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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the use of the term “…kinds…” renders the claim ungrammatical.
The examiner respectfully suggests simply deleting the term.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: the use of the phrase “…kinds of…” renders the claim ungrammatical.
The examiner respectfully suggests simply deleting the phrase.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A claim that simultaneously recites both a composition (“The composition according to claim 1…”) and an active method step for its use (“…is added…”) is indefinite. (An active method step requires an activity to actually occur as compared to a recitation of provisional language referring to something that could happen.) Note the discussion at MPEP 2173.05(p)(II).
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.
Claims 1, 4, 7-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by (an apparent catalog reference from) Ajinomoto Heath Supply, Mintel, Deep Harmonize Emulsion, 2010, 3 pages, cited in the IDS.
The reference teaches a cosmetic composition (page 2, Ingredients) comprising at least one polyaspartic acid or a salt thereof (sodium polyaspartate); zinc pyrrolidonecarboxylate (zinc PCA); and at least one aliphatic hydroxycarboxylic acid having 1-10 carbon atoms or a salt thereof (sodium citrate). The composition further comprises an alkali metal salt of pyrrolidonecarboxylic acid (sodium PCA); arginine; an acidic amino acid or its salt (glutamic acid); a basic amino acid other than arginine or its salt (lysine glutamate); a neutral amino acid or its salt (leucine, isoleucine); and polyhydric alcohols (butylene glycol, glycerin, dipropylene glycol).
Claims 1, 4-6, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by CN 111991261 A, whose English language machine translation has been relied upon for purposes of this Office Action and is cited in the IDS.
The reference teaches shampoo formulations (i.e. cosmetic formulations) comprising 0.4-0.6 wgt. % of sodium polyaspartate, 0.3 wgt. % zinc pyrrolidonecarboxylate, and 0.5-0.6 wgt. % of citric acid (beginning at page 12, Embodiments 2 and 3, and Comparative Examples 1, 2, 5-7 and 9). The formulation of Comparative Example 5, for example, further comprises coco-glucoside (a polyhydric alcohol).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 14-17, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 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, Ali Soroush, can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/BRIAN J DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614 1/19/2026