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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 December 16th, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 16th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that there is no explicit disclosure in Grune that the N-acyl amino acid is bonded to zinc oxide via arginine and the reaction described in para. [0084] cannot be considered a reaction between arginine bonded zinc oxide and N-acyl amino acid and there is no example demonstrating the use of both arginine and an emulsifier (Remarks, page 10). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Grune discloses arginine fills all the bonding sites of zinc oxide (para. [0120]), that sodium stearoyl glutamate is a constituent and an emulsifier (Abstract) and the constituents are bonded (para. [0099]) in the complex (which includes the emulsifier – sodium stearoyl glutamate, Abstract) and the emulsifier is bound to the zinc oxide via the arginine because the arginine fills all the binding sites (para. [0120]) being the buffer (Abstract) undergoing a reaction (para. [0079]) and then sodium stearoyl glutamate may be added as an emulsifier (para. [0082]) which undergoes reaction (para. [0084]) where arginine is used with sodium stearoyl glutamate, for example: In example III, sodium stearoyl glutamate is used (para. [0171]) and arginine may first be added in step 2 (as stated in para. [0192]). Thus, the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claims 1-9, 11-21, 24 and 26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
It is noted that claim 1 would likely be allowable by amending to replace “contains the following components (a)-(d):” with “consists of the following components (a)-(d):” and replacing “(D1) amino acids having an isoelectric point of 7.5 to 11” with “histidine, lysine, arginine and salts thereof in a concentration of 0.5 to 15% by mass in the surface treating agent composition” (the combination of the limitations of claims 14 and 18) and replacing “(b) at least one selected from monohydric and polyhydric alcohols,” with “(b) at least one selected from ethanol, 2-propanol, pentanediol, dipropylene glycol, 1,3-butylene glycol, and pentylene glycol,” which is the limitation of claim 17 with glycerin removed.
Claim 9 would also likely be allowable by adding the above limitations (e.g. changing “comprising the following components (a) to (d):” to “consisting of the following components (a) to (d):” and specifying the identity and amount of amino acid (d) and the identity of the (b) alcohols as discussed above for claim 1).
Specifying the identity and amount of the amino acid (d) should overcome the disclosure of Suzuki et al. (US 20190060199) and teachings of other prior art of record while also specifying the identity of the alcohols should overcome the teachings of Grune (US 20120263661) and the teachings of other prior art of record.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 9 recites “(d1)” and it seems this could be removed as there is no longer a “(d2)” in the claims.
Claim 1 recites “a surface treating agent composition” in line 10. This should be changed to “the surface treating agent composition” (as the claim previously introduces “a surface treating agent composition” in line 3).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11-21, 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 20190060199) in view of Grune (US 20120263661) and Hata (US 20180371257).
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki et al. discloses a surface treatment method for a powder, the method comprising: (i) providing a surface treating agent composition (a composition which is mixed with powder and thus coating/treating the surface of the powder) wherein the surface treating agent composition contains the following components (a)-(d): (a) at least one selected from N-acyl amino acids having a carbon chain length of C8 to C22 and salts thereof (N-lauroyl glutamate, Table 6), (b) at least one selected from monohydric and polyhydric alcohols (ethanol and 1,3-butylene glycol, Table 6), (c) water (Table 6), and (d) at least one selected from (d1) amino acids having an isoelectric point of 7.5 to 11 (lauroyl-lysine, and octanoyl-lysine, Table 6).
Suzuki et al. does not explicitly disclose mixing 0.001 to 20 parts by mass of the surface treating agent composition based on 100 parts of the powder with the powder. However, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2144.05(III).
Further, Suzuki et al. discloses that a wide and overlapping range of concentrations of the amino acids relative to the powder may be used (para. [0017]) and Suzuki et al. teaches an embodiment using a relatively large amount of powder relative to other components (Table 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Suzuki wherein the method further includes (ii) mixing 0.001 to 20 parts by mass of the surface treating agent composition based on 100 parts by mass of the powder with the powder.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to mix such an amount in order to coat products which are mostly powder such as loose foundation powder (para. [0142]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Suzuki et al. (para. [0017]) overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Suzuki et al. further teaches that the process includes (iii) adding an acidic liquid, followed by mixing (para. [0063]).
Presumably Suzuki et al. has high transmittance in the visible spectrum including 660 nm (“natural translucency”, para. [0009]), but Suzuki et al. is silent as to a transmittance at 660 nm.
However, Suzuki et al. meets the claimed composition (the portion of the components in Table 6 comprising components (a)-(d)) and where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established and “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” See In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and MPEP 2112.01.
Therefore, the composition of Suzuki et al. would have a transmittance at a wavelength of 660 nm of 80% or more.
Otherwise, Grune further teaches that sunscreens containing particles have color due to the particles/powder (para. [0049]) rather than other ingredients whereas those which do not contain particles are transparent (para. [0046]). Therefore, Grune teaches the ingredients besides the powder/particles are transparent and would not significantly absorb or reflect red light and would be expected to meet the claimed transmittance. Further, Hata teaches improving red light transmission of powder (Abstract, and it is noted that this also indicates that powder is the ingredient which causes the blocking of red light) for use in cosmetics such as sunscreen (para. [0051]).
Therefore, assuming arguendo that Suzuki et al. does not disclose a transmittance at a wavelength of 660 nm of 80% or more as an intrinsic property, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the concentrations of the components of the composition to increase red light transmittance to at least 80% at a wavelength of 660 nm, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003) and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 3, as discussed above for claim 1, Suzuki et al. discloses an overlapping range (para. [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Suzuki et al. wherein the method further includes (ii) mixing 0.1 to 20 parts by mass of the surface treating agent composition based on 100 parts by mass of the powder with the powder.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to mix such an amount in order to coat products which are mostly powder such as loose foundation powder (para. [0142]).
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the proportions taught by Suzuki et al. overlap the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Suzuki et al. does not expressly disclose citric acid or sulfuric acid in the composition (of Table 6).
However, Suzuki et al. teaches that citric acid may be added (para. [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Suzuki et al. wherein the method further comprises adding citric acid.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use citric acid to adjust the pH (Suzuki et al., para. [0071]) such as if a batch is found to be too basic.
Regarding claim 7, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein the powder is at least one selected from the group consisting of resin powders, silicon-containing powders, metal oxides, carbon-containing powders, fluorine-containing powders, metal salts, boron-containing powders, composite powder crystals, and non-crystalline powders (titanium oxide, Table 6).
Regarding claim 9, Suzuki et al. discloses a surface treating agent composition (a composition which is mixed with powder and thus coating/treating the surface of the powder) comprising the following components (a) to (d): (a) at least one selected from N-acyl amino acids having a carbon chain length of C8 to C22 and salts thereof (sodium N-stearoyl glutamate, Table 8), (b) at least one selected from monohydric and polyhydric alcohols (glycerol and 1,3-butylene glycol, Table 8), (c) water (Table 8), and (d) at least one selected from (d1) amino acids having an isoelectric point of 7.5 to 11 (arginine, lauroyl-lysine, and octanoyl-lysine, Table 8).
Presumably Suzuki et al. has high transmittance in the visible spectrum including 660 nm (“natural translucency”, para. [0009]), but Suzuki et al. is silent as to a transmittance at 660 nm.
However, Suzuki meets the claimed composition (the portion of the components in Table 8 comprising components (a)-(d)) and where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established and “Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” See In re Spada, supra and MPEP 2112.01.
Therefore, the composition of Suzuki et al. would have a transmittance at a wavelength of 660 nm of 80% or more.
Otherwise, Grune further teaches that sunscreens containing particles have color due to the particles/powder (para. [0049]) rather than other ingredients whereas those which do not contain particles are transparent (para. [0046]). Therefore, Grune teaches the ingredients besides the powder/particles are transparent and would not significantly absorb or reflect red light and would be expected to meet the claimed transmittance. Further, Hata teaches improving red light transmission of powder (Abstract, and it is noted that this also indicates that powder is the ingredient which causes the blocking of red light) for use in cosmetics such as sunscreen (para. [0051]).
Therefore, assuming arguendo that Suzuki et al. does not disclose a transmittance at a wavelength of 660 nm of 80% or more as an intrinsic property, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the concentrations of the components of the composition to increase red light transmittance to at least 80% at a wavelength of 660 nm, particularly in view of the fact that:
“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” See In re Peterson, supra and MPEP 2144.05.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to increase red light transmittance (Hata, Abstract) in order to improve skin health or to increase visible light transmittance (including red light at 660 nm wavelength) to improve the appearance of the cosmetic on the skin (make more transparent, Grune, pars. [0046] and [0049]).
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein a concentration of (a) in the surface treating agent composition is 4 to 25% by mass (5%, Table 8).
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki et al. discloses a concentration of (b) in the surface treating agent composition is 3-80% by mass in that Suzuki discloses that alcohols are 2.5% of the total including powder (Table 8) and comprise about 7.5% by weight of the composition components (a)-(d) ([2.5 / (24+2.5+2.01+5)]*100 = 7.5%).
Otherwise, Suzuki et al. teaches adding alcohols (ethanol) as solvents (para. [0071]) or humectants (para. [0144]) and teaches embodiments comprising alcohols in the surface treating agent composition between 3 to 80% by mass (e.g. Table 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Suzuki et al. wherein a concentration of (b) in the surface treating agent composition is 3 to 80% by mass.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to increase the alcohol content from 2.5% to 3 to 80% by mass in order to achieve the predictable result of altering the thickness or retaining water.
Regarding claim 13, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein a concentration of (c) in the surface treating agent composition is 3 to 80% by mass (Table 8).
Regarding claim 14, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein a concentration of (d) in the surface treating agent composition is 0.5 to 15% by mass (2.01/ (24+2.5+2.01+5)]*100 = 6%).
Regarding claim 15, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein a solid content concentration in the surface treating agent composition is 10 to 23% by mass (water and the alcohols are liquid and the amino acid components are solid before being mixed into solution, using values from Table 8: [7.01/(24+2.5+5+2.01)]*100 = 21%).
Regarding claim 16, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein (a) in the surface treating agent composition includes at least one selected from myristoyl glutamic acid, sodium myristoyl glutamate, palmitoylglutamic acid, sodium palmitoylglutamate, stearoyl glutamic acid, sodium stearoyl glutamate, disodium stearoyl glutamate, and sodium oleoyl glutamate (stearoyl glutamic acid, Table 8).
Regarding claim 17, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein (b) in the surface treating agent composition includes at least one selected from ethanol, 2-propanol, glycerin, pentanediol, dipropylene glycol, 1,3-butylene glycol, and pentylene glycol (1,3-butylene glycol, Table 8).
Regarding claim 18, Suzuki et al. discloses wherein (d) in the surface treating agent composition includes at least one amino acid selected from histidine, lysine, and arginine (arginine, Table 8).
Regarding claim 19, Suzuki et al. does not expressly disclose sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, and sodium hydrogen carbonate in the composition.
However, Suzuki et al. teaches that potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide may be added (para. [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Suzuki et al. wherein the composition further comprises at least one selected from sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, potassium carbonate, and sodium hydrogen carbonate.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide to adjust the pH (Suzuki et al., para. [0071]).
Regarding claim 20, Suzuki et al. does not expressly disclose the composition includes at least one selected from fatty acids having a carbon chain length of C8 to C22 and salts thereof.
However, Suzuki et al. teaches fatty acids having a carbon chain length of C8 to C22 may be added (“myristic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid , oleic acid etc”, para. [0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Suzuki et al. wherein the composition further comprises at least one selected from fatty acids having a carbon chain length of C8 to C22 and salts thereof.
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to add fatty acid as an emulsifier and/or to thicken the cosmetic or assist in moisture retention.
Regarding claim 21, the combined teaching of the above-cited references for claim 1 disclose a powder treated by the method according to claim 1 (see comments for claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 24, Suzuki discloses a cosmetic composition comprising: the powder according to claim 21 (Abstract, see comments for claim 21 above).
Regarding claim 26, Suzuki et al. discloses the acyl component constituting the N-acyl group of (a) is selected from the group consisting of: myristoyl groups, palmitoyl groups, stearoyl groups, behenoyl groups, palmitoleoyl groups, oleoyl groups, and a linoleoyl group (stearoyl, Table 8).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 20190060199) in view of Grune (US 20120263661) and Hata (US 20180371257) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kwon et al. (US 20210361554A1).
Regarding claim 2, Suzuki et al. does not disclose dropping or spraying.
However, Kwon et al. discloses a surface treatment method (“adsorbed on surface”, abstract) for a cosmetic powder (abstract) and Kwon et al. discloses the method may be completed using wet (para. [0018]) or dry methods (para. [0019]) wherein the wet method involves mechanical mixing (stirring, homogenizing, para. [0018]) and the dry method involves spraying (para. [0019]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Suzuki et al. wherein in step (ii), the surface treating agent composition is mixed by spraying (Kwon et al., para. [0019]) as a substitute for mechanical mixing (Kwon et al., pars. [0018]-[0019], claim 7).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a dry process which includes spraying (Kwon et al., para. [0019]) and thereby achieve the predictable and equivalent result of mixing a composition (Kwon et al., claim 7).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 20190060199) in view of Grune (US 20120263661) and Hata (US 20180371257) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Suzuki (applicant provided translation of JP 2018008910A).
Regarding claim 4, Suzuki et al. does not expressly disclose a mixer.
However, Suzuki discloses a surface treatment method for a powder (zinc oxide nanoparticles, abstract), the method comprising: mixing a surface treating agent with powder (zinc oxide is mixed with N-acyl amino acid, para. [0022]), (iii) adding an acidic liquid (para. [0023] or para. [0052]), followed by mixing (para. [0023]) and Suzuki further teaches the mixing is performed using a mixer selected from the group consisting of high-speed stirring type mixers, container rotary type mixers, container rotary type mixers with a stirrer, mechanical stirring type mixers, airflow stirring type mixers, and compression/shear/impact type mixers (propeller mixer at 1,500 rpm, para. [0067], broadly meets at least “high-speed stirring type mixers” and “mechanical stirring type mixers”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Suzuki et al. wherein a high-speed stirring type mixer or mechanical stirring type mixer is used in steps (ii) and (iii).
The person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select a known mixer to produce the predictable result of mixing a composition.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 20190060199) in view of Grune (US 20120263661) and Hata (US 20180371257) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Montoya et al. (US 20190183751A1).
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki et al. teaches adding acid (such as hydrochloric acid or the like, para. [0063], or citric acid for adjusting pH, para. [0071]), but is silent as to the amount of acidic liquid.
However, the person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to select any amount needed to adjust the pH to the desired level or to add an amount determined through routine experimentation, such as 0.01 to 15 parts by mass to achieve the desired result. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Further, Montoya et al. discloses coating powders/particles (abstract) used in cosmetic/sunscreen (para. [0136]) and Montoya et al. further teaches adding a pH adjuster in an amount of 0.015 parts by mass which corresponds to about 0.8 parts by mass based on 100 parts by mass of the powder (which would include first mica, second mica, and the pearlescent pigments, Table 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Suzuki et al. wherein in the step (iii), the acidic liquid is mixed in an amount of 0.01 to 15 parts by mass (such as 0.8 as discussed above) based on 100 parts by mass of the powder.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use known relative quantities and thereby achieve the predictable result of adjusting pH.
Further, in regard to the relative amount of acidic liquid, the examiner has found that the specification contains no disclosure of any unexpected results arising therefrom, and that as such the parameters are arbitrary and therefore obvious. Such unsupported limitations cannot be a basis for patentability, because where patentability is said to be based upon particular chosen parameters or upon another variable recited in a claim, the applicant must show that the chosen parameters/variables are critical. See In re Woodruff, supra and MPEP 2144.05(III).
With respect to the limitation of the acidic liquid amount range, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have conducted the method of Suzuki et al. with the range recited in the instant claims, which are now considered at most an optimum choice, lacking any disclosed criticality.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 20190060199) in view of Grune (US 20120263661) and Hata (US 20180371257) as applied to claim 1 above and in further view of Kenji et al. (previously attached translation of applicant disclosed JP 2019099480A).
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki et al. is silent as to a drying step without using power or an apparatus.
However, Kenji et al. teaches a surface treatment method for a metal oxide powder where the coated powder has an oil and aqueous component (para. [0005]) where the aqueous component includes monohydric or dihydric alcohols (para. [0011]) and Kenji et al. teaches that a drying step is omitted when using a wet method.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Suzuki et al. wherein a wet method is used which omits a drying step such that the method is “free of a drying step using power and an apparatus”.
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a wet method where a drying step is omitted to simplify the process (eliminate drying time or equipment).
Claims 22-23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grune (US 20120263661) in view of Elliot (US 20060222610).
Regarding claim 22, Grune discloses a cosmetic powder (sunscreens and cosmetics, Abstract, containing zinc oxide powder, para. [0072]) comprising, on a surface (zinc oxide complex, Abstract) thereof:
(a) at least one selected from N-acyl amino acids having a carbon chain length of C8 to C22 and salts thereof (sodium stearoyl glutamate, Abstract, which is C18 and a type of salt); and
(b) at least one selected from amino acids having an isoelectric point of 7.5 to 11 (arginine, Abstract, which has an isoelectric point of approximately 10.76).
While Grune does not explicitly state that wherein component (a) is bound via component (b), component (b) would be bound in the complex via component (b) because Grune teaches arginine fills all the bonding sites of zinc oxide (para. [0120]), that sodium stearoyl glutamate is a constituent and an emulsifier (Abstract) and the constituents are bonded (para. [0099]) in the complex (which includes the emulsifier – sodium stearoyl glutamate, Abstract) and the emulsifier is bound to the zinc oxide via the arginine because the arginine fills all the binding sites and then undergoes reaction with sodium stearoyl glutamate, the emulsifier (para. [0084]). Grune discloses mixing arginine with N-acyl amino acids having a carbon chain length of C8 to C22 and salts thereof (sodium stearoyl glutamate is mixed with L-arginine because Eumulgin® SG is sodium stearoyl glutamate, para. [0082], which is mixed with L-arginine as indicated by what is stated in the following three paragraphs: [0163], [0171] and [0192]). Therefore, the sodium stearoyl glutamate is bound via the arginine because arginine fills all the bonding sites on the zinc oxide before the emulsifier reacts or interacts to form a bond.
Otherwise, Elliot teaches a composition for use in sunscreen (para. [0016]) comprising metal oxide (including zinc oxide, para. [0041]) and Elliot teaches bonding the emulsifier to the complex (para. [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Grune wherein the emulsifier ( Grune, sodium stearoyl glutamate, Abstract) is bonded to the complex (Grune, having l-arginine filling all the bonding sites of the zinc oxide, para. [0120], such that the emulsifier would be bound to the zinc oxide via l-arginine because there would be no bonding sites available on the zinc oxide for direct bonding of the emulsifier).
The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to bond component (a) via component (b) in order to prevent bridging and diffusion of the emulsifier (Grune, sodium stearoyl glutamate, Abstract) away from the complex (Elliot, para. [0008]).
Regarding claim 23, Grune discloses the complex comprises, on the surface thereof: (b) at least one selected from monohydric and polyhydric alcohols (glycerine, Abstract, para. [0171]).
Regarding claim 25, Grune discloses a cosmetic composition comprising: the powder according to claim 22 (Abstract, see comments for claim 22 above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Meguro et al. (Applicant disclosed EP 0139481A2) discloses formulations which contain N-acyl amino acids (page 1, line 3) having a carbon chain length of C8 to C22 (page 1, line 10) formed by reacting fatty acid chloride in a solution of an amino acid, which may include lysine (page 4, lines 25-30) and which would have an isoelectric point between 7.5-11 due to containing a lysine group, where N-acyl amino acid is used for surface modification of particles (page 6, lines 6-10) including cosmetic powders (page 7, line 25) which may be mixed with alcohol (page 41, line 25) and where neutralization is conducted (page 24, line 10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK M MCCARTY whose telephone number is (571)272-4398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 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, Claire Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/P.M.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1774
/CLAIRE X WANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1774