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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Applicants' arguments, filed 04/27/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Status
Claims 1-11 are pending.
Claims 8-10 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) or pre-AIA 4th ¶
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 recites the limitation of wherein “the surfactant does not comprise any amphoteric surfactants.” Claim 11 depends from claim 1 which recites “a non-ionic hydrophilic surfactant.” Where “a non-ionic hydrophilic surfactant” is claimed, it appears that the non-ionic hydrophilic surfactant inherently does not comprise any amphoteric surfactant, and therefore appears to fail to further limit claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-7, and 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salvert et al (US 20060217283 A1, hereinafter “Salvert”), in view of Lorant (US 6210692 B1), as evidenced by HLB Calculator (HLB Calculator, Formulator’s Notebook, retrieved 2026).
Salvert teaches foaming cosmetic compositions in the form of an oil-in-water emulsion comprising more than 30 wt% of an oily phase, and a foaming surfactant comprising at least one non-ionic surfactant chosen from alkylpolyglucosides (abs, ¶¶ 2, 16-18). The oily phase is more than 30 wt%, for examples, from 35-70 wt%, preferably from 40-70 wt%, more preferably from 40-60 wt% of the total weight of the composition (¶ 79). The compositions may also contain thickeners (¶ 87). The oily phase may comprise oils, gums, etc. (¶ 22). The composition may comprise an emulsifying system with an HLB balance ranging from 8-18 (¶ 16). The at least one alkylpolyglucoside is chosen from decyl glucoside, caprylyl/capryl glucoside, lauryl glucoside, coco glucoside, etc. (¶ 39, claim 5). As evidenced by HLB Calculator, decyl glucoside has an HLB balance of 13.50, caprylyl/capryl glucoside has an HLB balance of 13.40, lauryl glucoside has an HLB balance of 12.00, coco glucoside has an HLB balance of 13.00 (see emulsifiers). The amount of alkylpolyglucoside preferably ranges from 0.5 to 15 wt% of the composition, preferably 1 to 10 wt% (¶ 40). The amount of water is less than or equal to 45 wt% (abs, ¶ 16, claim 1). The compositions can be used as a makeup remover (¶¶ 99, 100, 109, claim 17). The emulsions are stable (¶¶ 32, 97).
Salvert does not teach the inclusion of at least one clay and/or at least one polysaccharide gum of claims 1 and 2, nor a single disclosed embodiment comprising the HLB balance as instantly claimed, the wt% of the surfactant as instantly claimed, the weight ratio of oil/water as instantly claimed, nor wherein the total weight of the lipophilic phase of claim 6.
Lorant teaches oil-in-water emulsions for cosmetic applications, such as foams for caring for or cleansing the skin, makeup removers, etc., where it was known to include at least one hydrophilic thickening compound (abs, col 8 ln 55-64). The hydrophilic thickening compounds were selected from polysaccharide biopolymers, such as xanthan gum, etc., inorganic thickeners such as smectite or hectorite (i.e., clay), and mixtures thereof (col 3 ln 33-43). The hydrophilic thickening compound is present in a concentration of 0.05 to 10 wt%, preferably 0.5 to 4 wt% (col 6 ln 6-10).
Regarding the wt% of lipophilic phase of claims 1 and 6, it would have been obvious to formulate the compositions of Salvert with an oily phase (lipophilic phase) of greater than 30 wt%, for example, from 35-70 wt%, preferably from 40-70 wt%, or more preferably from 40-60 wt% of the total weight of the composition, as taught by Salvert, overlapping the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the non-ionic surfactant of claim 1, it would have been obvious to include at least one alkylpolyglucoside, a non-ionic surfactant, as taught by Salvert.
Regarding the gelling agent of claims 1 and 2, it would have been obvious to modify Salvert by including known thickening agents suitable for foaming oil-in-water emulsion compositions that can be used as a makeup remover, such as polysaccharide polymers including xanthan gum, etc., inorganic thickeners such as smectite or hectorite (clay), and mixtures thereof, where Salvert teaches thickeners may be included, in order to adjust the viscosity of the formulation to achieve desired properties. Where the inclusion of polysaccharide gums and clays are made obvious above, which are evidenced by claim 1 as being gelling agents, the limitations are met.
Regarding the amount of gelling agent of claim 1, it would have been to formulate the composition of Salvert with amounts of gelling agents that were known to be used in oil-in-water emulsion compositions that can be used as makeup removers, such as from 0.05 to 10 wt%, preferably from 0.5 to 4 wt%, as taught by Lorant.
Regarding the limitation of wherein the composition does not comprise the crosslinked polymers newly amended into claim 1, it does not appear that the composition made obvious above by Salvert and Lorant comprise the crosslinked polymers of the newly amended negative proviso, and appears to be no teachings in Salvert of its inclusion.
Regarding claim 3, while the reference does not specifically teach the HLB balance of the alkylpolyglucoside, where the inclusion of the alkylpolyglucosides made obvious above have an HLB balance falling within the claimed ranges, as evidenced above, the limitation is met.
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to include the non-ionic surfactant of Salvert in an amount from 0.5 to 15 wt%, as taught by the reference. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, where the oily phase of Salvert is taught to be greater than 30 wt%, and the water phase is taught to be less than or equal to 45 wt%, the weight ratio of oil/water appears to overlap the instantly claimed range of between 0.5 and 1.5. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 7, where the composition made obvious above can be used as a makeup remover, as taught by Salvert, the intended use limitation is met.
Regarding claim 11, the limitation appears to allow for the inclusion of other surfactants that are amphoteric, but limits the non-ionic surfactant itself to not comprise any amphoteric surfactant. In other words, the claim does not appear to prevent the composition from including additional, separate amphoteric surfactants alongside the required non-ionic surfactant as long as the non-ionic surfactant itself does not comprise any amphoteric surfactant. Accordingly, the alkylpolyglucoside surfactant discussed above is a non-ionic surfactant, and the non-ionic surfactant itself appears to inherently not comprise any amphoteric surfactant, thereby appearing to meet the claimed limitation.
Response to Arguments
First, Applicants assert the central teachings of Salvert is that alkylpolyglucoside must be combined with amphoteric surfactants in order to provide a composition with good foaming properties while having good tolerance and containing a large amount of oil.
Second, Applicants assert Lorant teaches against the inclusion of a surfactant and that when a thickener is added to the aqueous phase, the fatty phase can only represent up to approximately 12-15% by weight of the emulsion, and beyond this amount the composition loses stability.
Third, Applicants assert the skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Salvert and Lorant to arrive at the claimed composition, as the references point in divergent directions. Applicants assert Salvert teaches amphoteric surfactants are necessary and Lorant discusses formulations without surfactant. Applicants assert there is no reason for the skilled artisan to look to Loran to modify Salvert’s surfactant system.
Fourth, Applicants assert the Office Action does not explain why a skilled artisan would have been motivated to select the narrower range from the broader prior art range of greater than 30% oily phase and expect success in achieving the claimed results.
Fifth, Applicants assert the claimed composition comprise unexpected benefits that would not have been foreseen by one of skill in the art, as exhibited by the examples. Applicants assert the ability to achieve a stable, high-lipophilic-phase oil-in-water emulsion suitable as a foaming makeup remover, using an alkylpolyglucoside surfactant without amphoteric cosurfactants and within the narrow gelling agent range claimed, represents a result that is not suggested, let alone predictable, from the prior art of record.
First, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, newly added claim 11 does not appear to limit the composition to be free of amphoteric surfactants, but rather recites that the non-ionic surfactant does not comprise any amphoteric surfactant, which appears to be an inherent property of the non-ionic surfactant itself.
Second, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Lorant was not cited for motivation to include lipophilic phase amounts within the claimed range, as this limitation made obvious by Salvert, where Salvert teaches the oily phase is more than 30% by weight of the formulations, and teaches the compositions are stable.
Third, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Where Salvert teaches thickening agents can be included, and teaches oil in water cosmetic emulsions that are capable of being used as a foaming makeup remover, it would have been obvious, when selecting a thickening agent, to look to Lorant for thickening agents that were known to be suitable for oil in water cosmetic emulsions that were also suitable for use as a skin cleanser, foaming skin composition, and makeup remover. Applicants appears to assert the references diverge in their surfactant requirements, however, as discussed above, Lorant was simply cited for teaching known thickening agents suitable for oil in water cleansing compositions that were capable of foaming and being used as a makeup remover.
Fourth, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. As discussed above, Salvert teaches an oily phase of greater than 30% by weight, and it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to select from any oil phase amount within the disclosed range, including the range as instantly claimed. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Further, the skilled artisan could reasonably look to the working examples and preferred embodiments of Salvert for guidance, where ranges of 35-70 wt%, 40-70 wt%, and most preferably from 40-60 wt% of the total weight of the composition, all of which substantially overlap the claimed range. As noted above, Salvert teaches the emulsions are stable, and therefore, it would be reasonably expected that oily phase amounts within the ranges taught by Salvert would be stable.
Fifth, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. As an initial matter, Applicant has the burden of explaining the data they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. MPEP 716.02(b)(II). It is not clear to the examiner what results Applicants are asserting are unexpected. The examiner notes that the compositions of Salvert are taught to be stable foaming compositions capable of makeup removal, and Lorant teaches the thickeners as suitable components in compositions that may be used as foams for cleansing the skin, removing makeup, etc. It would have been reasonably expected that the composition made obvious above by Salvert and Lorant would be stable, and would be capable of being used as a foaming makeup remover.
Purely arguendo, if the results Applicants are referring to are those of Tables 1 and 2, and Figure 1, the following applies. From Table 1, examples 1-3 were shown as obtaining a foam, whereas example 4 and commercial product were not, however, it is not clear from the table if it is the specific gelling agent, the amount gelling agent, the combination of surfactants, the amount of surfactants, the inclusion of an emollient, etc., that result in foaming or not foaming. From table 2, all tested embodiments produced foam except for the embodiment with 1% gelling agent, however, it appears that the foaming ability was dependent on the viscosity, rather than the particular amount of the gelling agent, and the viscosity would be expected to vary depending on the wt% of lipophilic phase, the particular lipophilic phase used, the amount of aqueous phase, the type of gelling agent, etc. Even so, the viscosities of Salvert are taught to be in the range of 1-200 mPas, and were taught to be foaming. From Figure 1, the instant specification recites that the composition of example 2 shows better cleansing properties compared to “commercial product,” but it is not clear what “commercial product” is. The specification merely recites “compared to a commercial cleaner having a content by weight of oily phase less than 20%.” Based on this alone, where Salver teaches an oily phase of 30 wt% or greater, the example 2 composition does not appear to be compared to the closest prior art. See MPEP 716.02(e).
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khayat et al (US 5665687 A, hereinafter “Khayat”), in view of Lorant (US 6210692 B1).
Khayat teaches skin cleansing compositions in the form of oil-in-water emulsions comprising an oil phase comprising cetearyl glucoside at 4.25%, cetyl alcohol at 0.75%, apricot oil at 25.00% (30 wt% oil phase), an aqueous phase comprising xanthan gum (gelling agent) at 0.20%, water at 64.80% and lipid grains at 5% (ex 1). The oil phase may be from 10-40 wt% of the composition (col 4 last paragraph). Clays may be included to adjust the consistency or the viscosity of the lipid grains, and may be included as a cleansing agent (col 3 ln 41-50). The HLB value of the emulsifying agent is below about 12.5 (col 2 ln 15-17). In one embodiment, the composition is a make-up removing composition with make-up removing action (col 1 ln 50-54)
Khayat does not appear to teach an embodiment with the lipophilic phase content as instantly claimed, the amount of gelling agent as instantly claimed, clay in the amounts instantly claimed, nor a specific embodiment as instantly claimed comprising an HLB balance of claim 3.
Lorant is discussed above.
Regarding the wt% of the lipid phase of claim 1, it would have been obvious to formulate the compositions of Khayat with an oil phase from 10-40 wt%, overlapping the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding the non-ionic surfactant of claim 1, the composition made obvious above comprises cetearyl glucoside, an alkylpolyglucoside, thereby meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding the amount of gelling agent of claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the composition of Khayat by including known amounts for xanthan gum that can be used in oil-in-water emulsions as a makeup remover, such as from 0.05-10 wt%, preferably from 0.5 to 4 wt%, as taught by Lorant. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). Further, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to routinely adjust the amount of gelling agent in order to achieve desired properties, viscosities, etc. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding the limitation of wherein the composition does not comprise the crosslinked polymers newly amended into claim 1, it does not appear that the composition made obvious above comprises the crosslinked polymers of the newly amended negative proviso.
Regarding the clay of claim 2, where Khayat teaches clays can be included to adjust the viscosity and as a cleansing agent, it would have been obvious to include known amounts of clay suitable for oil-in-water emulsions that can be used as a makeup remover, such as from 0.05-10 wt%, preferably from 0.5 to 4 wt%, as taught by Lorant. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). The examiner notes that while clay is not specifically referred to as a "gelling agent" in Khayat, claim 1 evidences clays are gelling agents. Further, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to routinely optimize the amount of clay in order to achieve desired physical properties. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding the HLB of claim 3, it would have been obvious to modify the composition of Khayat by including the emulsifier comprising an alkylpolyglucoside with an HLB balance up to 12.5, as taught by Khayat. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 5, where the oil phase of Khayat can range from 10-40 wt%, upon adjust the amount of oil, it would have been obvious for the skilled artisan to adjust the water content accordingly. Upon adjusting the content of the oil and water, it would be expected that the oil/water weight ratio would overlap those instantly claimed. Further, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to routinely optimize the oil/water weight ratio, in order to achieve desired physical properties. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 7, where Khayat teaches the compositions can be a makeup remover with makeup remover action, it would have been obvious to formulate the composition made obvious above as a makeup remover, thereby meeting the intended use limitation.
Regarding claim 11, it appears that the non-ionic surfactant discussed above inherently does not comprise any amphoteric surfactant, thereby meeting the claimed limitation. Nevertheless, purely arguendo, if somehow the composition were required to be free of amphoteric surfactants rather than the non-ionic surfactant as recited by the instant claim, the composition made obvious above does not appear to comprise any amphoteric surfactants, and would therefore appear to meet the claimed limitation.
Response to Arguments
First, Applicants assert Khayat is direct to providing a 3 in 1 scrubbing product that is a formulation purpose fundamentally different from the claimed foaming makeup remover.
Second, Applicants assert that the skilled artisan would not have been motivated to combine Khayat and Lorant to arrive at the claimed composition. Applicants assert Khayat relates to a scrub 3 in 1 product and there is no reason for the skilled artisan to combine such formulation with Lorant, which is directed to providing a surfactant-free-oil-in-water composition specifically to avoid irritation. Applicants assert the purposes of the two reference are incompatible and the Office Action does not identify a recognized problem that would have led a skilled artisan to seek the teachings from both references simultaneously.
Third, Applicants assert the Office Action does not explain why a skilled artisan would have been specifically motivated to select the narrower claimed range from Khayat’s broader range of lipophilic phase content, and would have reasonable success in doing so.
Fourth, Applicants assert the claimed cosmetic composition provides unexpected benefits that would not have been foreseen by one of skill in the art, as exhibited in the Examples of the pending application.
First, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. The examiner notes that the claims do not recite the limitation of a foaming makeup remover, and even so, a foaming makeup remover would simply be the intended use of the compositions.
Second, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Applicants assert there is no reason to combine Khayat and Lorant, however, the examiner disagrees where Khayat and Lorant are both directed to oil in water compositions that are capable of being used as skin cleansing compositions. Lorant was simply relied upon for teaching known amounts of xanthan gum suitable for oil in water compositions that can be used to cleanse skin, where Khayat teaches viscosity can be adjusted. Further, it would have been well within the relative skills of the skilled artisan to routinely optimize the amount of clay in order to achieve desired physical properties. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Third, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. Khayat is directed to oil in water cosmetic products that are stable and allows for cleansing and care of the skin, and teaches the oil phase may represent from 10 to 40 wt% of the total weight of the compositions, as discussed above. Accordingly, it would be reasonably expected that between 35 wt% and 40 wt% oil phase, as instantly claimed, the compositions would be stable. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Fourth, respectfully, this argument is not persuasive. As an initial matter, Applicant has the burden of explaining the data they proffer as evidence of non-obviousness. MPEP 716.02(b)(II). It is not clear to the examiner what results Applicants are asserting are unexpected. The examiner notes that the compositions of Khayat are taught to be stable compositions that are capable of cleansing the skin, and Lorant teaches the thickeners as suitable components in stable compositions that may be used as foams for cleansing the skin, removing makeup, etc. Accordingly, where the thickeners were known to be suitable in stable compositions directed to the same intended use, it would have been reasonably expected that the composition made obvious above by Khayat and Lorant would be stable, and would be capable of being used as a makeup remover.
Purely arguendo, if the results Applicants are referring to are those of Tables 1 and 2, and Figure 1, the following applies. From Table 1, examples 1-3 were shown as obtaining a foam, whereas example 4 and commercial product were not, however, it is not clear from the table if it is the specific gelling agent, the amount gelling agent, the combination of surfactants, the amount of surfactants, the inclusion of an emollient, etc., that result in foaming or not foaming. From table 2, all tested embodiments produced foam except for the embodiment with 1% gelling agent, however, it appears that the foaming ability was dependent on the viscosity, rather than the particular amount of the gelling agent, and the viscosity would be expected to vary depending on the wt% of lipophilic phase, the particular lipophilic phase used, the amount of aqueous phase, the type of gelling agent, etc. Even so, foaming is not a claimed limitation. From Figure 1, the specification recites that the composition of example 2 shows better cleansing properties compared to “commercial product,” but it is not clear what the “commercial product” is, as discussed above in the previous rejection.
Claims 4 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Khayat et al (US 5665687 A, hereinafter “Khayat”) and Lorant (US 6210692 B1), as applied to claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 11 above, and further in view of Salvert et al (US 20060217283 A1, hereinafter “Salvert”).
Khayat and Lorant are discussed above but do not teach the amount of alkylpolyglucoside of claim 4, nor amount of oil phase of claim 6.
Salvert is discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of the alkylpolyglucoside of Khayat to known amounts suitable for oil-in-water emulsions that can be used as a makeup remover, such as from 0.5 to 15 wt%, as taught by Salvert. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 6, it would have been obvious to adjust the amount of the oil phase to those that were known to be suitable for oil-in-water emulsions that can be used as a makeup remover, such as in an amount greater than 30 wt%, as taught by Salvert, overlapping the claimed range.
Response to Arguments
Applicants do not appear to have provided arguments with respect to the combination of Khayat, Lorant, and Salvert, and accordingly, the claims stand rejected for the same reasons above and of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA A ATKINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0877. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM + Flex.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/JOSHUA A ATKINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights