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 .
Status of Application
The Preliminary Amendment filed on 01/22/24 is acknowledged.
New claims 9-18 were added.
Claims 1-18 are included in the prosecution.
Priority
This Application is a 371 of PCT/CN2022/108472 filed on 07/28/22. This Application also claims foreign priority to CN 2021108591211 filed on 07/28/21. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) an English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 01/22/24 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement. Please see the attached copy of PTO-1449.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 1 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 contains the trademark/trade name TWEEN. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe polysorbates and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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 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.
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.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lerg et al. (EP 1 764 083 A1 – “Lerg” – English Espacenet Translation) in view of Matsushita (J Wood Sci (2015) 61:230-250), SenGupta et al. (US 2002/0182155 A1 – “SenGupta”), and Birbara (CA 2 778 441 C).
The claimed invention is a preparation method for a light-colored catechol lignosulfonate sunscreen microcapsule, comprising the following steps:
(1) dissolving lignosulfonate and a sulfidation reagent in an alkali solution, reacting at 40 to 160°C for 0.1 to 5 hours, dialyzing, and concentrating and drying to obtain catechol lignosulfonate; and
(2) dissolving catechol lignosulfonate in an aqueous solution with a pH of 5 to 9, adding a sunscreen agent and a surfactant, and performing ultrasonic cavitation to obtain a catechol lignosulfonate/chemical sunscreen agent microcapsule emulsion, and obtaining the light-colored catechol lignosulfonate sunscreen microcapsule after centrifugation, wherein
in step (1), a weight ratio of lignosulfonate to the sulfidation reagent is 1 to 10: 0.2 to 2; the sulfidation reagent is at least one of sulfite, metabisulfite, thiosulfate, and bisulfite;
in step (2), a ratio of a total weight of a solution obtained after dissolving catechol lignosulfonate in the aqueous solution with the pH of 5 to 9 to a weight of the sunscreen agent is 1:1 to 10:1;
in step (2), the surfactant is added in an amount of 1 to 10 wt% of a total weight of catechol lignosulfonate, the aqueous solution with a pH of 5 to 9, and the sunscreen agent;
in step (2), a weight ratio of catechol lignosulfonate to the aqueous solution with the pH of 5 to 9 is 1 to 10:20 to 100;
in step (2), the sunscreen agent is at least one of avobenzone, ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, homosalate, and oxybenzone; and
in step (2), the surfactant is at least one of Tween, alkyl polyglycoside, and sucrose ester.
Lerg teaches a method of making a cosmetic preparation comprising one or more UV-light protective filter, lignin sulfonic acid and/or lignin sulfonate (Abstract, [0010], claims 1-10). The preparations have a higher sun protection factor (SPF) and a higher UV-A balance compared to preparations without lignosulfonates ([0011]). The cosmetic preparations can be in the form of a microemulsion, i.e., with microparticles or microcapsules ([0027]-[0028]). The cosmetic preparations include oil in water emulsions ([0038]-[0039]) and water in oil emulsions ([0040]-[0041]) which contain water (aqua) in amounts that add up to 100. The cosmetic preparation contains lignosulfonate in a total concentration of 0.01 to 20% by weight, based on the total weight of the preparation (claim 3). All known emulsifiers and emulsifier systems can be used without problems in the production of the emulsions ([0028]). The aqueous phase contains conventional cosmetic excipients ([0031]). The UV light protection filter is 4-(tert-Butyl)-4'-methoxydibenzoylmethane ([0014]) or avobenzone.
Lerg does not expressly teach obtaining catechol lignosulfonate, the inclusion of surfactants, or ultrasonic cavitation or centrifugation as recited in instant claim 1.
Matsushita teaches the conversion of technical lignins to functional materials with retained polymeric properties (Title), wherein technical lignins include lignosulfonate and chemical modifications generate functional polymers (Abstract). Degradation reactions including the sulfidolytic cleave of methyl-aryl ether bond leading to the generation of catechol structure and methanethiol is disclosed (Page 231, Col. 2, under “Degradation Reactions”). Lignin can be demethylated and degraded by treatment with alkali species at high temperatures (Page 237, Col. 2, 2nd ¶). “Pine kraft lignin was subjected to pretreatment using a 10% solution of sodium hydroxide at 125°C for 1 h to demethylate the guaiacyl unit, resulting in the generation of a catechol unit. The pretreated kraft lignin was used to manufacture a PF resin. The bonding ability of the PF resin in which 40% of the phenol moieties was replaced was comparable to that of commercial PF resins” (Page 237, Col. 2, 2nd ¶), wherein “PF” resin is phenol-formaldehyde resin (Page 236, ¶ bridging Col. 1 and Col. 2).
SenGupta teaches that the organic sunscreen active avobenzone seemed to be more effective in those sunscreen emulsions that contained lignosulfonate, including enhancement of UVR shielding functionality of the organic sunscreen in the presence of lignosulfonate-modified particulate materials ([0107]). The use of the surfactant polysorbate 80 in the sunscreen composition is disclosed ([0021]). Example 6 contains the sunscreen active in an amount of 7.5% by weight ([0085]).
Birbara teaches methods of manufacturing flavonoid formulations for topical applications (Abstract). A sunscreen formulation is disclosed (Page 11, last ¶; Page 13, 3rd – 5th ¶s; Page 52, 3rd ¶; claims 1 and 8-10). Sunscreen ingredients include avobenzone, homosalate, and oxybenzone and are included in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 20 wt% based upon a total weight of the formulation (Page 47, 1st and 2nd ¶s). Separation processes include centrifuging (Page 20, last ¶). Dispersion and agglomeration by sonication are a result of ultrasonic cavitation (Page 22, 2nd ¶).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of making a cosmetic preparation comprising lignin sulfonate and the UV filter avobenzone, as taught by Lerg, in view of the demethylation of the guaiacyl unit of technical lignins, including lignosulfonate, which leads to the generation of a catechol unit, as taught by Matsushita, use the lignosulfonate along with the organic sunscreen avobenzone, as taught by SenGupta, include sunscreen ingredients such as avobenzone, homosalate, and oxybenzone in the sunscreen formulation by using ultrasonic cavitation and centrifuging, as taught by Birbara, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because Matsushita teaches the advantage of demethylation of lignin which results in the generation of a catechol unit leads to a bonding ability of a phenol-formaldehyde (PF) resin comparable to that of commercial PF resins (Page 237, Col. 2, 2nd ¶). Furthermore, SenGupta teaches the advantage of enhancing the UVR shielding functionality by using lignosulfonate with avobenzone ([0107]). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use various methods known in the art of preparing sunscreen formulations, including ultrasonic cavitation (Page 22, 2nd ¶) and centrifuging (Page 20, last ¶) as taught by Birbara while making the cosmetic preparation of Lerg.
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 would have been 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.
Regarding instant claim 1, the limitation of a preparation method for a light-colored catechol lignosulfonate sunscreen microcapsule would have been obvious over the method of making a cosmetic preparation comprising one or more UV-light protective filter, lignin sulfonic acid and/or lignin sulfonate (Abstract, [0010], claims 1-10), wherein the preparations facilitate the even application of sunscreens to the skin ([0012]), and the cosmetic preparations can be in the form of a microemulsion, i.e., with microparticles or microcapsules ([0027]), as taught by Lerg.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 5, the limitations of step (1) would have been obvious over the delignification during sulfite cooking (Page 234, section “Lignosulfonate”) and the demethylation of lignin by treatment with alkali species at high temperatures (Page 237, Col. 2, 2nd ¶), wherein “Pine kraft lignin was subjected to pretreatment using a 10% solution of sodium hydroxide at 125°C for 1 h to demethylate the guaiacyl unit, resulting in the generation of a catechol unit” (Page 237, Col. 2, 2nd ¶), as taught by Matsushita.
Regarding instant claim 1, the limitation of step (1) and the weight ratio of lignosulfonate to the sulfidation reagent would have been obvious over the teaching of Matsushita unless there is evidence of criticality or unexpected results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use various ratios of lignosulfonate to the sulfidation reagent in order to produce the desired attributes of sun protection in the final sunscreen product.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 5, the limitations of step (2) and the pH range of 5 to 9 would have been obvious over the pH value of 5 -7.5 ([0039]) as taught by Lerg. The limitation of ultrasonic cavitation would have been obvious over the ultrasonic cavitation (Page 22, 2nd ¶), as taught by Birbara. The limitation of centrifugation would have been obvious over the include centrifuging step (Page 20, last ¶), as taught by Birbara. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to perform the ultrasonic cavitation as taught by Birbara for an amount of time sufficient to optimally prepare the emulsion formulation.
Regarding instant claim 1, the limitation of step (2) would have been obvious over the treatment with alkali species (Page 237, Col. 2, 2nd ¶), and pine kraft lignin that was subjected to pretreatment using a 10% solution of sodium hydroxide (Page 237, Col. 2, 2nd ¶), as taught by Matsushita, and the inclusion of UV filter avobenzone ([0014]) as taught by Lerg, the avobenzone ([0107]) and the surfactant polysorbate 80 (Tween 80) ([0021]), as taught by SenGupta, and the sunscreen ingredients avobenzone, homosalate, and oxybenzone included in an amount of 0.01 wt% to 20 wt% based upon a total weight of the formulation (Page 47, 1st and 2nd ¶s), as taught by Birbara.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 3, the limitations of step (2) and a ratio of a total weight of a solution obtained after dissolving lignosulfonate in the aqueous solution with the pH of 5 to 9 to a weight of the sunscreen agent of 1:1 to 10:1 would have been obvious over the catechol lignosulfonate (Page 237, Col. 2, 2nd ¶), as taught by Matsushita, the microemulsion, i.e., with microparticles or microcapsules ([0027]-[0028]), oil in water emulsions and water in oil emulsions which contain water (aqua) in amounts that add up to 100 ([0038]-[0041]), as taught by Lerg, and Example 6 which contains the sunscreen active in an amount of 7.5% by weight ([0085]), as taught by SenGupta. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the ratio of a total weight of a solution obtained after dissolving lignosulfonate in the aqueous solution based on the desired sun protection and related attributes of the sunscreen. The recited ratio would have been an obvious variant over the prior art absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 3, the limitations of step (2) and a weight ratio of catechol lignosulfonate to the aqueous solution would have been obvious over the catechol lignosulfonate (Page 237, Col. 2, 2nd ¶), as taught by Matsushita, the microemulsion, i.e., with microparticles or microcapsules ([0027]-[0028]), oil in water emulsions and water in oil emulsions which contain water (aqua) in amounts that add up to 100 ([0038]-[0041]), as well as the cosmetic preparation which contains lignosulfonate in a total concentration of 0.01 to 20% by weight, based on the total weight of the preparation (claim 3), as taught by Lerg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to adjust the ratio of the catechol lignosulfonate to the aqueous solution based on the desired attributes of the final sunscreen product in terms of application to the skin, stability, and the desired sun protection. Therefore, the recited weight ratio would have been an obvious variant over the prior art absent evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 3, the limitations of step (2) and the surfactant added in an amount of 1 to 10 wt% would have been obvious over the emulsifier added in an amount of 2.0% by weight ([0085]), as taught by SenGupta.
Regarding instant claim 2, the limitation of step (1) and the weight ratio of lignosulfonate to the sulfidation reagent would have been obvious over the teaching of Matsushita unless there is evidence of criticality or unexpected results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use various ratios of lignosulfonate to the sulfidation reagent in order to produce the desired attributes of sun protection in the final sunscreen product.
Regarding instant claim 4, the limitation of sodium lignosulfonate would have been obvious over the sodium ligininsulfonate ([0019]), as taught by Lerg.
Regarding instant claim 6, the limitation of step (1) and the alkali solution which is a 1 to 20 wt% sodium hydroxide and a weight ratio of lignosulfonate to the alkali solution of 1 to 10:30 would have been obvious over the pine kraft lignin which was subjected to pretreatment using a 10% solution of sodium hydroxide at 125°C for 1 h to demethylate the guaiacyl unit, resulting in the generation of a catechol unit (Page 237, Col. 2, 2nd ¶), as taught by Matsushita. The limitation of dialyzing for 2 to 8 days with a dialysate of water would have been obvious over the process of ultra-filtration (Page 237, Col. 1, 2nd ¶) as taught by Matsushita. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to dialyze until the desired particles were prepared and unless there is evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding instant claims 7 and 9-13, the limitations of the light-colored catechol lignosulfonate sunscreen microcapsule would have been obvious over the microemulsion, i.e., with microparticles or microcapsules ([0027]-[0028]), as taught by Lerg in view of the generation of the catechol unit (Page 237, Col. 2, 2nd ¶), as taught by Matsushita.
Regarding instant claims 8 and 14-18, the limitations of a sunscreen product would have been obvious over the preparations having a higher SPF and a higher UV-A balance compared to preparations without lignosulfonates ([0011]), wherein the preparation contains avobenzone ([0014]), as taught by Lerg, the sunscreen composition including avobenzone ([0107]), as taught by SenGupta, and the sunscreen formulation (Page 11, last ¶; Page 13, 3rd – 5th ¶s; Page 52, 3rd ¶; claims 1 and 8-10), as taught by Birbara.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Qiu et al. (US 2019/0343736 A1 – “Qiu”) is cited as art of interest for teaching the preparation of a high-ultraviolet absorption lignin/chemical sun-screening agent microcapsule using lignin as a wall material (Abstract and claims 1-10). However, Qiu does not teach or suggest using a sulfidation reagent which is at least one of sulfite, metabisulfite, thiosulfate, and bisulfite to obtain catechol lignosulfonate, or using a surfactant, as recited in the instant claims.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARADHANA SASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 6:30 am to 3:00 pm.
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 on 571-272-6023. 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.
/ARADHANA SASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615