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
Claims 1-4 and 6-17 are pending in a Response of 07/10/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/10/2026 was filed before the mailing date of the instant action on the merits. The submission thereof is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. It is noted that the foreign references have only been considered to the extent that an English language abstract, translation or statement of relevance has been provided to the examiner. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner, and signed and initialed copy is enclosed herewith.
Withdrawn rejections:
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 07/10/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below are herein withdrawn.
The following rejection and/or objection are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejection and/or objection presently being applied to the instant application.
New Grounds of Objection/Rejection --- as necessitated by amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7 and 13 are objected to minor informalities under 37 CFR 1.75.
Claim 1 recites “trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (trans-1234ze)”, but which would be better to ““trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (=trans-1234ze)”.
Claim 7 recites “an adjuvant which aids …” in line 3, but which would be better to recite “the one or more adjuvants which aid”.
Claim 13 reciting “said mouse is a leave-on mouse” but which should be corrected to “said mousse is a leave-on mousse”.
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 7 and 15 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 7 recites “said surface tension modifier” in lines 1-2, but which lacks sufficient antecedent basis because base claim 1 recites “one or more surface tension reducing agents” instead of surface tension modifier, and thus, it should be corrected to “said one or more surface tension reducing agents”.
Claim 15 recites “said adjuvant”, but which lacks sufficient antecedent basis because ambiguity arises to determine whether a dependent claim (the/said) limitation refers to one or more than one element that is previously presented, either in the same claim or a preceding claim. See also MPEP 2173.05(e). Applicant may amend the claims to recite “said one or more adjuvant”.
Appropriate correction is requested.
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 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.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art
(MPEP 2141.03)
MPEP 2141.03 (I) states: “The “hypothetical ‘person having ordinary skill in the art’ to which the claimed subject matter pertains would, of necessity have the capability of understanding the scientific and engineering principles applicable to the pertinent art.” Ex parte Hiyamizu, 10 USPQ2d 1393, 1394 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988). The level of skill is that of a cosmetic research scientist, as is the case here, then one can assume comfortably that such an educated artisan will draw conventional ideas from cosmetics, medicine, pharmacy, physiology and chemistry— without being told to do so.
In addition, the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level (MPEP 2141.03(II)).
Claims 1-4 and 6-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banowski (WO2012/084970A1, citation is obtained from the previously attached Google English Translation, of record) or in view of Zhao (US2018/0110704A, IDS of 11/10/2025).
Applicant claims the below claim 1 filed on 07/10/2026:
PNG
media_image1.png
470
826
media_image1.png
Greyscale
For examination purpose, the term “consisting essentially of” in line 7 is construed as “comprising” according to MPEP 2111.03 that “For the purposes of searching for and applying prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, absent a clear indication in the specification or claims of what the basic and novel characteristics actually are, “consisting essentially of” will be construed as equivalent to “comprising.” The present specification does not appear to have such indication of “consisting essentially of” therein. Therefore, under this 103 rejection, such transitional language of “consisting essentially of” is interpreted to “comprising” for examination purpose.
Prior Art
Banowski discloses foamable cosmetic composition containing foaming agents for skin and body care (title); the composition is provided in the form of mousse (e.g., page 27 and 31-32 of translation); in the embodiment, the cosmetic composition comprises mousse composition and foaming agent (=blowing agent), wherein the mousse care composition no. 1 comprises dicaprylyl ether 5.0%, 2-ethylhexyl palmitate 5.0%, cetearyl alcohol 2.0%, Cutina MD (glycerol mono distearate, from BASF/BASF) 1.0%, dimethicone 0.5% viscosity 350 est., panthenol 0.5%, Tego Care CG 90 (Cetearyl Glucoside) 1.0%, glycerin 5.0%, concentration 86%, Karion F (sorbitol 70%) 3.0%, phenoxyethanol/Methyl/Ethyl/Butyl/Propyl/Isobutyl phydroxybenzoate total 1.0%, perfume 0.35%, and water add 100% with respect to the blowing agent (e.g., pages 31-32 of translation), and i.e., from the calculations, 92% of the facial mousse care composition is used with respect to 8% of the particularly preferably referred blowing agent trans 1, 3, 3, 3-tetrafluoropropene (=trans-1234ze) (page 26, last fourth and last paragraphs of translation, pages 31-32 of the translation, and claims 11-12 of prior art) which reads on the claimed blowing agent consisting of Trans-1234ze and the said 92/8 composition can form a soft and stable fine and dense foam (e.g., pages 6 and 32 of translation); in this embodiment the water as sole carrier is used in an amount of 75.65% x 92/100 (%) = 69.598% of the total weight of the composition which reads on the claimed carrier (i) and the amount about 70% of prior art is within the claimed range of from about 50% to about 90%; dicaprylyl ether, 2-ethylhexyl palmitate, cetearyl alcohol and Cutina MD (glyceryl mono/distearate), all of them belong to surfactant class, all of them together constitute 13% x 92/100(%) = 11.96% of the total weight of the composition which reads on the claimed surface tension reducing agent (ii) and the amount 11.96% of the prior art is within the claimed amount of about 0.5% to about 20% or about 6% to about 20%; trans-1234ze as the sole blowing agent comprises 8% of the total weight of the composition (e.g., page 32 of translation and the Examples) which reads on the claimed ingredient (iii) and the amount 8% of prior art is within the claimed range of 7. 5% to about 10%, and further, this prior art teaches the composition/blowing agent weight ratio of 5/95 to 95/5 or 10/90 to 90/10 (page 26 of translation, last second paragraph); sorbitol, panthenol (vitamin B5), and/or butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane that reads on as the optional active agent (iv) for e.g., face care or sunscreen mousse that reads on the claimed component to protect skin from sun and other ingredients such as perfume in an amount of 0.3% or 0.5% in facial care mousse (pages 30-31 of translation) that overlaps the instant range of less than 3% and phenoxyethanol/Methyl/Ethyl/Butyl/Propyl/Isobutyl paraben reads on the claimed optional adjuvants (v)(instant claims 1, 4, 6, 11 and 14-16); Banowski further teaches the said composition is contained in a suitable pressure vessel spray-can or spray-dispenser (pages 27 and 32 of translation) which reads on the claimed article (instant claim 10); further, Banowski teaches water in an amount of 97% at the maximum (claim 1 of prior art) which reads on the claimed at least 90% (instant claim 2). Further Banowski teaches trans-1,2,3,4-ze as the sole blowing agent in the said embodiment of page 32 and thus reads on the claimed at least about 40% of trans-1234ze (instant claim 3). Banowski further teaches as the additional blowing agent, propane and isobutane (page 6) could be used because they have a low solubility in water (page 6); Banowski further teaches the amount of surfactant 0.5-20% (e.g., claim 12 of prior art) and thus the surfactant may present less than 3% and in that case other adjuvant would also be contained (e.g., claim 12 of prior art) in order to enhance foaming properties (instant claim 7). Banowski does not expressly teach a method of treating a human, but it would be implicit because the cosmetic composition comprising the said blowing agent and composition is applied for skin and body care of human (e.g., abstract), and mousse composition is applied to face skin (pages 31-32 of translation) and therefore the prior art teaches/suggests the claimed method (instant claim 8). Banowski teaches cocamidopropyl betaine as a zwitterionic surfactant (page 9) and thus the mousse composition for applying to skin could/would contain this surfactant. Other species of surfactant recited in instant claim 9 would be obvious variation and the ordinary artisan would select as a matter of choice. Although Banowski does not expressly teach mousse density properties, it would be implicit. See In re Spada above (instant claims 9 and 12); and the composition is provided in the form of leave-on mousse (page 29 of translation)(instant claim 13).
Although Banowski does not expressly teach the exact claimed ranges of (i)-(v), this prior art teaches overlapping ranges as noted above. In this regard, please see MPEP 2144.05 states that [I]n the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
In the alternative, Zhao discloses aerosol hair care composition comprising HFO foaming agent due to unique advantage over the use of low vapor pressure hydrocarbon foaming agents in that it enables significantly higher foam densities (approximately 2x greater) versus hydrocarbon propellants, and the HFO has been found to result in gloss or shine of the dispensed foam ([0182] of Zhao). Therefore, it would have been obvious to select HFO of Zhao from various blowing agents of Banowski in order to get the benefits of HFO and enhance the properties (e.g., gloss or shine) of the dispensed foam, as taught by Zhao.
In light of the foregoing, instant claims 1-4 and 6-16 are obvious over Banowski or in view of Zho.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in view of removing the Zhao reference (US2018/0344611A1) disclosing outside range of the foaming agent.
Further, Applicant does not provide any arguments against the 103 rejection based on Banowski. However, the Examiner would like to address the followings: the alleged unexpected results would be expected because Banowski clearly teaches (i)-(v) ingredients as noted above; as the blowing agent “trans-1234ze” is particularly preferred (e.g., page 26 of translation and claims 11-12 of prior art wherein the blowing agent consists of trans-1234ze) and the embodied mousse compositions nos. 1-2 contain blowing agent trans-1234ze (=HFO)(see page 32 of translation) and therefore selecting such blowing agent would be obvious among hundreds of blowing agents; and the Examples referring to facial care mousse 1 and 2 contains 8% CF3CH=CHF (= trans-1234ze) (e.g., page 32 of translation) in which the amount is within the claimed range of 7.5 to about 10%. Therefore, the claimed alleged unexpected results would be expected.
In light of the foregoing, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banowski (WO2012/084970A1, citation is obtained from the previously attached Google English Translation, of record) in view of Zhao et al. (US2018/0110704A1, IDS of 11/25/2025).
Applicant claims the below claim 17 filed on 07/10/2026:
PNG
media_image2.png
85
836
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Banowski was discussed noted above with respect to instant claim 1.
However, Banowski does not expressly teach density of mousse of instant claim 17. The deficiency is cured by Zhao.
Zhao discloses aerosol hair care composition comprising greater than about 3% HFO (=trans-1,2,3,4 ze), about 5 to about 45% of total surfactant, and solvent (abstract); the composition may be provided in the form of hair mousses ([0194]); the composition has a density of about 0.03 to about 0.35 g/ml or about 0.025 to about 0.15 g/ml (e.g., abstract, [0187], [0197] and claim 2 of prior art) which overlaps the instant range of 0.05 g/ml or less. MPEP 2144.05: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).”
It would have been obvious to modify or further define the mousse of Banowski with density of Zho in order to stably dispense foam from the container as taught by Zhao.
Conclusion
All claims examined are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying 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 KYUNG S CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1392. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Yong (Brian-Yong) S Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/KYUNG S CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights