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 .
DETAILED ACTION
STATUS OF THE CLAIMS: Claims 12-31 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 28, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made herein 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 12-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerg et al., (DE 102017202838).
Applicants claim the following cosmetic preparation:
PNG
media_image1.png
156
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Lerg teaches a similar cosmetic preparation containing a cosmetic oil-in water emulsion containing polyglyceryl-4 and the following:
PNG
media_image2.png
132
652
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(See Abstract, paragraph [0001], page 10, lines 1-60, and entire document and translation).
Additionally, in paragraph [0044], Lerg discloses the following:
PNG
media_image3.png
140
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lerg does not teach the oil-in-water emulsion cometic preparations comprising xanthan gum and hydroxypropyl methylcellulose coupled with the exclusion of polyacrylates.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the cosmetic preparation in Lerg. One skilled in the art looking for an alternative cosmetic preparation free of polyacrylates, carbomers and polyvinylpyrrolidones would modify the cosmetic preparation of this reference to employ hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and xanthan gum as thickeners especially since these components are widespread in the cosmetic chemical arts and can be established by routine experimentation. It is well known in the art that hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and xanthan gum are widely used as thickeners, stabilizer and emulsifiers, and that they increase viscosity to enhance their texture prevent ingredient separation. Further, it is well known in the art that hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and xanthan gum are effective at low concentration of 0.1-1.0% across a wide pH range. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, confronted with providing an alternative cosmetic preparation free of polyacrylates, carbomers and polyvinylpyrrolidones would modify the cosmetic preparation of this reference to employ hydroxypropyl methylcellulose and xanthan gum as thickeners, especially since these components are widespread in the cosmetic chemical arts and is established by routine and non-inventing experimentation. See In re Payne, 203 USPQ 245(CCPA 1979).
Since Applicant’s claims are prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of Lerg, Applicant’s claims are obvious, and therefore, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Claims 12-31 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL V WARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2909. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, James Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached at 571-272-5548. 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.
/PAUL V WARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1622