DETAILED ACTION
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, 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.
Claims 1 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al. 8,466,248 in view of Neumann et al. 2011/0070183.
Meyer et al. teach a crosslinked siloxane block copolymer that corresponds to
claimed component B). See for instance columns 3 and 4. In column 3, reactant II forms the claimed organopolysiloxane units of formula (II). This also meets the requirements found in claims 4 to 6, 17 and 20. The Examiner notes that Meyer et al. (or a member of the patent family) is noted in the instant specification as teaching component B).
While this reference teaches that other emulsifiers may be added, including poly-siloxane polyether copolymers (column 9, lines 10 to 15 and column 7, line 11) this does not specifically teach the polysiloxane polyether copolymer A) in claim 1. It is important to note, though, that Meyer et al. teach that lauryl or cetyl dimethicone poly-mers such as ABIL® EM 90 is a useful emulsifier that can be added.
Neumann et al. teach crosslinked polysiloxane polyether copolymers correspond-ing to claimed component A). Again, the specification acknowledges that this reference (or a corresponding reference) teaches this component. See paragraphs 22 to 60 and compare to claimed A) as well as instant claims 2, 3 and 14 to 16, 18 to 19. While Neumann et al. teach that the emulsifier can be used in combination with other emulsifiers Neumann et al. provide evidence that the emulsifier therein shows improvement over conventional ones such as cetyl dimethicone, specifically ABIL® EM 90. See paragraphs 174, 180 and 124.
Note that both emulsifiers are useful in forming water in oil emulsions used in cosmetic and pharmaceutical compositions (see Meyer et al. column 2, line 7 and Neumann et al. paragraph 20).
As such it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to add the emulsifier in Neumann et al. to the Meyer et al. emulsion with the expectation of obtaining useful and predictable results and even improved long-term stability as noted in paragraph 180 of Neumann et al.
In addition to the specific motivation to combine noted supra, the Examiner also notes that, generally it is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions, each of which is taught by prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose. The idea for combining said compositions flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.
In this manner each of claims 1 to 6 are rendered obvious.
For claims 7 and 8 adjusting the amount of each emulsifier in the mixture noted above would have been well within the skill of the ordinary artisan, in an effort to adjust the emulsion properties such as stability and feel, while considering cost and the ease of production. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
For claim 9 see Meyer et al. column 2, lines 38 to 60, which teach an emulsifier system.
For claims 10 to 13 see the bottom of column 6 which teaches dispersed solids. See also column 11, lines 26 to 40, which teach solid particles, as well as column 14, lines 28 to 36, which teach solid particles. Adjusting the amount of particles in an effort to determine the appropriate amount to achieve the desired property (pigmentation, UV filtering, filling) would have been within the skill of the ordinary artisan. Again note that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
In view of the above, each of claims 1 to 20 are rendered obvious by this combin-ation of references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARGARET MOORE whose telephone number is (571)272-1090. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 10 am to 5 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Heidi Kelly, can be reached at 571-270-1831.
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 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.
Mgm
12/8/25
/MARGARET G MOORE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1765