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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 03/11/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments are in response to in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/11/2025. Applicant’s claims have been amended in the following manner: independent claim 1 has been modified by inclusion of “a volume average particle size (D50) of the white particles is from 0.3 to 25 um” (supported by Applicant’s Specification on pg 4), such that a new ground of rejection is prompted by the amendment. The following objections/rejections are withdrawn: none.
The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are pending.
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are presented for examination and rejected as set forth below.
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 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 20170112736A1), as evidenced by IFST (2017), and in further view of Lindemann (US20040258639A1) and Ricard (US 20180243177 A1).
Applicant’s claims are directed to a composition (i.e., an emulsion) comprising (i) 2-10 wt% white particles (ii) an anionic terpolymer (with specified limitations) and (iii) an emulsifier system comprising (a) an alkyl phosphate salt (b) a polyoxyethylene oxide C12-24 fatty acid ester, and (c) a glyceryl C12-C24 fatty acid ester. In claim 1, a new limitation of “a volume average particle size (D50) of the white particles is from 0.3 to 25 um” is featured. Note that the brightening or whitening effect is an intended use that generally does not add patentable weight for the composition.
Meyer teaches a cosmetic composition which is useful for lightening skin and hair [0001], including whitening (Table 5), preferably applied topically to keratin fibers [0271], that also provides sun protection (abstract) and avoids skin irritation [0012].
Regarding claims 1-3: Meyer teaches a composition comprising inorganic pigments in 0.5-10 wt% such as titanium dioxide, silica, and mixtures thereof (reads on white particles of claim 1(i)) [0141-0142], anionic polymers (reads on claim 2(ii)) [0200], mono-, di and trialkyl phosphates and mono-, di- and/or tri-PEG-alkyl phosphates and salts thereof (reads on alkyl phosphate salt of claim 1(iii)(a)) [0176], polyethylene glycol (reads on polyoxyethylene oxide) monoester and diesters of C12-22 fatty acids (reads on claim 1(iii)(b)) [0169, 0197] such as PEG-3 distearate (pg 18, Table 5, composition 12), and polyol (reads on glyceryl) fatty acid esters or monoglycerides (reads on claim 1(iii)(c)) [0194] such as glyceryl stearate (pg 18, Table 5, composition 8). With respect to the amount of inorganic pigments, "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (see 2144.05(I)).
Meyer teaches the composition can be prepared as oil-in-water type (O/W) emulsion (reads on an emulsion that comprises an oily phase dispersed in a continuous aqueous phase, as evidenced on pg 2 by IFST under ‘characterizing emulsions’, which defines the structure of an O/W emulsion generally) [0137] and the composition is useful for lightening skin and hair [0001] preferably applied topically to keratin fibers [0271]. In addressing the content of the continuous aqueous phase (which will be principally made of water), Meyer teaches that the O/W emulsion [0259] can contain up to 99 wt% water [0261] (thus, Meyer’s water range within an O/W emulsion encompasses the instant continuous aqueous phase range of 70-90 wt% because IFST teaches O/W emulsions to have continuous aqueous phases), and Meyer demonstrates an O/W emulsion that contains 84.65 wt% water in Table 3.2 (i.e., reads within the instant range of 75-90 wt% for the continuous aqueous phase) that is used to study the depigmentation of skin [0281-0282].
Regarding claim 6: Meyer teaches monoalkyl phosphates and mono-PEG-alkyl phosphates and salts thereof [0176] and potassium cetyl phosphate, where the teachings read on formula (II) (pg 19, Table 5, compositions 5 and 6).
Regarding claim 7: Meyer teaches the composition comprises surfactants such as the alkyl phosphate salts in 0.5 to 5 wt%, a range overlapping and therefore rendering obvious that of the instant claims [0164].
Regarding claim 10-11: Meyer teaches glyceryl stearate in 2 wt% (pg 18, Table 5, composition 8).
Regarding claim 14: Meyer teaches a cosmetic process to lighten skin and hair by applying the composition topically to keratin fibers [0271].
In summary, Meyer teaches an O/W emulsion composition comprising titanium dioxide, an anionic polymer, potassium cetyl phosphate, PEG monoester and diesters of fatty acids, and glyceryl stearate. Meyer teaches anionic polymers in the composition in general [0200]. However, Meyer does not teach the specified anionic polymer of the “wherein” clause (instant claim 1), the volume average particle size (D50) of the white particles is from 0.3 to 25 um (instant claim 1), and amount required of the anionic terpolymer (instant claim 5).
Lindemann teaches decorative skincare products (title) for whitening [0039], smooth feel, and shimmering sheen (i.e., brightening) [0018, 0113] with metal oxide pigments (e.g., titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, tin oxides and iron oxides [0031]) with a particle size of from 5 to 50 μm (overlapping the instant range of 0.3-25 um in claim 1) in a concentration of from 0.1 to 7% by weight (abstract) and is in emulsion form [0033-0034], that also provides sun protection [0049, 0111]. With regard to the numerical range, note that "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (see 2144.05(I)).
Ricard teaches an aqueous gel for caring for keratin materials (abstract), that improves brightness of the skin [0010-0011, 0039]. Ricard incorporates an anionic terpolymer used according to the invention is a linear or branched and/or crosslinked terpolymer, of at least one monomer (1) bearing an acid function in free form, which is partially or totally salified with a nonionic monomer (2) chosen from N,N-dimethylacrylamide and 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate and at least one polyoxyethylenated alkyl acrylate monomer (3) of formula (I) [0366]. The associative anionic polymer can be used in 0.1-8 wt% of solids [0435], a range overlapping and therefore rendering obvious that of the instant claims. Ricard establishes that these kinds of anionic associative polymers are known to be useful in topical cosmetics [0435].
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the 5-50 um particle size taught for metal oxide pigments of Lindemann for the general teaching of metal oxide particles by Meyer (who is silent on particle size of inorganic pigments such as titanium dioxide and silica), because Lindemann demonstrates this 5-50 um particle size is suitable for a brightening cosmetic product (that has a smooth feel on skin [0018]), where Meyer provides the same use of the inorganic pigments for lightening skin and hair [0001] preferably applied topically to keratin fibers [0271]. With regard to the numerical range, note that "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (see 2144.05(I)). Thus, the instant range (of 0.3-25 um) for the white particles (i.e., the metal oxide/inorganic pigments such as titanium dioxide, silica, etc.) is obvious from Lindemann’s teaching of a 5-50 um particle size for metal oxide particles (e.g., titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, tin oxides and iron oxides [0031]), where there is a mutual interest in topical whitening and brightening cosmetic compositions, that are non-irritating and have good feeling on the skin.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the anionic polymers used by Meyer with the anionic terpolymers in the amounts described by Ricard. The selection of Ricard’s anionic polymer is simply the selection of a component known to be useful as the generic component taught by the primary reference Meyer [0200]. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Because Meyer teaches generically anionic polymers containing acids and acrylate esters [0200], it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply Ricard’s anionic terpolymers to Meyer’s teachings. Furthermore, Ricard has interested in cosmetic preparations that avoid discomfort [0052], while Meyer’s cosmetic compositions are non-irritating to skin [0012].
Claims 1-3 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer (US 20170112736A1), Lindemann (US20040258639A1), and Ricard (US 20180243177 A1), as evidenced by IFST (2017), as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 10-11, and 14 above, and in further view of Mendrok-Edinger (US 20140328777 A1).
As discussed above, the Prior Art teaches a cosmetic composition, which is useful for lightening skin and hair preferably applied topically to keratin fibers, including an O/W emulsion comprising titanium dioxide (of a specified particle size), an anionic terpolymer (as specified by instant claim 1), potassium cetyl phosphate and salts thereof, PEG monoester and diesters of fatty acids such as glyceryl stearate. Meyer also teaches PEG monoester and diesters of fatty acids [0162, 0169] generally as surfactants for the purpose of emulsification. However, they do not teach the specified PEG substances and amounts (instant claims 8-9), and all of the compositional amounts (instant claims 12-13).
Mendrok-Edinger teaches a sunscreen composition for topical use (abstract) that can be in the form of a O/W emulsion [0044]. Mendrok-Edinger teaches the O/W emulsifier PEG-100 stearate (reads on 100 units of PEG and stearic acid is a C18 fatty acid) [0046] in 0.5-5 wt% [0048].
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the O/W emulsifiers of Mendrok-Edinger with the teachings of Meyer and Ricard. Mendrok-Edinger teaches the above O/W emulsifiers to be useful in topical sunscreen compositions. The selection of these O/W emulsifier components disclosed by Mendrok-Edinger is simply the selection of a component known to be useful as a generic component taught by Meyer [0162, 0169].
With further respect to instant claims 12-13 and the ratios and amounts, Meyer teaches a composition comprising inorganic pigments in 0.5-10 wt% such as titanium dioxide and silica [0141-0142], alkyl phosphate salts [0176] such as potassium cetyl phosphate (pg 19, Table 5, compositions 5 and 6) in 0.5-5 wt% [0164], and glyceryl stearate in 2 wt% (pg 18, Table 5). Ricard teaches terpolymers defined by their structural monomers [0366-370] in an amount of 0.1 -8 wt% [0435]. Mendrok-Edinger teaches PEG-100 stearate in 0.5-5 wt% [0046-0048]. Furthermore, the “weight ratio R” of instant claim 12 is about 1:0.1-10:0.4-4 based on the teachings of Meyer and Mendrok-Edinger. In this case, the amounts taught by the combined prior art teachings, which relate to topical cosmetic compositions, encompass the ratios and amounts found in the instant claims 12-13, and thus, render the instant claims obvious. "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (see 2144.05(I)).
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments, see pg 7-10, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-14 under rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The 103 rejection has been modified with respect to amendments made to the claim set, by incorporation of Lindemann (US20040258639A1), where Lindemann teaches decorative skincare products (title) for whitening [0039] with metal oxide pigments (e.g., titanium dioxide, silicon dioxide, tin oxides and iron oxides) with a particle size of from 5 to 50 μm in a concentration of from 0.1 to 7% by weight (abstract), which reads on the newly amended limitation of the claim set.
On page 7-10, Applicant argues that the newly amended limitation of “a volume average particle size (D50) of the white particles is from 0.3 to 25 um” is not present in the combined Prior Art. However, Applicant’s amendment has prompted a new ground of rejection. Thus, the Applicant’s arguments as a whole are now moot, as Lindemann demonstrates the instant range as obvious.
Correspondence
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJAN PRAGANI whose telephone number is (703)756-5319. The examiner can normally be reached 7a-5p EST (M-Th).
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, Ali Soroush can be reached on 571-272-9925. 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.
/R.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1614 4/16/2026
/SEAN M BASQUILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights