page 2).
The artisan would have been motivated to add cedrol to LEE’s hair shampoo in order to make JUNG’s hair care composition smell better and to enhance hair cleaning. The artisan would have been motivated to add Cedrol, known to smell good, to a hair care composition of JUNG (REDAVID pages 1-2) and the artisan would have expected cedrol to compatible within a shampoo (REDAVID). The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See MPEP 2144.IV. This teaches claim 19.
Martin teaches Micellar shampoo (title), which contains micelles (page 3).
Martin teaches that micelles work well at washing away oil because one side is attracted to oil and the other end is attracted to water (laymen’s terms for hydrophilic and hydrophobic) (page 3).
Martin teaches that micellar shampoo cleans away gunk in one’s hair without over stripping the oil (page 4).
The artisan would have found it obvious to add micelles to a shampoo since they are well known components in shampoo and since they enhance removal of oil and dirt (Martin pages 3-4). It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose (In re Kerkhoven). See MPEP 2144.06(I).
Since Micelles are known to be able to attract hydrophobic and hydrophilic particles/compounds (Martin page 3), the artisan would have expected the micelle to contain cedrol (hydrophobic), hydrogenated lecithin (emulsifier, which is amphiphilic), and Sodium Dilauramidoglutamide lysine (emulsifier, which is amphiphilic). This teaches claims 7 and 23.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed as written.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILLIAN A HUTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-6323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at 571-272-0913. 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.
/G.A.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1625 /Andrew D Kosar/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625