DETAILED ACTION
This office action follows a reply filed on December 30, 2025. Claims 1, 5, 12-15, 18 and 20-21 have been amended. Claims 1-5, 12-18, 20-23 and 27-30 are currently pending and under examination.
The texts of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code are not included in this section and can be found in a prior Office action.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 5, applicants claim “a polymer selected from the group consisting of polyamide (PA66, PA6, PA 5.6, PA6.10, PA10.10 and PA12)…” It is unclear as to whether the claim is limited to any polyamide or only those listed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-5, 12, 14-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guskey (US 9,717,674), as evidenced by Havens (US 2014/0029619) and Williams (US 2001/0009769), and further in view of
Guskey teaches a skin cleansing composition having biodegradable abrasive particles comprising a polymeric material, preferably polyhydroxy alkanoates (PHA), like poly-3-hydroxybutyrate, poly-3-hydroxyvalerate, and poly-3-hydroxy-butyrate-co-3-hydroxyvalerate (col. 6, ll. 11-17), and the inclusion of a large quantity of filler, specifically 20-60 wt% filler (col. 6, ll. 58-62), teaching that the inclusion of such helps break the polymer into abrasive particles and features biodegradable particles with large surface areas (e.g. via porosity and capillarity) which enhance the degradation kinetics (col. 6, ll. 30-49), specifically listing the filler to include sodium carbonate and magnesium sulfate.
Guskey teaches that the adhesive particles have biodegradability in an aerobic aqueous medium which contains an activated sludge inoculum (col. 19, ll. 35-52).
While Guskey does not particularly disclose the biodegradability in marine water or sea water, PHA is known to biodegrade in aquatic environments, such as marine environments, as evidenced by Havens (p. 4, [0053]) and Williams (p. 3, [0023]). Therefore, the filler increases the amount of marine water which can be absorbed into the polymer particles, inherently increasing the marine biodegradability of the polymer particles.
Guskey teaches a variety of possible fillers, but does not teach the claimed combination of fillers.
Canova teaches a cosmetic composition comprising particles of a polymeric composition that include a polymeric matrix and a plurality of mineral fillers, uniformly distributed in the polymer matrix, having properties of absorption and/or emission in the far infrared region ranging from 2 to 20 micron, where the composition is intended to prevent or reduce the signs of skin aging (Abstract).
Canova teaches the polymer matrix to include polyesters, the filler as a combination of titanium dioxide, barium sulfate and tourmaline (p. 2, [0036]), with a particle size of 0.1-2 micron (p. 2, [0047]), the fillers as being present in an amount of 0.5-20 wt% (p. 2, [0052]), the polymeric composition having a substantially spherical shape (p. 3, [0054]), cosmetic products to include creams, lotions, sera, foundation, lipstick, face powder or eyeshadow (p. 4, [0090]). Canova further teaches that there is a synergistic effect between the particles of the polymeric composition and antiwrinkle active agents (p. 4, [0080]).
This filler combination is applicants’ preferred filler combination and inherently meets the claimed absorption/emission in the far infrared region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the mineral filler blend of Canova as the filler in Guskey, as Guskey does not particularly limit the type of filler that can be used, and is directed to similar cosmetic products with anti-aging, or anti-wrinkle agents.
Guskey in view of Canova is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-4, 12, 14-18, 20, 22 and 23.
As to claim 5, Guskey also discloses the polymer to include combinations of (a) to (d), which suggests a combination of polyhydroxyalkanoate, polylactic acid or polybutylene succinate and starch.
As to claim 17, Guskey teaches the biodegradable abrasives as having a particle size of 500-1000 micron (col. 9, ll. 6-24), which overlaps with the claimed range of 800 micron or less, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
Claims 1-2, 5, 12-18 and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler-Becker (US 2016/0074309), in view of LaPray (US 2019/0276664) and Havens (US 2014/0026916), and further in view of Canova (US 2015/0147364).
Kessler-Becker teaches a cosmetic topical composition comprising polylactic acid particles and an “anti-aging” active substance, where the polylactic acid is used in a form blended with fillers, where the use of greater filler amounts is helpful in reducing the polymer into particles and increases the biodegradability and the inner specific surface via porosity and capillarity, specifically in an amount of 20-60 wt%, where the fillers are listed to include sulfates, such as magnesium sulfate (p. 2, [0036]). Kessler-Becker teaches that the particles can be spherical (p. 2, [0038]). Kessler-Becker exemplifies the preparation of skin creams (p. 9, [0123]).
Kessler-Becker teaches that the cosmetic compositions are preferably characterized by a high content of natural and/or biodegradable ingredients (p. 7, [0114]), but does not teach or suggest the marine biodegradability, as claimed.
LaPray teaches that while PLA has some degree of compostability and/or biodegradability under landfill disposal conditions, it does not exhibit any significant biodegradation when disposed of in a marine environment (p. 1, [0005]). LaPray teaches that by adding a carbohydrate-based (e.g. starch based) polymeric material, the blend exhibits increased marine biodegradability (p. 1, [0009]). LaPray also allows for the inclusion of up to 30 wt% of a filler (p. 12, [0104]).
Note that Kessler-Becker also allows for the inclusion of starch as an additive (p. 2, [0037]).
Havens teaches that microplastic beads have become a significant concern in the world’s marine environments, teaching that cosmetic-based microbeads ultimately end up in the wastewater stream, including the PLA based microbeads, which are not routinely degradable in aquatic systems (p. 1, [0047]-[0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have added the starch taught by LaPray to the PLA microbeads used in the cosmetic formulations of Kessler-Becker, as it is desirable in the art to provide cosmetic-based microbeads with biodegradability in marine environments.
By teaching that the inclusion of the filler “increases the biodegradability and the inner specific surface via porosity and capillarity”, this suggests that the inclusion of the filler increases the amount of marine water which can be absorbed into the polymer particles, inherently increasing the marine biodegradability of the polymer particles.
Canova teaches a cosmetic composition comprising particles of a polymeric composition that include a polymeric matrix and a plurality of mineral fillers, uniformly distributed in the polymer matrix, having properties of absorption and/or emission in the far infrared region ranging from 2 to 20 micron, where the composition is intended to prevent or reduce the signs of skin aging (Abstract).
Canova teaches the polymer matrix to include polyesters, the filler as a combination of titanium dioxide, barium sulfate and tourmaline (p. 2, [0036]), with a particle size of 0.1-2 micron (p. 2, [0047]), the fillers as being present in an amount of 0.5-20 wt% (p. 2, [0052]), the polymeric composition having a substantially spherical shape (p. 3, [0054]), cosmetic products to include creams, lotions, sera, foundation, lipstick, face powder or eyeshadow (p. 4, [0090]). Canova further teaches that there is a synergistic effect between the particles of the polymeric composition and antiwrinkle active agents (p. 4, [0080]).
This filler combination is applicants’ preferred filler combination and inherently meets the claimed absorption/emission in the far infrared region.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used the mineral filler blend of Canova as the filler in Kessler-Becker, as Kessler-Becker does not particularly limit the type of filler that can be used, and is directed to similar cosmetic products with anti-aging, or anti-wrinkle agents.
Kessler-Becker in view of LaPray and further in view of Canova is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-2, 12-16, 18 and 20-23.
As to claim 17, Kessler-Becker teaches that the polylactic acid particles have a particle size of particularly preferably 1-750 micron (p. 3, [0043]).
Claims 1-4, 13-18, 20, 22, 23 and 27-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagaki (US 2020/0384745).
Inagaki teaches a molded article, sheet, container or tubular article, which includes composite fibers ([0170]), comprising (A) an aliphatic polyester, preferably polybutylene succinate (p. 7, [0123]) (B) a polyhydroxyalkanoate, preferably poly(3-hydroxybutyrate-co-3-hydroxyh and 15-50 wt% of (C) an inorganic filler, where the article has high biodegradability in the sea (p. 11, 0176]). Inagaki teaches that when the filler is added, the surface area of the molded article increases, and as biodegradation proceeds, the filler falls off from the molded article, and thus, the area in contact with a degrading enzyme produced by microorganisms increases. Therefore, an effect of increasing the biodegradation rate of (A) and (B) is obtained (p. 3, [0069]).
Inagaki teaches the inorganic filler to include silica, as well as kaolin, among the possible inorganic fillers (p. 8, [0138]). Inagaki also teaches silica as an antiblocking agent (p. 10, [0156]). Therefore, choosing a combination of silica and kaolin is prima facie obvious.
This filler combination is applicants’ preferred filler combination and inherently meets the claimed absorption/emission in the far infrared region.
Inagaki is prima facie obvious over instant claims 1-4, 14-15, 20, 22, 23 and 27-30.
As to claim 5, Inagaki suggest adding fine powder of starch (p. 10, [0150]).
As to claim 13, Inagaki teaches the inorganic filler as having a particle size of preferably 20 micron or less, which overlaps with the claimed range of less than or equal to 10 micrometers, and it has been held that overlapping ranges are sufficient to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the range taught by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness.
As to claims 17-18, Inagaki exemplifies pelletizing the composition and then processing into a powder having an average particle diameter of 250 micron or less (p. 16, [0260]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 30, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue that Canova does not teach biodegradability, arguing that one of ordinary skill in the art would not turn to Canova.
While the examiner agrees, Kessler-Beck teaches the use of greater filler amounts is helpful in reducing the polymer into particles and increases the biodegradability and the inner specific surface via porosity and capillarity.
Kessler-Becker teaches that the cosmetic compositions are preferably characterized by a high content of natural and/or biodegradable ingredients (p. 7, [0114]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the inclusion of any filler to increase the biodegradability of the composition. Applicants have not compared the biodegradability of compositions with any filler compared to the claimed filler.
Conclusion
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIEANN R JOHNSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-7344. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Randy Gulakowski can be reached at (571)272-1302. 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.
/Brieann R Johnston/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1766