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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims status
Claims 1-15, 17, and 22 are cancelled.
Claims 26-35 are withdrawn.
Claims 16 and 23 and amended.
Claim 36 is added as a new claim.
Claims 16, 18-21, 23-25, and 36 are pending and examined in this office action.
Applicant Remarks on 1/20/26
Applicant’s amendments to claim 16 add the subject matter from claim 17 and 22 into claim 16. This combination was already rejected by the examiner in the CTNF on 9/17/2025. A review of applicant’s remarks finds no specific arguments against the rejection of record. While there is a general allegation that every element is not taught by newly amended claim 16, applicant fails to specifically point out the alleged missing limitations. For claim 36, there is a statement that the new limitation is not taught regarding reducing pore size.
In future responses, applicant should submit an argument under the heading “Remarks” pointing out disagreements with the examiner’s contentions. Applicant must also discuss the references applied against the claims, explaining how the claims avoid the references or distinguish from them.
Examiner maintains the rejection from the previous office action as applicant has not articulated any reason for combining the claimed elements which are all well known in the skin treatment art.
Rejection modified to include newly added claim and amended claims.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 18-21, 23-25, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fournial (WO213046137 A2) and further in view of Liu (WO2013106996 A1) in further in view of Chevreau (US2015/0306022 A1).
Regarding claims 16, 18-21. 23-25, and 36, Fournial teaches cosmetic use of Albizia julibrissin bark extract to treat conditions associated with glycation of skin including dark circles under eyes and inflamed skin (See entire document including p.3, lines 5-8). They contemplate many different types of topical formulations (creams, lotions, gels – see page 7 lines 26-36))comprising Albizia julibrissin bark extract as an active ingredient (p.7-8) and exemplify several of these different types of formulations (p. 26-38) including:
- eye formulations to treat dark circles (p.28 and 37),
- creams (p. 26, 30, 31),
- emulsions (p. 26-27), and
Microcapsules (p. 8)
Fournial teaches that these Albizia julibrissin bark extract cosmetic formulations can include:
Shea butter (p. 12 and 26),
Propanediol/propandiol (p. 29),
Glycerin (nearly all exemplified compositions),
Capric triglycerides (p. 27-28),
Betaine (p. 29 and 39),
Panthenol (p. 12),
Glyceryl stearate (p. 31),
PEG-100 stearate (p. 31),
Dimethicone (p.30),
Carbomber (p. 26, 29-32, 35),
Butylene glycol (p. 4, 7, 15, 28, 32, 33, 37),
Sodium hydroxide (p. 26, 30, 31, 35-36), and
Sodium benzoate (p. 26-28).
Components for skin tightening (reducing pore size) including retinol/niacinamide (p. 10 (tightening agents), p. 38 lines 15-16, p. 6 line 23, p. 31)
Fournial does not teach that the compositions used comprise chlorphenesin, synthetic flourphlogopite, and tin oxide.
Liu teaches cosmetic compositions especially foundations used to give skin an aesthetic color and to hide skin imperfections/marks and redness (p. 1). Liu teaches a skin care gel formulation that comprises chlorphenesin and microcapsules Magic 60-WP0105 produced by Korea Particle Technology which comprise synthetic fluorphlogopite and tin oxide (for color) (p. 19, 49, 60) with disodium EDTA (Example 2). They also contemplate that active agents in their microcapsule containing compositions can be plant extracts (p. 56).
At the time of filing, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Fournial and Liu to use the microcapsules of Liu as a means to microencapsulate the Albizia julibrissin bark extract for delivery to the skin. A person of ordinary would have recognize multiple reasons of combines these teachings: 1) Fournial teaches microencapsulation of Albizia julibrissin bark extract, 2) Liu teaches microcapsules can be used for delivering plant extracts, 3) the microcapsules of Liu can help hide skin imperfections/discoloration, 4) Fournial teaches that Albizia julibrissin bark extract can improve skin discoloration included dark circles under eyes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have put these teachings together to realize that microencapsulated Albizia julibrissin bark extract with Magic 60-WP0105 would have had the benefit of a product that treats dark circles under eyes and other skin discoloration while simultaneously hiding the current skin imperfections. Additionally, the different compounds in the compositions are well-known elements of cosmetic composition and there use amounts to design choices imparted by the additional functionality desired by the cosmetic designer, absent any evidence to the contrary. For example, a formula designed for people with dry skin will have more moisturizing compounds in the composition. This can clearly variability based on design choice can clearly be seen in the example compositions of Fournial.
With respect to claims 16, 18-21. 23-25, and 36, the combination of Fournial and Liu do not teach compositions further comprising: hydrogenated coco-glycerides, steareth-21, ethylhexylglycerin, dimethiconol, or tocopherol-acetate.
Fournial and Liu collectively teach all the limitations of claim 16.
Fournial and Liu do not collectively teach that that the compositions used comprise hydrogenated coco-glycerides, steareth-21, ethylhexylglycerin, dimethiconol, , or tocopherol-acetate.
Chevreau teaches topical compositions for decreasing oxidative stress. They teach that the compositions can include a number of different compounds including the moisturizers hydrogenated coco-glycerides, dimethiconol, ethylhexylglycerin (they also teach that this can be in an eye serum comprising Albizia julibrissin bark extract, p. 8), and tocopherol-acetate (also a well-known antioxidant); and the emulsifier steareth-21.
At the time of filing, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the collective teachings of Fournial and Liu include any of the components of Chevraeu as they are all either well-know moisturizers or emulsifiers. There is extensive contemplation in Fournial to provide Albizia julibrissin bark extract as part of an emulsion or a moisturizing composition.
Conclusion
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 AMJAD A ABRAHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7058. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday 830 AM to 500 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, Amjad A Abraham can be reached at 571-270-7058. 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.
AMJAD A. ABRAHAM
SPE AU 1663
Art Unit 1663
/Amjad Abraham/SPE, Art Unit 1663