DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 13, 2025, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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 – 16 and 18 – 20 are examined here-in.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (Maintained)
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segalen-Guiraud (US 2021/0137800 A1, of record) in view of Vettoretti (US 2020/0345590 A1, of record).
Segalen-Guiraud teaches a cosmetic composition for application to keratin materials in granular form that readily disintegrates (abstract).
Segalen-Guiraud teaches that compositions in the form of solid granules have the advantage of using less water (for the composition and for use of the composition), being relatively easy to measure out, and increased ease of handling as compared to liquid cosmetic washing products (paragraphs 0001-0006, 0039).
Segalen-Guiraud teaches the inclusion of surfactant in the amount of 5 to 80% by weight of the total composition (paragraph 0204), specifying the inclusion of isethionic acid as an anionic surfactant (paragraphs 0042, 0056) in an amount of 1 to 60% by weight relative to the total composition (paragraph 0069).
Segalen-Guiraud teaches the inclusion of solid particles in the composition in the amount of 20 to 80% by weight relative to the total composition (paragraphs 0206-0208). Segalen-Guiraud teaches that the solids may be silica, clays, ceramic beans, calcium carbonate, titanium oxides, talc, magnesium silicate, aluminum silicate, or starch (paragraphs 0210-0213, 0229). Segalen-Guiraud teaches the particle size for granules in the composition is between 400 and 2500 microns (paragraph 0296). Segalen-Guiraud also teaches the inclusion of exfoliant particles (paragraph 0228).
Segalen-Guiraud teaches the inclusion of polyols as binding agents in the amount of 1 to 30% relative to the total weight of the composition (paragraphs 0230-0238).
Segalen-Guiraud teaches the inclusion of active cosmetic agents, such as antibacterials, essential oils, or vitamins (paragraph 0270).
Segalen-Guiraud does not teach the inclusion of gums as thickening agents or packaging in single-use form.
Vettoretti teaches the missing element of Segalen-Guiraud.
Vettoretti teaches solid cleansing and conditioning compositions in single-use form (paragraph 0001), suggesting that a single-use form increases convenience and versatility for the user (paragraph 0077). Vettoretti teaches the inclusion of at least one thickening agent in an amount up to 15 wt. % (paragraph 0004). Vettoretti teaches the thickening agent may be guar or xanthum gum (paragraph 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Segalen-Guiraud and Vettoretti for a cosmetic composition. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make a cosmetic composition with solid granules because Segalen-Guiraud teaches a granular solid composition is easier to handle compared to liquid cosmetic washing products (paragraphs 0001-0006, 0039). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been further motivated to make the composition in single-use form because Vettoretti teaches single-use form increases convenience and versatility for the user (paragraph 0077). The combination of Segalen-Guiraud and Vettoretti’s teachings is prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2143(I)(a) as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Segalen-Guiraud’s teaching of a cosmetic composition which includes solid particles (which may be silica, clays, ceramic beans, calcium carbonate, titanium oxides, talc, magnesium silicate, aluminum silicate, or starch (paragraphs 0210-0213, 0229)) in the amount of 20 to 80% by weight relative to the total cosmetic composition (paragraphs 0206-0208) and an anionic surfactant (paragraphs 0042, 0056), in combination with Vettoretti’s teaching for gums as thickening agents in an amount up to 15 wt. % (paragraphs 0004, 0030), reads on instant claim 1. Segalen-Guiraud’s taught amount of 20 to 80% solids (paragraphs 0206-0208) overlaps on the instantly claimed range of greater than 50%, recited in claim 1. Vettoretti’s taught amount of up to 15 wt. % thickener overlaps on the instantly claimed range of 1 to 4% recited in claim 1. Claimed ranges that overlap with teachings of the prior art are prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(I).
Segalen-Guiraud teaches the particle size for granules in the composition is between 400 and 2500 microns (paragraph 0296), overlapping on the instantly claimed range of 150 to 2000 microns recited in claim 1 and the range of 315 to 1250 microns recited in instant claim 3.
As noted above, Segalen-Guiraud teaches the composition contains 20 to 80% solids (paragraphs 0206-0208) which overlaps on the claimed range of at least 75% recited in instant claim 2.
Vettoretti’s taught amount of up to 15 wt. % thickener (paragraph 0004) overlaps on the instantly claimed amount of 2 to 4% by weight recited in claim 4.
Segalen-Guiraud teaches isethionic acid as an anionic surfactant (paragraphs 0042, 0056) in an amount of 1 to 60% by weight relative to the total composition (paragraph 0069), overlapping on the claimed ranges of 1 to 50% and 5 to 40% by weight of the total composition as claimed in instant claims 5 and 6. Isethionic acid as the anionic surfactant reads on instant claim 7.
Segalen-Guiraud teaches the inclusion of total surfactant in the amount of 5 to 80% by weight of the total composition (paragraph 0204), overlapping on the claimed range of 1 to 50% by weight of the total composition recited in instant claim 8.
Segalen-Guiraud’s teaching of starch (paragraphs 0211-0213) reads on instant claim 9.
Segalen-Guiraud’s teaching of clay as a solid for inclusion in the composition (paragraph 0210) reads on instant claim 10.
Segalen-Guiraud teaches the inclusion of exfoliant particles (paragraph 0228), reading on instant claim 11.
Segalen-Guiraud teaches the inclusion of polyols as binding agents in the amount of 1 to 30% relative to the total weight of the composition (paragraphs 0230-0238), overlapping on the amount of less than 2% by weight recited in instant claim 12.
Segalen-Guiraud’s teaching to include active cosmetic agents in the composition (paragraph 0270) reads on instant claim 13.
Vettoretti’s teaching of solid cleansing and conditioning compositions in single-use form (paragraph 0001) to increase convenience and versatility for the user (paragraph 0077) reads on instant claim 14.
Segalen-Guiraud teaches applying the granular cosmetic composition to pre-wet keratin materials (skin or hair) in the presence of water, allowing the formation of foam, rubbing, then removing the foam and soiling residues by rinsing with water (paragraphs 0015, 0289, 0304, 0310), reading on instant claims 15 and 16.
Segalen-Guiraud’s readily-disintegrable granular cosmetic composition (abstract) which includes solid particles (paragraphs 0210-0213, 0229) and an anionic surfactant (paragraphs 0042, 0056), in combination with Vettoretti’s teaching for gums as thickening agents in an amount up to 15 wt. % (paragraphs 0004, 0030), reads on instant claim 18.
Vettoretti’s taught amount of up to 15 wt. % thickener overlaps on the instantly claimed range of 1 to 4% recited in claim 18. Segalen-Guiraud’s teaching of particle sizes between 400 and 2500 microns (paragraph 0296), overlaps on the instantly claimed range of 150 to 2000 microns recited in claim 18. Claimed ranges that overlap with teachings of the prior art are prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(I).
Segalen-Guiraud’s teaching that the readily disintegrable granule composition includes 5 to 80% by weight total surfactant (paragraph 0204), and 1 to 60% by weight anionic surfactant relative to the total composition (paragraph 0069), overlaps on the instantly claimed ranges of 1 to 50% recited in claims 19 and 20.
Examiner’s Reply to Attorney Arguments Dated August 13, 2025
Applicant argues that Segalen-Guiraud does not teach the inclusion of a gum (Remarks page 1). Segalen-Guiraud alone was not relied upon to teach each of the limitations of instant claim 1, rather the combination of Segalen-Guiraud and Vettoretti’s teachings addresses each of the limitations of instant claim 1. Thus, in response to Applicant's arguments against Segalen-Guiraud individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See MPEP 2145(IV).
Applicant argues that Segalen-Guiraud teaches that the addition of thickeners is detrimental to the composition and that thickeners have the drawback of inhibiting foam development (Remarks page 2). The Examiner disagrees with this interpretation of Segalen-Guiraud’s teachings, as Segalen-Guiraud states that the conventional inclusion of thickeners “is often done to the detriment of the cosmetic effects of the composition” and that “thickeners can have the drawback of inhibiting foam development” (paragraph 0004). Although Segalen-Guiraud teaches that thickeners are often to detriment to the cosmetic effects of a composition, Segalen-Guiraud does not teach that thickeners are always detrimental to cosmetic effects. Furthermore, Segalen-Guiraud teaches that thickeners can inhibit foam development, not that they always or necessarily inhibit foam development. In view of Vettoretti’s teaching to include a thickening agent in a cosmetic composition, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to include a thickening agent in an effective amount to thicken and solidify the composition (paragraph 0065).
Applicant argues that Vettoretti teaches more than 13 thickening agents, only 2 of which are gums and that Vettoretti does not include an example with a gum as a thickening agent, alleging that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to include a gum as a thickening agent (Remarks page 3). Although Vettoretti teaches at least 13 possible thickening agents, according to MPEP 2123, patents are relevant as prior art for all that they contain and nonpreferred or alternative embodiments constitute prior art. Therefore, although Vettoretti teaches several possible thickening agents, the large number of teachings does not detract from their specificity in teaching the claimed ingredients (i.e. guar gum and xanthum gum in paragraph 0030) for use in a cosmetic composition. Additionally, Vettoretti teaches that combinations of thickening agents may be used (paragraph 0030), providing motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the thickening agents listed, such as the combination of a starch and a gum. A skilled artisan is not an automaton, but a person having ordinary skill in the art of formulating cosmetic compositions (i.e. a synthetic chemist of PhD level) and is capable of fitting teachings of multiple prior art documents together like pieces of a puzzle. See MPEP 2143. Therefore, a skilled artisan would be highly capable of combining the teachings of Segalen-Guiraud and Vettoretti to include both starches and gums in a cosmetic composition.
Applicant argues that the examples in Vettoretti include more than 4 wt.% thickening agent.
As noted above, according to MPEP 2123, the teachings of the prior art are not limited to the examples, but include the full disclosure of the prior art reference, including nonpreferred and alternative embodiments. Further, as discussed in the body of the rejection above, Vettoretti’s taught amount of up to 15 wt. % thickener overlaps on the instantly claimed ranges of 1 to 4% or 2 to 4% as recited in claims 1 and 4. Claimed ranges that overlap with teachings of the prior art are prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(I).
Furthermore, Applicant alleges unexpected results, stating that the combination of a starch and gum as claimed leads to greater foam stability over time (Remarks page 4).
As a comparison to the closest prior art as required by MPEP 716.02(e), Applicant alleges that greater foam stability over time is shown in the examples of the description as filed (Remarks page 4). The Examiner notes that example 5 describes foam initiation and foam amount as a result of the inclusion of 2 wt. % thickener (1% w/w gum arabic and 1% w/w xanthan gum), stating “… unlike Comp1, for the composition of the disclosure C1: foam initiation is slower…” and “the amount of foam is smaller…” (paragraphs 0172 – 0180). The finding that the foam initiation is slower and the amount of foam is smaller when thickener is included in the composition would be expected in view of Segalen-Guiraud’s teaching that “thickeners can have the drawback of inhibiting foam development” (paragraph 0004).
Purely arguendo, even if Applicant has in fact shown unexpected results (of which the Examiner is not persuaded at this time), the Examiner notes that Applicant’s alleged showing is in regards to the foam initiation and foam amount for a composition containing 2 wt. % thickener which does not appear to be “reasonably representative” of the claims in their current scope. See MPEP 716.02(d). It is unclear that a composition containing the specific combination of two thickeners in a total amount of 2 wt. % would be reasonably representative of compositions containing “at least one thickening agent selected from the group consisting of gums of plant, microbial, and/or synthetic origin” in the claimed amount of 1 to 4% by weight, thereby falling within the broader scope of what is presently claimed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Toriana N. Vigil whose telephone number is (571)270-7549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Frederick Krass can be reached at 571-272-0580. 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.
/TORIANA N. VIGIL/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/FREDERICK F KRASS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1612