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 .
Status of Claims
No preliminary amendment has been filed. Claims 1-14 are currently pending and are examined on the merits herein.
Priority
The instant application filed 02/17/2024, claims foreign priority to JP2023-195177, filed 11/16/2023 and JP2023-052435, filed 03/28/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/17/2024 and 07/31/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 1-6 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsue, Y., et al. (JP 2003146829 A, Espacenet translation used, 05/21/2003, PTO-892), hereinafter Matsue in view of Takekawa, S. (US 20170281512 A1, 10/05/2017, IDS dated 02/17/2024), hereinafter Takekawa, and Mori, K., et al. (JP 2793650 B2, PE2E translation used 09/03/1998, PTO-892), hereinafter Mori.
Matsue discloses a microcrystalline cellulose powder that is surface-treated with metal soap or hydrogenated lecithin, thereby providing water and oil repellency. The resulting cosmetic is excellent in use and has a soft feeling on the skin when blended into a solid makeup cosmetic ([0007]). Solid makeup cosmetics include solid white powder, powder foundation, pressed powder, face powder, blusher, powder eye shadow, eyebrow, and the like ([0018]).
Regarding claim 1: Matsue teaches microcrystalline cellulose powder which is made up of cellulose particles of 30 μm or less ([0007]). The microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) powder is characterized by surface treatment with metal soap or hydrogenated lecithin ([0007]). An exemplary metal soap-treated MCC is prepared by reacting sodium stearate and zinc sulfate ([0020]). The fatty acid soluble salt reacts upon addition of the zinc sulfate and the resulting fatty acid metal salt (i.e., zinc stearate) is sequentially adsorbed on the surface of the crystalline cellulose ([0012]). Thus, Matsue teaches a cellulose particle comprising a mother particle containing cellulose as a main component (i.e., MCC), and a coating layer (i.e., surface treatment) containing at least one hydrophobic compound selected from a fatty acid metal salt (i.e., metal soap).
Regarding claims 3-4: The metal soap above reads on a fatty acid metal salt as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 5-6: The metal soap is a non-alkali metal higher fatty acid salt. Examples of the fatty acid component of the metal soap include stearic acid among others and the metal component is not particularly limited as long as it is a metal other than an alkali metal. Examples thereof include aluminum, magnesium, calcium, zinc, zirconium, and titanium ([0011]).
Regarding claims 11-12: The surface treatment agent is desirably 1 to 30 wt% with respect to microcrystalline cellulose, preferably it is 5-20 wt% ([0014]). Such a range falls within the range of claim 11 and encompasses the range of claim 12.
Regarding claim 14: The average particle diameter of the crystalline cellulose is preferably 30 μm and less preferably, 15 μm or less ([0010]). Such a range overlaps with the instantly claimed range.
The teachings of Matsue differ from that of the instant invention in that Matsue does not explicitly disclose a first coating layer containing at least one polysaccharide as recited in claim 1 and further defined in claims 2, 8-10, and 13. Matsue does not explicitly teach calcium stearate as the fatty acid metal salt as recited in claims 5-6 nor the specific ranges of claims 12 and 14.
Takekawa discloses a cosmetic powder in which the surface of the at least one cosmetic powder is chemically modified with at least one polysaccharide, wherein the polysaccharide is chemically immobilized on the surface of the at least one powder ([0014]). Formulating cosmetic compositions with powders that have been surface treated improves the powder's dispersibility and stability in the composition ([0013]). Examples of substrates include microcrystalline cellulose and cellulose powder ([0038]). Suitable polysaccharides for surface treatment include chitosan ([0050]; [0082]; claim 5). The cosmetic powder whose surface has been modified with at least one polysaccharide has an average treatment ratio of about 0.05 to about 20 parts of polysaccharide by weight per 100 parts by weight of powder ([0048]). The surface treated cosmetic powder may be used as is in a cosmetic composition, or it may be further treated with one or more additional surface treatment agents ([0053]). Examples of additional surface treatment agents include fatty acids and their salts and soaps ([0055]-[0056]). The powders may be used in cosmetic compositions such as a powder foundation, liquid foundation, point makeup, lip, mascara, eyeliner, skin care products, hair care products, and cleansing products (abstract; claim 18).
Mori discloses a makeup cosmetic which imparts excellent finishing effects such as spreading, skin familiarity, and adhesion by the effect of chitosan-encapsulated cellulose composite particles (p. 1, para. 1). The chitosan-encapsulated cellulose composite particles are obtained by using cellulose as a matrix and uniformly encapsulating chitosan, which is a basic polysaccharide, in a cellulose matrix (p. 2, para. 4). The ratio of chitosan to cellulose in the composite particles is from 0.02 to 1 part by weight of chitosan per 1 part by weight of cellulose (p. 2, para. 9). If the ratio of chitosan is less than 0.02 parts by weight, the characteristics of chitosan do not appear in the composite particles, which is not preferable because skin adaptation and adhesion are poor (p. 2, para. 10). The cosmetic of the present invention is applied to face powders, powder eye shadows, powder foundations, chic rouges and the like (p. 3, para. 4).
Regarding the polysaccharide layer, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a polysaccharide layer into the cellulose particle of Matsue according to the teachings of Takekawa since surface modification with a polysaccharide is known and routine in the art of cosmetic powders. Takekawa and Matsue both teach surface coatings for cosmetic powders which may be used in cosmetic compositions such as powder foundation and more. “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose…[T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One of ordinary skill in the art would have also been motivated by the ability of a polysaccharide surface treatment to improve the dispersibility and stability of a powder in a cosmetic composition. Additionally, it would have been prima facie obvious to provide the polysaccharide surface treatment of Takekawa as a first layer and the metal soap surface treatment of Matsue as a second layer since Takekawa expressly teaches that the polysaccharide surface treated cosmetic powder may be further treated with a hydrophobic surface treatment agent such as a fatty acid salt or soap. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived a cellulose particle comprising a cellulose mother particle, as taught by Matsue; a first coating layer (i.e., surface treatment) comprising a polysaccharide, as taught by Takekawa; and a second coating layer (i.e., surface treatment) containing a fatty acid metal salt as taught by Matsue and suggested by Takekawa. Such an embodiment also reads on a second coating layer being provided on the first coating layer, as instantly claimed.
Further regarding the polysaccharide layer, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select chitosan as the polysaccharide in the first surface treatment/coating layer of the combined cellulose powder of Matsue and Takekawa, since chitosan-encapsulated cellulose powder is known and routine in the art of cosmetic powders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select chitosan, a basic polysaccharide, as the polysaccharide in the above first layer, since chitosan is known and effective for imparting excellent finishing effects to cosmetic powders containing cellulose. Chitosan not only reads on the basic polysaccharide of claim 1, but also the polysaccharide of claims 2 and 8.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the above modifications since Matsue teaches surface treatments of microcrystalline cellulose cosmetic powders; Takekawa teaches a polysaccharide coated cosmetic powder which may comprise a microcrystalline cellulose base and a chitosan coating; and Mori teaches chitosan-cellulose composite particles for cosmetic use.
Regarding claims 5-6, while a specific preparation example of Matsue utilizes sodium stearate and zinc sulfate to generate a zinc stearate surface ([0020]), one of ordinary skill in the art could have easily substituted out the zinc sulfate for a calcium salt, as reasonably suggested by Matsue, in order to give a calcium stearate surface as instantly claimed. Generally, the substitution of one known component for another (i.e., non-alkali metal) to obtain predictable results is considered prima facie obvious.
Regarding the coating amount of the polysaccharide layer as recite in claims 9 and 10, Takekawa teaches an average treatment ratio of about 0.05 to about 20 parts of polysaccharide by weight per 100 parts by weight of powder (i.e., 0.05-20%). Mori teaches a ratio of chitosan to cellulose in the composite particles of from 0.02 to 1 part by weight of chitosan per 1 part by weight of cellulose (i.e., >2%). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a chitosan coating at any amount taught by Takekawa or Mori since they teach known and effective amounts at which to incorporate a polysaccharide into a cosmetic powder, specifically when it is a basic polysaccharide such as chitosan. Both of the ranges taught by Takekawa and Mori overlap with the instantly claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding the amount of the hydrophobic coating layer as recited in claim 12, Matsue teaches an amount of 5-20 wt%, which encompasses the instantly claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 13, as discussed above, Takekawa teaches 0.05-20% by weight of the first polysaccharide coating and Mori teaches > 2% of chitosan in a chitosan-cellulose composite particle. Matsue teaches a metal soap coating which is preferably 5-20% by weight. While there is no explicit teaching of the instantly claimed ratio, it is well within the abilities of an ordinary artisan to optimize the ratio of the polysaccharide coating to the metal soap coating from the amounts taught of each individually, depending on the desired properties of the final product. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the instantly claimed ratio of 0.04 to 2 through no more than routine experimentation. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 14, Matsue teaches an average particle diameter of 15 μm or less which overlaps with the instantly claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05. Furthermore, it is well within the abilities of an ordinary artisan to optimize the size of the final cellulose particle (i.e., containing both coatings) depending on the desired properties and use of the final product. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the instantly claimed average particle diameter through no more than routine experimentation. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsue, Takekawa, and Mori as applied to claims 1-6 and 8-14 above, and further in view of Miyoshi, R. (US 4606914 A, 08/19/1986, PTO-892), hereinafter Miyoshi.
The combined teachings of Matsue, Takekawa, and Mori are discussed above.
Takekawa further teaches the polysaccharide surface treated cosmetic powder may be further treated with one or more additional surface treatment agents ([0053]). Examples of additional surface treatment agents include acyl amino acids (such as acylglutamates) ([0055]).
The combined teachings of Matsue, Takekawa, and Mori differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that none explicitly teach the hydrophobic compound to comprise an acylated amino acid salt selected from aluminum stearoyl glutamate or aluminum myristoyl glutamate as recited in claim 7.
Miyoshi discloses a cosmetic composition to be applied as make-up in which the surfaces of pigment included in the composition are coated with N-acylamino acid metal salts thereby remarkably enhancing the dispersibility of the pigment (col. 3, lines 1-5; claim 1). The N-acylamino acid salts which are most useful as pigment-treating agents are the salts of N-acyl-L-glutamine acid, specifically, the Al, Mg, Ca, Zn, Zr and Ti salts. Acyl group may include a residue of myristic acid or stearic acid (col. 3, lines 23-31; claims 1 and 4). Miyoshi further teaches that metallic soaps are conventional raw (hydrophobic) materials used in cosmetic compositions (col. 2, lines 35-39). A comparison between the N-acylamino acid metal salts useful in the present invention and the metallic soap which is employed in a conventional solid type white powder reveals that the former has the advantages that it enhances the dispersion property, or dispersability, of other pigments and the like due to a stronger affinity to the other pigments and oils, and enables homogeneous compositions to be obtained easily without a great degree of stirring and/or crushing (col. 2, lines 48-61). Moreover, a comparison between pigments treated with conventional methylhydrodienepolysiloxane and those treated with, for instance, aluminum N-acyl-L-glutamate, shows that the latter are excellent as compared to the former in terms of moisty touch, adherability to the skin, make-up maintenance and the like which are important in the cosmetic (col. 3, lines 15-22). Examples 1 teaches various pigments treated with aluminum N-myristoyl-L-glutamate (col. 5, lines 23-57), which reads on the aluminum myristoyl glutamate of claim 7.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate an N-acylamino acid metal salt, such as the aluminum myristoyl glutamate of Miyoshi, into the hydrophobic coating of the combined cellulose powder of Matsue, Takekawa, and Mori since these are known and routine agents for hydrophobic particle coatings in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to 1) substitute the metal soap of Matsue with an N-acylamino acid or 2) add an N-acylamino acid in addition to the metal soap of Matsue to predictably provide a second coating layer containing an acylated amino acid salt such as aluminum myristoyl glutamate, as instantly claimed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate an acylated amino acid salt, such as aluminum myristoyl glutamate, into the hydrophobic layer of the combined cellulose powder in order to enhance dispersion and sensory properties of the powder as taught by Miyoshi.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the above modification since Matsue teaches cosmetic powder particles comprising a hydrophobic surface treatment and Miyoshi teaches N-acylamino acid metal salts as hydrophobic agents for the surface treatment of cosmetic powder particles. Additionally, Takekawa teaches that cosmetic powders coated with a polysaccharide may comprise additional surface treatment agents which include acyl amino acids, such as acylglutamates.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
1. Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,460,054 in view of Mori. The Obviousness Double Patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims and would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Mori.
The conflicting patent claims a cellulosic particle comprising: a core particle containing cellulose as a base constituent; a coating layer covering the core particle and containing at least one selected from the group consisting of a fatty acid and a fatty acid metallic salt; and an intermediate layer between the core particle and the coating layer, wherein the intermediate layer is at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyamine compound, a polyquaternium, a polysaccharide compound, and a polyacrylic acid (conflicting claim 1). The only difference between the conflicting claims and the instant claims is that the conflicting claims do not explicitly define a basic polysaccharide.
Mori discloses a makeup cosmetic which imparts excellent finishing effects such as spreading, skin familiarity, and adhesion by the effect of chitosan-encapsulated cellulose composite particles (p. 1, para. 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select chitosan as the polysaccharide in the intermediate layer of the conflicting claims since chitosan-encapsulated cellulose powder is known and routine in the art of cosmetic powders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select chitosan, a basic polysaccharide, as the polysaccharide in the above intermediate layer, since chitosan is known and effective for imparting excellent finishing effects to cosmetic powders containing cellulose.
2. Claims 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,325,779 in view of Mori. The Obviousness Double Patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims and would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Mori.
The conflicting patent claims a cellulosic particle comprising: a core particle containing cellulose as a base constituent; and a coating layer covering the core particle and containing at least one selected from the group consisting of a fatty acid, a fatty acid metallic salt, and an amino acid compound (conflicting claim 1). The cellulosic particle has an intermediate layer between the core particle and the coating layer; and the intermediate layer contains at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyamine compound, a polyquaternium, a polysaccharide compound, and a polyacrylic acid (conflicting claim 6). The only difference between the conflicting claims and the instant claims is that the conflicting claims do not explicitly define a basic polysaccharide.
