DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The amendments, and arguments, filed December 16, 2025, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-15 are pending and currently under consideration. Claims 1-4 and 6-10 have been amended; and new claim 15 has been added. Claims 1-15 are currently under consideration. 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 Office Action: Final
Withdrawn Claim Objections
The objections to claims 4 and 6-10/#’s (at par. 1-2 of the 09/24/2025 Office action) are withdrawn in light of applicant’s 12/16/2025 amendments.
New Claim Objections – Necessitated by Amendments
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Maintained Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 C.F.R. § 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 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over LECONTE (FR 3058057 A1, Publ. May 04, 2018; on 03/23/2023 IDS; as evidenced by English language translation of FR 3058057 A1; hereinafter, “Leconte”), in view of AGARWAL (US 2016/0287493 A1, Publ. Oct. 6, 2016; hereinafter, “Agarwal”).
Page and paragraph numbers for Leconte refer to English language translation of FR 3058057 A1.
Leconte is directed to:
COSMETIC COMPOSITION BASED ON EXTRACTS FROM AVENA SATIVA, LENS ESCULENTA AND TROPAEOLUM MAJUS
Abstract
The present invention relates to a cosmetic composition with topical application comprising, as active ingredient, at least one extract of Avena sativa, at least one extract of Lens esculenta and at least one extract of Tropaeolum majus. It also relates to a non-therapeutic cosmetic process for skin care using such a composition, as well as to the non-therapeutic use of such a cosmetic composition for skin care, and in particular to improve the skin care. radiance of the complexion and the overall appearance of the face, by attenuating the unsightly appearance of the enlarged pores, responsible for an irregularity of the cutaneous relief, and presenting an anti-wrinkle effect and / or immediate and long-term tightening of the skin.
Leconte, title & abstract. In this regard, Leconte discloses a “Cosmetic composition for topical application comprising at least one cosmetically acceptable carrier, characterized in that it comprises, as active ingredient, at least one extract of Lens esculenta, at least one extract of Avena sativa and at least one extract from Tropaeolum majus”:
1. Cosmetic composition for topical application comprising at least one cosmetically acceptable carrier, characterized in that it comprises, as active ingredient, at least one extract of Lens esculenta, at least one extract of Avena sativa and at least one extract from Tropaeolum majus.
[…]
10. Composition according to any one of the preceding claims, characterized in that it is in the form of gel, biphasic oil-in-water or water-in-oil emulsion, body oil, mask , ointment, ointment, lotion or concentrated solution.
[…]
12. Non-therapeutic cosmetic method for skin care, in particular for improving short-term and long-term microrelief 20 cutaneous and radiance of the complexion, characterized in that it consists in applying to the areas of the skin concerned at least one cosmetic composition as defined in any one of claims 1 to 11.
13. Non-therapeutic use of a cosmetic composition as defined in any one of claims 1 to 11, to improve 25 short term and long term skin microrelief and radiance and reduce wrinkles and fine lines.
Leconte, claims 1, 10 and 12-13.
Regarding independent claim 1 and the requirements:
1. ([…]) A cosmetic composition useful for mature skin, wherein the cosmetic composition is in the form of a dry and soluble film comprising at least one active ingredient derived from Tropaeolum majus and at least one active ingredient derived from Lens esculenta.
Leconte clearly teaches “for topical application comprising at least one cosmetically acceptable carrier, characterized in that it comprises, as active ingredient, at least one extract of Lens esculenta, at least one extract of Avena sativa and at least one extract from Tropaeolum majus” (Leconte, claim 1), whereby it is noted:
“at least one extract from Tropaeolum majus” (Leconte, claim 1) is “at least one active ingredient derived from Tropaeolum majus” of claim 1; and
“at least one extract of Lens esculenta” (Leconte, claim 1) is “at least one active ingredient derived from Lens esculenta” of claim 1.
Although Leconte teaches “at least one cosmetically acceptable carrier” (Leconte, claim 1), wherein the composition may be in the form of a “mask” (Leconte, claim 10), Leconte however DOES NOT EXPRESSLY TEACH a “dry and soluble film,” as required by claim 1, which is well within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Agarwal, for instance, is directed to:
CLAY BASED PRODUCT IN SHEET FORM FOR COSMETIC APPLICATIONS
ABSTRACT
The invention relates to an applicator body, wherein said applicator body composition comprises at least one clay and at least one water soluble polymer. The invention also relates to methods for preparing said applicator body and methods of cosmetic care.
(Agarwal, title & abstract) for treatment of the skin:
[0001] The present invention relates to clay based formulation for application on the skin. More particularly the invention relates to applicator body, and for example face masks.
(Agarwal, par. [0001]). In this regard, Agarwal teaches that the composition may comprise “at least one skin care agent and/or at least one cosmetically active ingredient”:
[0036] In one embodiment, the composition may comprise at least one skin care agent and/or at least one cosmetically active ingredient.
Agarwal, par. [0036]. Agarwal also teaches that the “applicator body” is formed into a “dry film or sheet”:
[0057] The applicator body has been advantageously developed by making complex of clay and water soluble polymer in order to get a dry film or sheet, which can be cut in the desired shape.
(Agarwal, par. [0057]); and an exemplary Composition Applicator Body for Use as Kaolin Sheet Face Mask:
Example 3
Composition Applicator Body for Use as Kaolin
Sheet Face Mask
[0125] Kaolin is dispersed in an aqueous solution containing a water soluble polymer (HPMC), surfactant and fragrance, according to the following proportions:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(Agarwal, par. [0125], Ex. 3), which is a “dry and soluble film” of the instant claims, particularly, claim 1.
In light of these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Leconte’s cosmetic composition for topical application (Leconte, claim 1) into Agarwal’s “Kaolin Sheet Face Mask” (Agarwal, par. [0125], Ex. 3). One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success since both Leconte and Agarwal are concerned with similar problems in the art, namely, compositions for skin care. Leconte, abstract; Agarwal, par. [0001]. Further, it is well within the skill of the ordinary artisan to select a suitable “cosmetically acceptable carrier” (Leconte, claim 1) such as a “mask” (Leconte, claim 10). Doing so amounts to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Thus, the prior art render claim 1 obvious.
Regarding claims 2-3 and the requirements:
2. ([…]) The cosmetic composition useful for mature skin according to claim 1, wherein the active ingredient derived from Tropaeolum majus represents between 0.2% and 1.5% by weight of the composition.
3. ([…]) The cosmetic composition useful for mature skin according to claim 1, wherein the active ingredient derived from Lens esculenta represents between 0.5% and 1.5% by weight of the composition.
Leconte teaches suitable amounts of extract:
2. Composition according to claim 1, characterized in that it comprises from 0.001 to 10% by mass of an aqueous solution of at least one extract of Lens esculenta, of at least one extract of Avena sativa and at least one extract of Tropaeolum majus.
3. Composition according to claim 2, characterized in that the amount of extract of Lens culinaris within said solution varies from 0.1 to 10.0% by mass relative to the total mass of said solution.
4. Composition according to claim 2 or 3, characterized in that the amount of extract of Lens culinaris within said solution is 1.65% by mass relative to the total mass of said solution.
[…]
7. Composition according to any one of claims 2 to 6, characterized in that the amount of extract of Tropaeolum majus within said solution varies 0.10 to 10.0% by mass relative to the total mass of said solution.
8. Composition according to any one of claims 2 to 7, characterized in that the amount of extract of Tropaeolum majus within said solution is 1.0% by mass relative to the total mass of said solution.
Leconte, claims 2-4 and 7-8. With regard to “Lens esculenta” (Leconte, claim 2) and “Lens culinaris” (Leconte, claims 3-4), Leconte describes “Lens culinaris Medikus (green lentil)” as synonymous with “Lens esculenta Moench”:
The lentil is an annual herbaceous plant of the Faboideae family. All species of lentils can be used according to the present invention, but more particularly mention may be made of Lens culinaris Medikus (green lentil) or its synonym Lens esculenta Moench. Preferably, an aqueous extract of Lens culinaris having a carbohydrate content of at least 16% by mass relative to the total mass of dry matter is preferably used.
Leconte, p. 3, par. 11. With regard to the range requirements of claims 2-3, it is noted that MPEP § 2144.05 (I), states, “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); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d, 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).”
Thus, the prior art render claims 2-3 obvious.
Regarding claim 4-5 and the requirements:
4. ([…]) A method for a topical cosmetic treatment of mature skin, moisturizing the skin, and improving radiance of the skin complexion, the method comprising applying topically the composition of claim 1 to the mature skin.
5. ([…]) The method of claim 4, wherein the cosmetic treatment is an anti-aging treatment.
Leconte teaches:
12. Non-therapeutic cosmetic method for skin care, in particular for improving short-term and long-term microrelief 20 cutaneous and radiance of the complexion, characterized in that it consists in applying to the areas of the skin concerned at least one cosmetic composition as defined in any one of claims 1 to 11.
13. Non-therapeutic use of a cosmetic composition as defined in any one of claims 1 to 11, to improve 25 short term and long term skin microrelief and radiance and reduce wrinkles and fine lines.
(Leconte, claims 12-13), which relates to the active step of claim 4 for “applying topically,” and an “anti-aging treatment” of claim 5. Since it would be obvious to incorporate Leconte’s cosmetic composition for topical application (Leconte, claim 1) into Agarwal’s “Kaolin Sheet Face Mask” (Agarwal, par. [0125], Ex. 3), one would be further motivated to apply to areas of the skin “for improving short-term and long-term microrelief 20 cutaneous and radiance of the complexion” (Leconte, claim 12) and “reduce wrinkles and fine lines” (Leconte, claim 13).
Thus, the prior art render claim 4-5 obvious.
Regarding claim 6 and the requirements:
6. ([…]) The composition of claim 1, wherein said composition additionally comprises (i) one or more mineral fillers, (ii) two or more polymers of natural origin, (iii) one or more plasticizers, and (iv) one or more surfactants.
7. ([…]) The composition of claim 6, wherein the one or more mineral fillers represent between 5% and 25% by weight of the composition.
8. ([…]) The composition of claim 6, wherein the two or more polymers of natural origin represent between 15% and 75% by weight of the composition.
9. ([…]) The composition of claim 6, wherein the one or more plasticizers represent between 25% and 75% by weight of the composition.
10. ([…]) The composition of claim 6, wherein the one or more surfactants represent between 0.1% and 1.5% by weight of the composition.
11. ([…]) The composition of claim 6, wherein the mineral filler is kaolin.
12. ([…]) The composition of claim 6, wherein the plasticizers are urea and/or glycerol.
[…]
14. ([…]) The composition of claim 6, wherein the polymers of natural origin are chosen from guar gum polysaccharides, carrageenans and cellulose.
Agarwal teaches:
(i) “Kaolin” as a suitable “clay” (Agarwal, par. [0032]), wherein “[t]he composition of applicator body comprises preferably from 1 to 50% clay; more preferably 1 to 20% and even more preferably 1-10% by mass of the total wet composition mass” (Agarwal, par. [0044]), which is a “mineral filler” of claims 6-7 and 11 and “kaolin” of claim 11;
(ii) “[a]dvantageously, a water soluble polymer used in this invention is selected from the group consisting of cellulose and derivatives thereof,” wherein “[a] good water soluble polymer for use in the present invention is cellulose ethers, notably water-soluble methylcellulose and especially hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC) polymers, for example such as those available for example under trade names METHOCEL K35, METHOCEL A15LV, METHOCEL Premium E5 LV and K35 LV from Dow chemical co.” (Agarwal, par. [0031]), wherein “[t]he amount of water soluble polymers in the composition of applicator body depends on the viscosity and/or water solubility of the polymer in aqueous solution,” that “ranges from 1 to 20%; more preferably 1 to 10%; even more preferably from 2-5% by mass of the total wet composition mass” (Agarwal, par. [0045]), which overlap “polymers of natural origin” of claims 6, 8 and 14 and encompassed by “cellulose” of claim 14 (to the extent that claim 6 requires “at least two polymers of natural origin,” it is prima facie obvious to include more than one ingredient for the same intended purpose, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a composition to be used for the very same purpose, absent evidence to the contrary,.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (see MPEP 2144.06));
(iii) “Non-limiting examples of suitable plasticizers are glycerin, glycols such as ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, butylenes glycol and diethylene glycols, dextrins, sorbitols” (Agarwal, par. [0037]), wherein “[t]he optional plasticizer ranges from 0.1 % to about 20% by mass; more preferably 0.25% to about 10% and even more preferably from 2% to 5% by mass of total wet composition mass” (Agarwal, par. [0045]), which are encompassed by “plasticizers” of claims 6, 9 and 12 and “glycerol” of claim 12;
(iv) “Advantageously, the composition of applicator body may also comprise of at least one surfactant” that “imparts the flexibility to film but also contributes to cleansing of skin and therefore enhances the efficacy of clay” (Agarwal, par. [0033]), wherein the surfactant my be present in amounts “from 1 to 30%” (Agarwal, par. [0081]), which is encompassed by a “surfactant” of claims 6 and 10.
In light of these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Leconte’s cosmetic composition for topical application (Leconte, claim 1) into Agarwal’s “Kaolin Sheet Face Mask” (Agarwal, par. [0125], Ex. 3), and to have further incorporated (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) per Agarwal’s disclosure, as discussed above. See MPEP § 2123 [R-5] regarding the obviousness of rearranging a reference according to the teachings of that same reference; see also MPEP § 2144.05 (I) regarding the obviousness of prior art overlapping claimed numerical ranges.
Thus, the prior art render claims 6-12 and 14 obvious.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over LECONTE (FR 3058057 A1, Publ. May 04, 2018; on 03/23/2023 IDS; as evidenced by English language translation of FR 3058057 A1; hereinafter, “Leconte”), in view of AGARWAL (US 2016/0287493 A1, Publ. Oct. 6, 2016; hereinafter, “Agarwal”), as applied to claims 1-12 and 14, above, and further in view of SHIBUYA (US 2015/0342854 A1, Publ. Dec. 3, 2015; hereinafter, “Shibuya”) and JUNG (US 5,139,782, Issued Aug. 18, 1992; hereinafter, “Jung”).
The teachings of Leconte and Agarwal, as set forth above, are hereby incorporated. Agarwal teaches the incorporation of surfactants:
[0033] Advantageously, the composition of applicator body may also comprise of at least one surfactant. Surfactant also imparts the flexibility to film but also contributes to cleansing of skin and therefore enhances the efficacy of clay. The surfactant may be selected from anionic, cationic, amphoteric and non-ionic surfactant. Non limiting examples of surfactants include alkyl sulfates, ethoxylated alkyl sulfates, betaines, taurates, sarcosinates. Specific examples include but are not limited to sodium laureth sulfate (SLES), cocamidopropyl betaine, sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, sodium cocoyl sarcosinate, disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, magnesium laureth sulfate, sodium laureth-8 sulfate and any mixture thereof.
[0034] In one embodiment, the applicator body comprising at least one surfactant releases surfactant during the contact of the applicator body with skin, which generates foam upon washing of face.
Agarwal, par. [0033]-[0034]. However, the references DO NOT EXPRESSLY TEACH “sorbitan laurate” as required by claim 13:
13. ([…]) The composition of claim 6, wherein the surfactant is sorbitan laurate.
which is well within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan.
Shibuya, for instance, is directed to:
EXTERNAL DERMAL COMPOSITION FOR ANTI-AGEING AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING THE SAME
ABSTRACT
The present invention has an object to provide an external dermal composition for anti-ageing, which prevents or improves apparent skin problems such as wrinkles, fine wrinkles, blemishes, and saggings caused by increasing age or ageing; and maintains or improves the barrier function and the hyaluronic acid production in the skin. The object is solved by providing an external dermal composition for anti-ageing, which contains an aqueous medium as a base material and one or more ingredients selected from L-ascorbic acid, derivatives thereof, and their salts as an effective ingredient(s).
Shibuya, title & abstract. In this regard, Shibuya discloses suitable surfactants, inter alia, “Sorbitan monolaurate” (Shibuya, par. [0078]), which is “sorbitan laurate” of claim 13. See also, Jung, which is directed to:
FACIAL CLEANSING MINERAL COMPOSITIONS
ABSTRACT
A composition for the cosmetic treatment of human skin, particularly facial skin, to remove retention products from the skin surface and sebaceous follicles, is disclosed. The composition comprises a high-silica zeolite, the principal adsorbent constituent, dispersed in an aqueous medium using colloidal hectorite-type clays, a water soluble alkyl polyol preferably having from 2 to 6 hydroxyl groups, and most preferably a glycol such as propylene glycol, and an anti-microbial agent compatible with the high-silica zeolite.
Jung, title & abstract. In this regard, Jung discloses a “commercially available mask composition” containing “sorbitan laurate.” Jung, col. 6, ln. 3-8.
In light of these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate Leconte’s cosmetic composition for topical application (Leconte, claim 1) into Agarwal’s “Kaolin Sheet Face Mask” (Agarwal, par. [0125], Ex. 3), and to have further incorporated sorbitan laurate per Shibuya and Jung (Shibuya, par. [0078]; Jung, col. 6, ln. 3-8). One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success since both the references are concerned with similar problems in the art, namely, compositions for skin care. Leconte, abstract; Agarwal, par. [0001]; Shibuya, abstract; Jung, abstract. Further, it is well within the skill of the ordinary artisan to select suitable surfactant (Agarwal, par. [0033]-[0034]) known in the art (Shibuya, par. [0078]; Jung, col. 6, ln. 3-8) in order to obtain the advantage of “at least one surfactant [that] releases surfactant during the contact of the applicator body with skin, which generates foam upon washing of face” (Agarwal, par. [0034]).
Thus, the prior art render claim 13 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments, filed on December 16, 2025 (hereinafter, referred to as “Remarks”), have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. In light of these teachings, it would be obvious to incorporate Leconte’s cosmetic composition for topical application (Leconte, claim 1) into Agarwal’s “Kaolin Sheet Face Mask” (Agarwal, par. [0125], Ex. 3), thereby meeting the broadest reasonable interpretations of the instant claims. However, the narrower scope of new claim 15 would be allowable over the references of record if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 1-14 are rejected. Claim 15 is objected to. No claims are allowed.
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 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 DOMINIC LAZARO whose telephone number is (571)272-2845. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30am to 5:00pm EST; alternating Fridays out.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BETHANY BARHAM can be reached on (571)272-6175. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOMINIC LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611