DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Withdrawn Rejections:
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on 04/28/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
The examination is examined in view of component A from structure A1 and structure A-2. Claims 9 and 17-28 read on this species and are under examination; claims 10-16 does not read on this species and are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 9-28 are pending, claims 9 and 17-28 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/28/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 04/28/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US patent application 18576185 and 19129462 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 9 and 17-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakuta (US20040234477) in view of Masatomi et al. (US20150164774).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Sakuta teaches a composition useful in cosmetic preparations comprising a crosslinking type organopolysiloxane and an oil other than a silicone oil, and cosmetic preparations containing this composition, are disclosed (abstract). The crosslinking type organopolysiloxane of the composition of this invention is preferably a crosslinking type organopolysiloxane which swells up with at least its own weight of an oil other than a silicone oil. Also, it is preferred that the crosslinking type organopolysiloxane forms a cross-linked structure by reaction of an organopolysiloxane having 1.5 or more vinylic reaction sites in the molecule with an organohydrogenpolysiloxane having on average 1.5 or more hydrogen atoms directly bonded to a silicon atom in the molecule as structural components ([0010]). In this invention, the crosslinking type organopolysiloxane is preferably a crosslinking type organopolysiloxane obtained by the addition polymerization of an organohydrogen polysiloxane expressed by the following formula (1) with an organopolysiloxane expressed by the following formula (2) and/or an unsaturated hydrocarbon expressed by the following formula (3) ([0011]).
(1): organohydrogenpolysiloxane comprising at least one type of structural unit selected from groups comprising a SiO 2 unit, HSiO1.5 unit, RSiO1.5 unit, RHSiO unit, R2SiO unit, R3SiO0.5 unit and R2HSiO0.5 unit (herein, R is a monofunctional hydrocarbon group having 1-30 carbon atoms which may be substituted or unsubstituted, but is not an aliphatic unsaturated group,), and comprising on average 1.5 or more hydrogen atoms bonded to a silicon atom in the molecule ([0012]). (2): organopolysiloxane comprising at least one type of structural unit selected from among a SiO 2 unit, (CH2═CH)SiO1.5 unit, RSiO1.5 unit, R(CH2═CH)SiO unit, R2SiO unit, R3SiO0.5 unit and R2 (CH2═CH)SiO0.5 unit (wherein, R is identical to that of the aforesaid (1)), and comprising on average 1.5 or more vinyl groups bonded to a silicon atom in the molecule ([0013]). Herein, the organopolysiloxane expressed by (1) or (2) is selected so that the total content of at least one of the hydrogen atoms bonded to silicon and the vinyl groups bonded to silicon is less than 20 mol % of the sum of all organic groups and hydrogen atoms bonded to silicon ([0015]). The organohydrogenpolysiloxane of (1) may comprise a SiO 2 unit, HSiO1.5 unit, RSiO1.5 unit, RHSiO unit, R2SiO unit, R3SiO0.5 unit and R2HSiO0.5 unit. R is a monofunctional hydrocarbon group having 1-30 carbon atoms which may be substituted or unsubstituted, but is not an aliphatic unsaturated group. Examples of R are alkyl groups such as methyl, ethyl, propyl, lauryl, myristyl, palmityl and stearyl; aryl groups such as phenyl and tolyl; monofunctional hydrocarbons comprising cycloalkyl groups such as cyclohexyl groups, and substituted hydrocarbon groups wherein one, two or more hydrogen atoms in these monofunctional hydrocarbon groups are substituted by a halogen atom such as chlorine, bromine or fluorine, or a cyano group, e.g., a γ-trifluoropropyl group or chloromethyl group. In particular, it is preferred that 30 mol % or more of R is a methyl group and 5-50 mol % is a hydrocarbon group having 10-22 carbon atoms, but more preferred that the hydrocarbon group having 10-22 carbon atoms accounts for 10-40 mol %. Further, this organohydrogenpolysiloxane expressed by (1) may be straight-chain, branched or cyclic ([0016]). The organohydrogenpolysiloxane expressed by (1) preferably contains on average 1.5 or more, more preferably 2-50 and most preferably 2-10 hydrogen atoms bonded to a silicon atom (Si-H) in the molecule. The proportion of hydrogen atoms bonded to silicon atoms in the molecule is normally 0.5-50 mol %, but more preferably 1-20 mol % relative to the sum of hydrogen atoms and all organic groups bonded to a silicon atom ([0017]). The vinyl group-containing organopolysiloxane expressed by (2) comprises at least one type of structural unit selected from a group comprising a SiO 2 unit, (CH2═CH)SiO1.5 unit, RSiO1.5 unit, R(CH2═CH)SiO unit, R2SiO unit, R3SiO0.5 unit and R2(CH2═CH)SiO0.5 unit (wherein, R is identical to that of the aforesaid (1)). Further, the molecule preferably contains on average 1.5 or more, but more preferably 2-50 vinyl groups bonded to a silicon atom. The average number of vinyl groups bonded to a silicon atom in the molecule is preferably 2-10, but more preferably 2-5. It is preferred that 30 mol % or more of R is a methyl group and 5-50 mol % is a hydrocarbon group having 10-22 carbon atoms, but more preferred that the hydrocarbon group having 10-22 carbon atoms accounts for 10-40 mol % ([0018]). The composition of this invention can easily be obtained by adding the oil other than a silicone oil to the crosslinking type organopolysiloxane obtained by the aforesaid method with stirring ([0032]). The oil includes hydrocarbon oil, ester oil and glyceride oil ([0027-0029]). To the present cosmetic preparation, the ingredients used in general cosmetic preparations, such as an oil-soluble gelling agent, clay mineral modified with organic compounds, resin, ultraviolet absorbent, moisture-holding agent, preservative, antimicrobial agent, perfume, salt, antioxidant, pH regulator, chelating agent, refrigerant, anti-inflammatory agent, skin beautifying component (skin whitener, cell activator, rough dry skin improver, blood circulation promoter, skin astringent or anti-seborrheic agent), vitamin, aminoacid, nucleic acid, hormone, clathrate compound and hair firming agent, can be added so far as they have no adverse influence on the effects of the present invention ([0060]). Example 1 is prepared from the reaction of formula (1) and (2).
PNG
media_image1.png
299
558
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Masatomi et al. teaches A liquid aryl group-containing polyorganosiloxane comprising an arylsiloxy unit represented by RSiO3/2 (wherein R is an aryl group), wherein: the arylsiloxy unit constitutes from 20 to 50 mol % of all the siloxy units constituting the polymer, and an average number of moles of aryl groups per 1 mole of Si atoms in the molecule is within a range of 1.20 to 1.65 (abstract). The composition comprises A liquid aryl group-containing polyorganosiloxane with superior properties ([0017, 0023]), as well as UV absorber ([0085]).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Sakuta is that Sakuta do not expressly teach the ratio of aryl groups and silicon atoms is 0.34 or more by mol. This deficiency in Sakuta is cured by the teachings of Masatomi et al.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
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 invention of Sakuta, as suggested by Masatomi et al., and produce the instant invention.
Sakuta teaches crosslinking organopolysiloxane from reaction of formula (1) and (2), which reads on the applicant’s claimed component (A1) and (A2) respectively. Especially from formula (1) and (2) in example 1, formula (2) falls into component (A2), and formula (1) would fall into component (a1) when one or more of methyl group and C10H21 is replaced by aryl (since aryl is alternative to methyl or C10H21). Thus, Sakuta teaches applicant’s claimed (A), but is silent about the ratio of aryl groups and silicon atoms is 0.34 or more by mol.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize and adjust to have the ratio of aryl groups and silicon atoms is 0.34 or more because this is optimization under prior art condition or through routing experimentation. MPEP 2144.05. Under guidance from Masatomi et al. teaching the arylsiloxy unit constitutes from 20 to 50 mol % of all the siloxy units constituting aryl group-containing polyorganosiloxane, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have the ratio of aryl groups and silicon atoms is 0.34 or more and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 18-24, Sakuta teaches hydrocarbon oil, mixed with polyorganosiloxane firstly.
Regarding claims 25-28, Sakuta teaches ultraviolet absorbent.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to argument:
Applicants argue that the optimization for ratio of 0.34 or more as well as excellent performance. All related arguments are incorporated herein by reference.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. There is no evidence to show crosslinking organopolysiloxane from Sakuta is solid. The fact that organopolysiloxane from Sakuta swelling is not indication of solid, and it could also be sticky oil. It is only the attorney’s opinion that crosslinking organopolysiloxane from Sakuta is a solid. Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Since both organopolysiloxane from Sakuta and organopolysiloxane from Masatomi et al. for cosmetic, it is properly to optimize the ratio under guidance of Masatomi et al. teaching. Furthermore, one artisan would also have been motivated to optimize the ratio through routing experimentation to have the claimed ratio of at least 0.34, especially in the absence of showing criticality of claimed range. MPEP 2144.05. Regarding the excellent performance, since applicants failed to compare with the closest prior art teaching, no unexpected results has been established, and the 103 rejection is still proper.
MPEP 2141 III states: “The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts.” Respectfully, after weighing all the evidence, the Examiner has reached a determination that the instant claims are not patentable in view of the preponderance of evidence and consideration of all the facts which is more convincing than the evidence which has been offered in opposition to it.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JIANFENG SONG. Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/JIANFENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights