DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after June 05, 2026, 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 06, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants’ claimed invention filed on 06/05/2026 in the matter of Application N° 18/261,512. Said documents are entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
The present application, filed on or after June 05, 2026, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Thus, claims 1-15 represent all claims currently under consideration.
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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keita et al. (WO2017187977) in view of Tajima et al. (CA2708434C), and Hougaz (US20090061001A1), and Zhen et al. (CN103458862A), and Yuji et al. (JP5904629B2).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, 7, and 13, Keita et al. teach a water in-oil emulsified cosmetic with the unique ability to improve color uniformity and color development more than right after application through contact with water comprising an Organically modified clay mineral. The water-in-oil type emulsified cosmetic, which comprises (A) an organic modified clay mineral, (B) an oily phase-thickener other than the organic modified clay mineral (A), (C) a nonvolatile liquid oil component other than a silicone oil, (D) a silicone-type surfactant having an HLB of less than 8, and (E) a coloring material, is characterized in that the weight ratio [(A)+(B)]/(C) is 0.04 or more and less than 0.68 (See abstract and claim 1)The water-in-oil emulsified cosmetic according to any one of claims 1 to 3, wherein the amount of non-volatile liquid oil other than silicone oil is 3% by mass or more (See claim 3). The water-in-oil emulsified cosmetic according to any one of claims 1 to 5, wherein the blending amount of the coloring material is 0.3% by mass or more (See claim 5). Plant hardened oils include hardened castor oil (See paragraph 23). The compounding quantity of a component is 0.1-3 mass% with respect to the total amount of water-in-oil type emulsified cosmetics, more preferably, it is 0.2-2 mass% (See Paragraph 18). Examples of polar oils with IOB ≥ 0.3, these oils often contain esters, alcohols, or ether groups that increase polarity, which include the non-volatile liquid oil other than the ultraviolet absorber contained in the component (C) includes, for example, ester oil, and isopropyl myristate (See paragraph 30). In addition, all compounding quantities are represented by the mass% with respect to the total amount of water-in-oil type emulsified cosmetics, such as Isopropyl myristate 3 (See paragraph 87). The non-volatile liquid oil other than the ultraviolet absorber contained in the component (C) includes, ester oil such as diisostearyl malate; (See paragraph 31).
Tajima et al. teach by choosing a surfactant based on the necessary HLB of the functional oil-based agents or granule surface characteristics, the emulsification and dispersion of functional granules agents into water were carried out. Additionally, depending on whether O/W or W/O type emulsions were to be generated, the surfactant’s necessary HLB value as an emulsifier had to be specifically selected; the amphiphilic substance capable of self-assembly is selected from among polyoxyethylene hardened castor oil derivatives represented by the general formula, wherein the average number of added ethylene oxide molecules is 5 to 15, dialkyldimethylammonium halides wherein the chain length of the alkyl or alkenyl is 8 to 22, and particles made from phospholipids or phospholipid derivatives (See abstract).
Hougaz discloses wherein the sun’s detrimental effects, especially its ultraviolet radiation, can be absorbed or blocked by the sunscreen agents that can be utilized in the composition of the present invention. more typically, blocking and or absorbing radiation in the 290 to 400 nm wavelength region. More typically, the sunscreen agents are all agents that have been approved for use in sunscreen formulations by one or more regulatory authority. Suitable sunscreen agents include, for example Ethylhexyl Salicylate and octocrylene (See paragraph 0030 and claim 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the instant effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Tajima et al. teaches the emulsification and dispersion of functional granule agents into water were performed, together with the required HLB of the functional oil-based agents or granule surface features. Additionally, the surfactant’s required HLB value as an emulsifier had to be carefully chosen based on whether an O/W or W/O type emulsion was to be produced. into the teachings of Keita et al. which teach a water-in-oil emulsified cosmetic that contains an organically modified clay mineral and has the special ability to enhance color development and homogeneity more than immediately after application. The emulsified cosmetic of the water-in-oil kind, which contains an organic modified clay mineral. Other than the organic modified clay mineral, the water-in-oil type emulsified cosmetic also contains an oily phase-thickener. A silicone-type surfactant with an HLB of less than eight, or, alternatively, a nonvolatile liquid oil component.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instant application, to incorporate the sunscreen agents explicitly taught by Hougaz, including ethylhexyl salicylate and octocrylene, into a water-in-oil emulsified cosmetic system as taught by Keita et al. while selecting appropriate surfactants based on HLB principles as taught by Tajima et al, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2, Keita et al. teach a nonvolatile liquid oil other than silicone oil, Silicone interface with HLB less than 8 (See paragraph 8, and Abstract). A silicone-based surfactant (hereinafter simply referred to as “component (D)”) is particularly limited as long as it has a silicone skeleton (polysiloxane structure) and has an HLB of less than 8. polyglycerin-modified silicone, and / or polyglycerin-alkyl co-modified silicone are preferably used. One suitable example of such a polyoxyalkylene / alkyl-modified silicone is KF-6038 (lauryl PEG-9 polydimethylsiloxyethyl dimethicone, manufactured by Shin-Etsu Silicone (See paragraph 42). Examples of the polyglycerin-modified silicone include linear polyglycerin-modified silicones (= siliconized polyglycerin at both ends) [Wherein, R 1 represents a linear or branched alkyl group having 1 to 12 carbon atoms or a phenyl group, R 2 represents an alkylene group having 2 to 11 carbon atoms, and p is 10 to 120. And q is 1-11] (See paragraph 43).
Regarding claims 4, and 8, Tajima et al. teach the amphiphilic substance capable of self-assembly is selected from among polyoxyethylene hardened castor oil derivatives represented by the general formula, wherein the average number of added ethylene oxide molecules is 5 to 15 (See abstract and 0011).
Regarding claim 9, Keita et al. teach water-in-oil type emulsified cosmetic that has unprecedented properties of, after being in contact with water, sweat, etc., showing an improved coloration effect and improved color uniformity in comparison with the state immediately after application (See abstract). protecting skin and hair from UV damage is one of the most important issues in skin care, body care, and hair care. Recently, it has been severe in outdoor activities such as swimming in the swimming pool, the sea, and winter skiing. It is considered that it is important to protect from ultraviolet rays not only in ultraviolet conditions but also in daily life (See paragraph 3). The water-in-oil emulsified cosmetic according to any one of claims 1 to 7, wherein the non-volatile liquid oil other than the silicone oil contains an ultraviolet absorber (See claim 8).
Regarding claim 10, Keita et al. teach silicone surfactant with HLB less than 8>. Instead, for example, alkyl-modified silicone is more preferable (See paragraph 37). In the general formula, R is an alkyl group having 1 to 3 carbon atoms (See paragraph 38).
Regarding claims 11, and 12, Keita et al. teach other from the UV absorber that is part of the component, the non-volatile liquid oil contains things like vegetable oil, hydrocarbon oil, ester oil, high molecular weight polyoxyalkylene glycol, and similar substances. Squalane and other hydrocarbon oils are particular instances (See paragraph 32).
Zhen et al. teach examples of non-volatile non-polar hydrocarbon-based oils that may be mentioned include hydrocarbon-based oils such as squalene, linear or branched chain hydrocarbons such - Polydecene and hydrogenated polydecene, such as Puresyn 150 sold by Mobil Chemicals (MM = 9200 g/mol), and mixtures of them. As polydecenes such as Puresyn 10 and mixtures thereof (See paragraph 33). - Polydecene and hydrogenated polydecene, such as Puresyn 150 sold by Mobil Chemicals (MM = 9200 g/mol), and mixtures of them (See Paragraph 33). According to one embodiment, the non-volatile non-polar oils suitable for use in the present invention may be selected from polydecenes, and/or squalane and mixtures thereof (See paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 14, Keita et al. teach Volatile silicone oils include silicone oils that are volatile at room temperature and are conventionally used in cosmetics, such as volatile cyclic silicone oils (volatile). The blending amount of the volatile oil is usually about 1 to 40% by mass with respect to the total amount of the water-in-oil emulsified cosmetic (See paragraph 33 and 34).
Regarding claim 15, Yuji et al. teach other oils used in the solid cosmetic composition of the present invention are not limited as long as the effects of the present invention are not impaired. For example, (Wax-Free) jojoba oil, waxes such as squalene, petrolatum, microcrystalline wax Hydrocarbons such as isopropyl myristate (See paragraph 21). Examples of the humectant include, but are not limited to, glycerin. These can be used alone or in combination of two or more. In particular, it is preferable to include glycerin as a moisturizing agent from the viewpoints of a moisturizing effect and a feeling of use. (See paragraph 11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 05, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant amended independent claim 1 to recite that the claimed water-in-oil composition includes, among other limitations, (i) at least one of ethylhexyl salicylate or octocrylene as the polar oil, (ii) at least one of hydrogenated polydecene or caprylyl methicone as the nonpolar oil having an alkyl side chain, and (iii) a polyoxyethylene hardened castor oil. Applicant contends that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggests this particular combination of oil-based components and further argues that the present invention achieves stable maintenance of the emulsified state between the oil-based and water-based components, thereby maintaining the gel state of the water-in-oil composition.
These arguments are not persuasive because the cited references collectively teach each of the claimed components and provide sufficient motivation to combine them.
Hougaz et al. expressly disclose that suitable sunscreen agents include those approved for regulatory use and specifically identify both ethylhexyl salicylate and octocrylene as suitable sunscreen agents. Accordingly, Hougaz et al. expressly teach the very polar oil components that applicant alleges are absent from the prior art. Therefore, the recited requirement of using at least one of ethylhexyl salicylate or octocrylene does not distinguish the claimed invention over the cited art.
Furthermore, Zhen et al. expressly disclose suitable non-volatile, nonpolar hydrocarbon-based oils, including polydecene, hydrogenated polydecene (e.g. Puresyn® 150), Puresyn® 10, and mixtures thereof. Thus, Zhen et al. teach the claimed nonpolar oil having an alkyl side chain, including hydrogenated polydecene. The selection of hydrogenated polydecene from the expressly disclosed list of suitable nonpolar oils would have been obvious design choice for one of ordinary skill in the cosmetic formulation art.
Additionally, Keita et al. in combination with Tajima et al. and Yuji et al., teaches water-in-oil emulsions formulated to achieve stable emulsification through the use of appropriate emulsifiers and oil-phase components. Tajima et al. further teaches selecting emulsifiers having appropriate hydrophilic-lipophilic balance (HLB) characteristics, including polyoxyethylene-based surfactants, to improve emulsion stability. Therefore, the use of a polyoxyethylene hardened castor oil as the emulsifier represents the predictable selection of a known emulsifying agent for its established function of stabilizing water-in-oil emulsions.
Applicant’s argument that the invention stably maintains the emulsified state and gel state is likewise unpersuasive. The cited references are directed to the same field of cosmetic water-in-oil emulsions and are concerned with achieving stable emulsified systems. Selecting the expressly taught oil components of Hougaz et al. and Zhen et al. for incorporation into the stable water-in-oil compositions taught by Keita et al. together with the emulsifier teachings of Tajima et al. and Yuji et al. would have yielded no more than the predictable result of a stable water-in-oil emulsion. Applicant has not provided persuasive evidence demonstrating that the claimed combination produces unexpected results or exhibits properties that would have been unexpected relative to the combined teachings of the prior art.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained because the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date at the time the invention was made in view of the combined teachings of Keita et al., Tajima et al., Hougaz et al., Zhen et al., and Yuji et al.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kimberly Barber whose telephone number is (703) 756-5302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A. Wax, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
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.
/KIMBERLY BARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights