DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
Amended claims 1-15 filed 30 June 2023, are acknowledges and are supported by the original disclosure.
Claims 1-15 are pending and under current examination in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Amended claim 10 recites, “Composition according to claim 1, comprising from 0.000100 to 10% by weight, relative to the total weight of said composition.”, wherein the fragrance substance(s) in which it refers to have been removed from the claim.
Appropriate correction is required to claim the substance in which the claimed weight refers. In the interest of expedient prosecution, the Examiner has evaluated the claim assuming a claim amendment editing error omission and the claimed weight is in reference to the c) fragrance substance(s) of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ueno et al. (JP2002180081A; published 26 June 2002), hereinafter referred to as Ueno.
Regarding instant claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 13-15 Ueno teaches a citral natural aroma/fragrance compound composition comprising hydroxycinnamic acid stabilizers ferulic acid and caffeic acid (matching formula (I) and R1-6 requirements of instant claims 1, 14 and 15) with a coloring agent in Example 3 (¶[0036]) and natural water-soluble polyene-type carotenoid pigment gardenia yellow as a coloring agent in Example 4 (¶[0037]). Non-limiting usage examples explicitly include, “Other than foods, citral-containing perfumes, cosmetics, mouthwashes, dentifrices, detergents, soaps, shampoos, rinses, bath additives, fragrances and other cosmetics can be mentioned.” (¶[0015], see also claims 4 and 6), thus disclosing the limitations of the instant claims and therefore anticipating the claims.
Regarding instant claim 4, Ueno teaches the composition wherein, “There is no particular limitation on the amount of epicatechin, epicatechin gallate, epigallocatechin gallate, enzyme-treated rutin, quercetin, ferulic acid, caffeic acid, rosmarinic acid, syringic acid or gallic acid. Depending on the purity of the components or the type of the product to be added, 1 to 500 ppm [0.0001-0.05%] is appropriate for high purity.” (¶[0016], see also claim 3), which overlaps with the instant claim range and therefore anticipates the claim.
Regarding instant claim 8, Ueno teaches the use of gardenia yellow as a dyestuff in Example 4 at a use level of 0.01% (¶[0036]). The enabling gardenia yellow dyestuff example is encompassed within the instant claim range for dyestuff and therefore anticipates the claim.
Regarding instant claim 10, assuming the relative weight range specified is that of the c) fragrancing substance of instant claim 1, Ueno teaches an embodiment of the composition comprising 10 ppm [0.001%] citral (¶[0025]), which is encompassed within the instant claim range and therefore anticipates the claim.
Regarding instant claim 12, Ueno teaches the composition wherein, “Generally, various components are combined, for example, water, alcohol, glycerin, a (mixed) solvent such as dipropylene glycol, propylene glycol, and triethyl citrate, for example, a mixed solvent such as water / ethanol, water / ethanol / glycerin, and water / glycerin is dissolved at an appropriate concentration to prepare a liquid preparation.” (¶[0014]), thus the instant claim is anticipated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ueno et al. (JP2002180081A; published 26 June 2002), hereinafter referred to as Ueno, in view of Rastrelli and Rastrelli (WO2020201103A1; published 08 October 2020), hereinafter referred to as Rastrelli, and in further view of Roy et al. (US2004091589A1; published 13 May 2004), hereinafter referred to as Roy.
Regarding instant claim 11, Ueno teaches the limitations of instant claims 1 (as described above), from which instant claim 11 depends, however does not teach the specific limitations of instant claim 11. Ueno does not teach the composition comprising metal salts of oxidation state II.
Rastrelli teaches the use of metal salts in cosmetic applications for stability including zinc gluconate (page 11, line 25) as an additive in fragranced deodorants (claim 1).
Roy teaches the use of ferrous gluconate (claim 2) in a food coloring composition that may also contain ferulic acid (claim 8) as an assistive to stabilize color.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to add the missing limitation of divalent metal organic to the invention of Ueno, as these divalent metal organic salts are known to be used in fragranced personal-care compositions (as evidence by Rastrelli) and incorporated into dye compositions containing ferulic acid to stabilize color (as evidence by Roy), so incorporating them in the claimed fragranced, colored system is predictable. One would be motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve a more stable naturally-derived colored fragranced composition, as oxidation and color fading are known formulation challenges for such compositions.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L. SCOTLAND whose telephone number is (571) 272-2979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 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, Robert A. Wax can be reached at (571) 272-0623. 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.
/RL Scotland/
Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615