DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/03/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s amendment of 08/03/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 2 are amended, claim 8 is cancelled, and claims 10-11 are new. Claims 1-7 and 9-11 are currently pending.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/032376 filed on 09/03/2021 and
claims foreign priority to JP2020-161951 filed on 09/28/2020 as reflected in the filing
receipt dated 11/02/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CRF 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
An election of invention/species was required in the instant application as detailed in the Office action dated 05/27/2025. The election is maintained and claims 4-6 remain withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 7, and 9-11 are examined on the merits herein.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/03/2026 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application. Applicant’s arguments insofar as they pertain to the present grounds of rejections and/or objections are addressed herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
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 10 and 11 are 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.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wt.%”. It is unclear whether the term indicates total composition weight or component weight, etc. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are indefinite. For examination purposes, the claim is interpreted to mean wt.% based on the total weight of the emulsified composition.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “composition…which contains…”. The limitation lacks sufficient antecedent basis because the claim depends from claim 1, which does not recite the listed components. The term “further” should be added to the claim to properly further limit claim 1. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to read “composition…which further comprises…”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masuda et al. (JPS61133138A; published: 06/20/1986; IDS of 12/20/2024; translation relied upon for the following rejection is cited in PTO-892 of instant action) as evidenced by Advanced Dermatology (Butylene Glycol, pg. 1-5; published: 03/04/2016; PTO-892 of instant action).
Masuda discloses an emulsion composition produced by blending cyclodextrin, oily component, aqueous medium, and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) [abstract; claims].
In an exemplary embodiment, Masuda teaches a cosmetic emulsion comprising 20% squalane, 3% α-cyclodextrin, 2% Na-CMC, 8% 1,3-butylene glycol, preservative, fragrance, and purified water [pg. 2, para. 17-18, Example 7].
Regarding claim 1: Purified water reads on instant component (A). Squalane, the exemplary oil component, reads on instant component (B). Alpha-cyclodextrin reads on instant component (C). Na-CMC is a species of carboxymethyl cellulose and, thus, reads on instant component (D). The reference composition does not include other water-soluble gelling agents besides Na-CMC and, thus, meets the claim limitation.
It is noted that the recitation “for skin” in claim 1 is an intended use of the claimed composition. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since the structure of the prior art composition is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Note: MPEP 2111.02. Nevertheless, Masuda expressly teaches that its emulsion composition has good emulsion stability and provides a pleasant feel when applied to the actual skin without using a surfactant [pg. 1, “Description”, para. 6].
Regarding claim 7: The prior art composition does not comprise synthetic surfactants and/or a polyoxyethylene glycol and, thus, meets the claim.
Regarding claim 11: 1,3-butylene glycol is a humectant as evidenced by Advanced Dermatology, which states that butylene glycol, also known as 1,3-butadienol, is a humectant that keeps products from drying out and helps the skin remain moisturized [pg. 1, para. 1; pg. 2, para. 1].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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 1-3, 7, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Masuda et al. (JPS61133138A; published: 06/20/1986; IDS of 12/20/2024; translation relied upon for the following rejection is cited in PTO-892 of instant action) as evidenced by Advanced Dermatology (Butylene Glycol, pg. 1-5; published: 03/04/2016; PTO-892 of instant action) and Dr. Axe (Nutrition, pg. 1-9; published: 2019; PTO-892 of instant action).
Masuda as evidenced by Advanced Dermatology discloses the invention(s) of claims 1, 7, and 11 as discussed in detail above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 2: While the exemplary cosmetic emulsion of Masuda comprises squalane as the oily component, the reference teaches a limited list of alternatively suitable oily components, including lanolin, beeswax, spermaceti, olive oil, safflower oil, vaseline, octyldodecyl myristate, lecithin, isopropyl myristate, isocetyl stearate, mink oil, cetanol, and liquid paraffin [pg. 2, para. 6]. Safflower oil is an edible vegetable oil as evidenced by Dr. Axe, which states that it is a type of vegetable oil widely used in cooking [pg. 2, “What Is Safflower Oil?]. It is the Examiner’s position that, given the very limited number of choices for the oily component, one of ordinary skill could readily envision an embodiment wherein the oily component of Masuda’s Example 7 comprises an edible vegetable oil such as olive oil or safflower oil in addition to, or in place, of squalane. Note: MPEP 2131.02. A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
In the event Applicant demonstrates that the instantly claimed edible vegetable oil is not anticipated, alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Masuda’s Example 7 by including an edible vegetable oil such as olive oil or safflower oil in addition to, or in place, of squalane because the prior art reference teaches that any of these oily components are suitable for blending with water, cyclodextrin, and CMC to form a cosmetic emulsion having good emulsion stability and good skin feel. Since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 3: Masuda discloses a cosmetic emulsion for skin having an identical chemical composition to that of the instantly claimed composition. Masuda further teaches that its invention is meant to solve the problem of conventional creams and milky lotions, wherein the presence of surfactants contributes to safety concerns [pg. 1, “Description”, para. 1-6]. Given that the cosmetic emulsion would necessarily touch the hand when applied to the skin as directed by Masuda, and the prior art is drawn to cream compositions, it is the Examiner’s position that absent further structural limitations, the prior art composition meets the limitation wherein the composition is a hand cream.
In the event Applicant demonstrates that the instantly claimed hand cream is not anticipated, alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate Masuda’s Example 7 as a hand cream. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to pursue a hand cream formulation and would have a reasonable expectation of success in doing so, because the prior art reference clearly contemplates overcoming problems with conventional skin creams by implementing the disclosed emulsion formulation, which provides adequate emulsion stability and skin feel while eliminating the need for controversial surfactants.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mentink et al. (FR3080041A1; published: 10/18/2019; IDS of 03/27/2023; translation relied upon for the following rejection is cited in PTO-892 of instant action) as evidenced by Dalziel (New Idea, pg. 1-13; published: 04/01/2019; PTO-892 of instant action).
Claims 1-3, 7, and 11 are rejected above as anticipated by or, alternatively, as obvious over Masuda. The claims are further rejected herein in view of Mentink to demonstrate that claim 10 is also obvious in view of the prior art.
Mentink teaches an emulsifying composition, particularly for cosmetic use, comprising at least one cyclodextrin and at least one O/W emulsifier of natural origin [abstract; claims]. The cyclodextrin is selected from alpha-, beta-, and gamma-cyclodextrin [claim 2; pg. 9, para. 4]. The composition preferably includes an aqueous phase thickening agent, a gelling agent, or a suspending agent [claim 17].
Mentink further teaches exemplary embodiments comprising 2-5 wt.% beta-cyclodextrin, 30 wt.% oil, 1 wt.% emulsifier, and 0.7 wt.% thickener in the form of hydroxyethyl cellulose [pg. 15, para. 3-4; see translated Table 1, Examples 1-3, on pg. 45 of cited translation].
Regarding claim 1: Mentink teaches that the cyclodextrin and the gelling agent (i.e., thickener) are present in the aqueous phase [pg. 15, para. 4], indicating the presence of water, which reads on instant component (A). The oil component, which is in the form of either sunflower oil or isopropyl palmitate [see translated Table 1, Examples 1-3, on pg. 45 of cited translation], reads on instant component (B). Regarding instant component (C), while the exemplary compositions comprise beta-cyclodextrin, it would have been prima facie obvious to use any cyclodextrin disclosed by Mentink, including alpha-cyclodextrin, because the reference clearly teaches that any of the three disclosed cyclodextrins are suitable for use in its compositions. Regarding instant component (D), while the exemplary compositions comprise hydroxyethyl cellulose, it would have been prima facie obvious to instead use carboxymethyl cellulose as the thickener because Mentink expressly exemplifies carboxymethyl cellulose as a preferred alternative cellulose-derived gelling agent (i.e., thickener) to hydroxyethyl cellulose [pg. 14, para. 1]. Since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
In the interest of compact prosecution, the Examiner notes that it would have also been obvious to further include xanthan gum in the thickener component, depending on the desired viscosity/spreading properties of the emulsion, because Mentink teaches that xanthan gum is also a suitable thickener but results in a lower viscosity than cellulose [pg. 14, para. 1-2; pg. 16, para. 4-5].
Regarding claim 2: The sunflower oil in the prior art compositions meets the claim, as evidenced by Dalziel, which states that sunflower oil is a type of vegetable oil mostly used for cooking [pg. 2, “What is sunflower oil?”].
Regarding claim 3: Mentink explicitly teaches that its emulsifying compositions are evaluated on the hand and advantageously allow a very wide range of viscosities to be obtained, making it possible to prepare both viscous milks and creams [pg. 16, para. 3-5]. Given that the cosmetic emulsion touches the hand when applied to the skin, and the prior art is drawn to cream compositions, it is the Examiner’s position that absent further structural limitations, the prior art composition meets the limitation wherein the composition is a hand cream. Alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to formulate Mentink’s emulsifying composition as a hand cream, as contemplated by Mentink, if a more viscous formulation is desired.
Regarding claim 7: The compositions taught by Mentink, which also include glycerin, emulsifier, and preservative [pg. 15, para. 4], do not include synthetic surfactants or polyoxyethylene glycols, as the emulsifier component is described as naturally sourced and non-ethoxylated [claims]. Further, it is a goal of Mentink to reduce or even replace petrochemical and non-biodegradable surfactants such as polyethoxylated derivatives [pg. 8, para. 2-4]. Therefore, the prior art compositions meet both alternatives of the claim.
Regarding claim 10: In all exemplary embodiments, the thickener component is used at a concentration of 0.7 wt.%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range. Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when substituting hydroxyethyl cellulose for carboxymethyl cellulose to use 0.7 wt.% as a starting point for routine optimization in order to achieve a desired viscosity.
Regarding claim 11: Mentink teaches that glycerin is added to the composition to moisten the cyclodextrin [pg. 15, para. 4]. Thus, it meets the limitation humectant. This is further supported by Applicant’s instant specification which teaches glycerin as an example of a humectant [para. spanning pg. 16-17]. While the reference does not expressly teach that the composition comprises humectants, plural, it would have been prima facie obvious to further include additional humectants in order to improve the moisturizing effect of the emulsion compositions, as desired by Mentink [pg. 9, para. 3].
An ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success because all ingredients and concentrations are explicitly disclosed within the reference, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mentink et al. (FR3080041A1; published: 10/18/2019; IDS of 03/27/2023; translation relied upon for the following rejection is cited in PTO-892 of instant action), as applied to claims 1-3, 7, and 10-11 above, and further in view of Daejong Medical (Freeze Drying Cosmetic, pg. 1-3; archived: 08/04/2020; PTO-892 of instant action) as evidenced by Dalziel (New Idea, pg. 1-13; published: 04/01/2019; PTO-892 of instant action).
Mentink as evidenced by Dalziel teaches the invention(s) of claims 1-3, 7, and 10-11 as discussed in detail above and further incorporated herein.
The reference does not expressly teach that its compositions are in the form of a dried body as recited in instant claim 9.
Daejong Medical teaches that freeze-drying cosmetic products is a known technique that provides several advantages, including that the freeze-dried product does not require preservatives, has a long shelf life/does not deteriorate in quality, and has higher skin permeability than normal cosmetics without damaging any effective components in the formulation [pg. 1].
Regarding claim 9: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Mentink by freeze-drying it, according to known methods, to yield the predictable result of a dried cosmetic composition having an improved shelf life and stability, while also improving the skin permeability of the cosmetic as an added benefit. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 08/03/2026 with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered in so far as they apply to the new or modified rejections of the instant Office action, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/842,973 in view of Mentink et al. (FR3080041A1; published: 10/18/2019; IDS of 03/27/2023; translation relied upon for the following rejection is cited in PTO-892 of instant action) and Daejong Medical (Freeze Drying Cosmetic, pg. 1-3; archived: 08/04/2020; PTO-892 of instant action) as evidenced by Kojima et al. (JP2016204311A; published: 12/08/2016; IDS of 03/27/20203) and Dalziel (New Idea, pg. 1-13; published: 04/01/2019; PTO-892 of instant action).
The reference claims recite an acidic emulsified composition comprising water, fat and oil, cyclodextrin, a water-soluble gelling agent, and a water-soluble organic solvent.
The emulsified composition does not comprise a synthetic surfactant and/or a polyoxyethylene glycol and, thus, meets the instant claim limitation.
Acidic substances are known in the art to be used in emulsified cream cosmetic compositions, such as those used for skin, as evidenced by Kojima which references an emulsion composition comprising hyaluronic acid [0003 and 0006].
However, the reference claims do not expressly recite that the cyclodextrin is α-cyclodextrin or that the water-soluble gelling agent is selected from the group consisting of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC) and a mixture of CMC and xanthan gum as recited in instant claim 1, that the fat and oil is an edible vegetable oil as recited in instant claim 2, that the composition is a hand cream as recited in instant claim 3, that the composition is in a form of a dried body as recited in instant claim 9, that the water-soluble gelling agent is present in the range recited in instant claim 10, or that the composition contains humectants, inorganic pigments, or ultraviolet absorbers as recited in instant claim 11.
The teachings of Mentink, Daejong Medical, and Dalziel are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding instant claim 1: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the emulsion recited in the reference claims by using carboxymethyl cellulose as the water-soluble gelling agent/thickener and α-cyclodextrin as the cyclodextrin because Mentink teaches that these components are known in the art to form an emulsified composition when combined with water and oil.
Regarding instant claim 2: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the emulsion recited in the reference claims by using an edible vegetable oil, such as sunflower oil as the fat and oil component because Mentink teaches that these oils are suitable for forming stable emulsions comprising the same ingredients.
It is noted that the recitations “for skin” in instant claim 1 and “hand cream” in instant claim 3 are intended uses of the instantly claimed composition. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since the structure of the emulsified composition recited in the reference claims is capable of performing the intended uses, as evidenced by Mentink, then it meets the claims. Note: MPEP 2111.02.
Regarding instant claim 9: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the emulsion recited in the reference claims by freeze-drying it, according to known methods, to yield the predictable result of a dried cosmetic composition having an improved shelf life and stability, while also improving the skin permeability of the cosmetic as an added benefit, as taught by Daejon Medical. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results is the rationale supporting obviousness. See MPEP § 2143 and KSR International Co. V. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
Regarding instant claim 10: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use 0.7 wt.% carboxymethyl cellulose thickener, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, as a starting point for routine optimization, as suggested by Mentink, in order to achieve a desired emulsion viscosity.
Regarding instant claim 11: Because Mentink teaches that emulsions comprising the same ingredients are useful as skincare products, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the emulsion recited in the reference claims by further including humectants in order to produce a composition having a good moisturizing effect, which is taught by Mentink as desirable.
An ordinarily skilled artisan would reasonably expect success in modifying the composition recited in the reference claims with the prior art teachings as proposed because all ingredients are known to be useful in formulating emulsified compositions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/730,641 in view of Mentink et al. (FR3080041A1; published: 10/18/2019; IDS of 03/27/2023; translation relied upon for the following rejection is cited in PTO-892 of instant action) as evidenced Dalziel (New Idea, pg. 1-13; published: 04/01/2019; PTO-892 of instant action).
The reference claims recite an emulsified composition comprising water, fat and oil, cyclodextrin, and at least one water-soluble gelling agent selected from the group consisting of carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), xanthan gum, locust bean gum, guar gum, and, tamarind gum, among others. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan could readily envision an embodiment wherein the gelling agent is carboxymethyl cellulose alone or in combination with xanthan gum. Reference claim 3 recites that the composition has a powder form, which reads on the form of a dried body recited in instant claim 9.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/842,973 in view of Mentink and Daejon Medical as evidenced by Dalziel, which is discussed in detail above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 9-10 of copending Application No. 18/697,189 in view of Mentink et al. (FR3080041A1; published: 10/18/2019; IDS of 03/27/2023; translation relied upon for the following rejection is cited in PTO-892 of instant action) and Daejong Medical (Freeze Drying Cosmetic, pg. 1-3; archived: 08/04/2020; PTO-892 of instant action) as evidenced by Dalziel (New Idea, pg. 1-13; published: 04/01/2019; PTO-892 of instant action).
The reference claims recite a liquid emulsion composition comprising water, an oil and fat, a cyclodextrin, a water-soluble gelling agent, and a dextrin, and a kit for producing the same. Reference claim 6 recites that the water-soluble gelling agent is one or more selected from the group consisting of carboxymethyl cellulose, tamarind gum, xanthan gum, locust bean gum, and guar gum, among others. Therefore, an ordinarily skilled artisan could readily envision an embodiment wherein the gelling agent is carboxymethyl cellulose alone or in combination with xanthan gum.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/842,973 in view of Mentink and Daejon Medical as evidenced by Dalziel, which is discussed in detail above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 9-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21, 23-24, and 27-28 of copending Application No. 18/697,189 in view of Mentink et al. (FR3080041A1; published: 10/18/2019; IDS of 03/27/2023; translation relied upon for the following rejection is cited in PTO-892 of instant action) and Daejong Medical (Freeze Drying Cosmetic, pg. 1-3; archived: 08/04/2020; PTO-892 of instant action) as evidenced by Dalziel (New Idea, pg. 1-13; published: 04/01/2019; PTO-892 of instant action).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising an active component and a retention agent comprising an oil-in-water emulsion comprising water, a hydrophobic substance, cyclodextrin, and a thickening polysaccharide, wherein the active component is selected from those which are suitable for use in cosmetics as evidenced by reference claim 24.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 18/842,973 in view of Mentink and Daejon Medical as evidenced by Dalziel, which is discussed in detail above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 08/03/2026 with respect to rejections on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting have been fully considered in so far as they apply to the new or modified rejections of the instant Office action but were not found to be persuasive.
Applicants traverse the rejections of Application Nos. 18/842,973, 18/730,641, and 18/697,189, arguing that the rejections should be withdrawn because the present application has the earlier patent filing term date, and it is believed these will be the only pending rejections once Applicant’s response is considered. However, because the present Application is not otherwise in condition for allowance, the double patenting rejections of record are proper and hereby maintained.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CLINKSCALES WISTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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 C WISTNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights