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 .
Status of Application
Receipt of Applicant’s remarks filed on January 30, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 28, 30, 32-40, 42-45, and 47-50 are pending in this application.
Claims 1-27, 29, 31, 41, and 46 have been cancelled. No claims have been amended.
All pending claims are under examination in this application.
Maintained Rejections
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.
Claims 28, 30, 32-37, 39-40, 42-44 and 47-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (WO 2014/012230; cited on IDS dated November 4, 2022), as evidenced by Paula’s Choice Skincare (Bismuth Oxychloride, accessed online November 20, 2024) and Unilong (Carbopol 980, accessed March 30, 2026), in view of Huerta et al. (US 7,416,719).
Liu discloses a cosmetic composition for caring for and/or make up keratin materials, in particular the skin of the face, comprising:
At least one scattering filter having a particle size of less than 35 mm;
At least one red or pink nacre; and
At least one blue nacre (abstract).
The composition can further comprise at least one organic or inorganic UV sunscreen (page 3, lines 23-26).
The nacres may include nacreous pigments such as mica coated with iron oxide, mica coated with bismuth oxychloride, mica coated with titanium oxide or dioxide, for example (page 5, lines 21-24).
Titanium dioxide is not recited as required component.
a. of Liu is disclosed to include bismuth oxychloride (page 3, line 1), which is a pearlescent pigment, as evidenced by Paula’s choice.
Example 1 discloses of Carbomer 980 (a polyacrylate polymer) and phenoxyethanol (an alcohol).
It is noted that Carbomer 980 has multiple functionality as a suspending agent, stabilizer, emulsifier, and thickener , as evidenced by Unilong.
Regarding claims 30, 43 and 50, as noted above, nacres include mica coated with iron oxide.
Regarding claims 32 and 49, as noted above, (a) is disclosed to include bismuth oxychloride (page 3, line 1).
Regarding claims 33-36, as noted above, the nacres and fillers are disclosed to include mica or silica/silica microspheres, which are substrates (page 5, lines 21-24; page 18, line 36 through page 19, line 7).
Regarding claim 37, as noted above, the at least one scattering filter having a particle size of less than 35 mm.
Regarding claim 38, soluble dyes are not a required component of the composition.
Regarding claim 39, as noted above, the composition can comprise at least one UV sunscreen. The UV sunscreen agents can include UV-A and/or UV-B agents which are hydrophilic and/or lipophilic (page 19, lines 30-32).
Regarding claim 40, the composition can be in the form of an oil in water emulsion (page 3, lines 16-19).
Regarding claim 42, claim 42 discloses the same components in the sunscreen composition of claim 28, with the addition of silica. Liu discloses the composition can additionally comprise at least one filler of organic or mineral nature. Examples of filled include silica and silica based fillers (page 18, line 12 through page 19, line 28).
Regarding claim 44, the emulsion type composition can be in the form of a cream (page 8, lines11-13).
Regarding claim 47, as noted above, the composition is applied to keratin materials, in particular the skin of the face (abstract) in the form of a sun protection composition (page 8, lines 8-10).
Liu does not disclose the use of avobenzone or the inclusion a glucoside into the emulsifier blend.
Huerta discloses a sunscreen composition that has at least one sunscreen agent and at least one glucoside emulsifier. The composition is disclosed as a stable oil in water emulsion (abstract).
The at least one sunscreen agent is disclosed to include avobenzone (claim 2) amongst a Markush grouping of overlapping agents disclosed by Liu.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have used any of the sun screen active agents, including avobenzone in place of the dibenzolymethane derivatives, cinnamic derivatives, benzophenone derivatives (page 20, lines 1-4) disclosed by Liu since Huerta discloses them to be functional equivalents.
Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have included the glucoside of Huerta in to the composition of Liu since Huerta discloses the inclusion of a glucoside imparts an enhanced soft, silky feel to the composition (claim 1).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (WO 2014/012230; cited on IDS dated November 4, 2022), as evidenced by Paula’s Choice Skincare (Bismuth Oxychloride, accessed online November 20, 2024) and Unilong (Carbopol 980, accessed March 30, 2026), in view of Huerta et al. (US 7,416,719) as applied to claims 28, 30, 32-37, 39-40 and 47-50 above, and further in view of KR20040021695 (hereinafter referred to as KR695).
The combination of Liu and Huerta is discussed above.
The combination does not disclose the formulation is in the form of a gel lotion.
KR695 discloses a cosmetic compositions. The compositions can be in the form of gel moisturizers (gel lotions).
It would have been obvious to prepare a formulation as a gel moisturizer, as disclosed by KR695 since it is discloses that the type of formulation provides a cosmetic composition having excellent moisture retention properties and high temperature stability in an emulsifying system mainly composed of an oil in water type emulsion.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner thanks Applicant for pointing out the typographical error of the Huerta et al. patent. The patent number has been corrected in the rejection statement.
Regarding the additional arguments, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argue:
*Carbopol 980 is an extremely efficient rheology modifier capable of providing high viscosity.
As noted in the modified evidentiary reference, Unilong discloses Carbomer 980 has multiple functionality as a suspending agent, stabilizer, emulsifier, and thickener.
*KR695 is drawn to humectants and not sunscreen compositions.
Lui discloses his composition can in various forms, preferably an emulsion. KR695 additionally discloses his compoisition is preferably in the form of an emulsion. He additionally discloses his humectant composition provided excellent moisture retaining properties and stability Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to prepare the composition of Lui are a gel moisturizer composition of KR695 in order to take advantage of the benefit cosmetic properties.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA S MERCIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30 am to 4 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, Robert A Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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.
/MELISSA S MERCIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights