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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 4, 6-8 and 10 are pending. Claims 2-3, 5 and 9 are canceled. This is the first office action on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 2/24/2023 has been reviewed.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-9), without traverse in the reply dated October 10, 2025 is acknowledged. Upon further consideration the species election is hereby withdrawn.
Claim 10 is withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no linking claim.
Claims 1, 4 and 6-8 are examined on their merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rejected as being indefinite in the recitation of “the unfunctionalized cellulose polymer” in line 12. There is no antecedent basis for this limitation in claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite an unfunctionalized cellulose polymer. Claim 1 does recite a functionalized cellulose polymer, however.
For the purposes of this office action claim 1 will be interpreted to be referring to this cellulose polymer before it was silylated.
Claim 5 is rejected as depending from claim 1.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is rejected as being indefinite in the recitation of “the skin care formulation of claim 3”. Claim 3 has been canceled, so claim 8 depends from a canceled claim.
For the purposes of this office action claim 8 will be interpreted to depend from claim 6.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 1, 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaker et al. WO 2010/058148 (5/27/2010) (2/24/2023 IDS) in view of Heath et al. AU 2014/342046 (4/21/2016).
Blaker et al. (Blaker) teaches that its invention relates to a particle stabilized dispersed phase emulsion comprising a dispersed phase which constitutes 30% or more of the emulsion. Baker teaches that it relates to hydrophobized renewable organic nanoparticle stabilized emulsions templates, the uses thereof and polymeric foams produced from these emulsion. (See Abstract and page 1).
Specifically, Blaker teaches a water-in-oil emulsion comprising (b) silylated cellulose polymer which is a bacterial cellulose silylated with isopropyl dimethylchlorosilane, which comprise (a) oils such as fatty alcohols and pigments such as titania (i.e. TiO2). (See Blaker page 10, Example 1 and claims 9, 13 and 15.)
The fatty alcohol is a natural fatty alcohol. (See Blaker claim 13 and page 5). Blaker teaches water-in-oil emulsions in which the water phase, the dispersed phase is 30% or more of the composition, preferably 30% to 95%. (See page 6). The oily phase can be 5-70% and hydrophobized organic particles are suspended in the continuous oily phase. (See page 6). 5-70% overlaps with the 75 to 99.9 wt% called in instant claim 1a for of the oil.
The oil can be a fatty alcohol from coconut oil such as lauryl alcohol. (See page 5). Lauryl alcohol is a fatty alcohol with 12 carbons. A C12 linear alcohol falls within the C8-30 linear alcohol called for in instant claim 1a. Blaker teaches a composition comprising the emulsion and the oil and polymer which has a carrier of water, which is a cosmetically acceptable carrier as called for in instant claim 6. (See Table 1).
Blaker teaches that the polymer can be bacterial cellulose. (See page 10-11 and Example 1). Blaker teaches that the hydrophobized bacterial cellulose can be present in an amount of 0.5 wt%. (See Figure 9 and Figure 9 description). Blaker teaches that 0.5 wt% hydrophobized bacterial cellulose can stabilize the emulsion. (See Figure 9 and Figure 9 description). 0.5 wt% falls within the 0.1 to 25 wt% called for in claim 1b.
The product of the reaction of the bacterial cellulose with isopropyl dimethylchlorosilane falls within the formula in claim 4 when R1 is methyl in two instances, methyl being also a C1 alkyl group as called for in instant claim 1 and 4. (See Example 1). In the third instance R1 is isopropyl which is a C3 alkyl group as called for in instant claim 1 and 4.
Titania (titanium dioxide) is a color ingredient and it is an inorganic pigment as called for in instant claim 6. It is titanium dioxide as called for in instant claims 7 and 8.
Blaker does not teach the molecular weight of the cellulose or iron oxide. This deficiency is made up for with the teachings of Heath et al.
Heath et al. (Heath) teaches hair cosmetic compositions for shaving that comprise water, one or more lipophilic skin conditioning agents, one or more thickening agents, one of more emulsifying agent and one or more lubricants. (See Abstract). The composition provides comfort and moisturization during the shave. (See Abstract).
Heath teaches that suitable lubricants include lubricous polymers that may have a molecular weight between about 300,000 and 15,000,000 Daltons and include celluloses. (See page 7). A molecular weight between about 300,000 and 15,000,000 Daltons overlaps with the molecular weight average of 50,000 to 1,500,000 called for in instant claim 1. Heath thus teaches that celluloses with a molecular weight of 300,000 and 15,000,000 are suitable for use in a cosmetic emulsion.
Heath teaches that opacifiers may be added to its compositions and titanium oxide and iron oxide are such opacifiers. Heath also teaches that combinations of opacifiers can be used. (See page 9, final paragraph). Iron oxide is called for in claim 8.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date making the Blaker water-in-oil emulsion of 0.5% silylated bacterial cellulose, titanium dioxide, 30-95% water and 5-70% lauryl alcohol to use bacterial celluloses with a molecular weight of 300,000 and 15,000,000 as taught by Heath in order to have celluloses that are suitable for use in a cosmetic emulsion and that can be lubricious polymers that can moisturize the skin when these size celulloses are hydrophobized (silylated).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date making the Blaker water-in-oil emulsion of 0.5% silylated bacterial cellulose, titanium dioxide, 30-95% water and 5-70% lauryl alcohol to add iron oxide in order to have an opacifier in the composition as taught by Heath.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 4 and 6-8 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CHICKOS whose telephone number is (571)270-3884. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. 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.
/SARAH CHICKOS/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619