Mori discloses a makeup cosmetic which imparts excellent finishing effects such as spreading, skin familiarity, and adhesion by the effect of chitosan-encapsulated cellulose composite particles (p. 1, para. 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select chitosan as the polysaccharide in the intermediate layer of the conflicting claims since chitosan-encapsulated cellulose powder is known and routine in the art of cosmetic powders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select chitosan, a basic polysaccharide, as the polysaccharide in the above intermediate layer, since chitosan is known and effective for imparting excellent finishing effects to cosmetic powders containing cellulose.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, and 12-13 of copending Application No. 19/432,209. The Obviousness Double Patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims and would have been obvious over the reference claims.
The copending application claims a method for producing hydrophobic particles, comprising: mixing core particles with basic polysaccharides in an aqueous medium, and forming an intermediate layer by causing the basic polysaccharides to adhere to a surface of the core particles to obtain intermediate particles including the core particles and the intermediate layer; obtaining an aqueous dispersion containing the intermediate particles and a fatty acid alkali metal salt; and mixing the aqueous dispersion with an aqueous solution of an inorganic salt of a metal other than an alkali metal, causing metal soap particles to precipitate on a surface of the intermediate particles to form a metal soap layer, and obtaining hydrophobic particles including the core particles, the intermediate layer, and the metal soap layer (copending claim 1). The core particles include cellulose particles (copending claim 5). The instantly claimed particles are therefore an obvious result of the copending product which utilizes each instantly claimed component. The copending claims further recite hydrophobic particles including core particles, an intermediate layer, and a metal soap layer, wherein the intermediate layer contains basic polysaccharides, the metal soap layer contains metal soap particles (copending claims 12 and 13). It would have been obvious to use cellulose as the core particles since they are used in the corresponding method (copending claim 5).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, and 7 of copending Application No. 18/448,174 in view of Mori. The Obviousness Double Patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims and would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Mori.
The copending application claims a cellulosic particle comprising: cellulose as a base constituent (copending claim 1). The cellulosic particle further comprises a coating layer covering the core particle and containing at least one selected from the group consisting of a fatty acid, a fatty acid metallic salt, and an amino acid compound. (copending claim 4). The cellulosic particle further has an intermediate layer between the core particle and the coating layer; and the intermediate layer is at least one selected from the group consisting of a polyamine compound, a polyquaternium, a polysaccharide compound, and a polyacrylic acid (copending claim 7). The only difference between the copending claims and the instant claims is that the copending claims do not explicitly define a basic polysaccharide.
Mori discloses a makeup cosmetic which imparts excellent finishing effects such as spreading, skin familiarity, and adhesion by the effect of chitosan-encapsulated cellulose composite particles (p. 1, para. 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select chitosan as the polysaccharide in the intermediate layer of the copending claims since chitosan-encapsulated cellulose powder is known and routine in the art of cosmetic powders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select chitosan, a basic polysaccharide, as the polysaccharide in the above intermediate layer, since chitosan is known and effective for imparting excellent finishing effects to cosmetic powders containing cellulose.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, and 8 of copending Application No. 18/459,442 in view of Mori. The Obviousness Double Patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims and would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Mori.
The copending application claims a cellulose particle comprising: a base particle containing cellulose as a main component; a first coating layer disposed on a surface of the base particle and containing a multivalent metal salt of an acid functional group-containing resin; and a second coating layer disposed on the first coating layer and containing at least one hydrophobic compound selected from fatty acids, multivalent metal salts of fatty acids, amino acid compounds, and multivalent metal salts of amino acid compounds. (copending claim 1). The multivalent metal salt of the acid functional group-containing resin is a multivalent metal salt of a polysaccharide (copending claims 2 and 8). The only difference between the copending claims and the instant claims is that the copending claims do not explicitly define a basic polysaccharide or its salt.
Mori discloses a makeup cosmetic which imparts excellent finishing effects such as spreading, skin familiarity, and adhesion by the effect of chitosan-encapsulated cellulose composite particles (p. 1, para. 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select chitosan as the polysaccharide in the intermediate layer of the copending claims since chitosan-encapsulated cellulose powder is known and routine in the art of cosmetic powders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select chitosan, a basic polysaccharide, as the polysaccharide in the above intermediate layer, since chitosan is known and effective for imparting excellent finishing effects to cosmetic powders containing cellulose.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 11-14 of copending Application No. 18/458,986 in view of Mori. The Obviousness Double Patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims and would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Mori.
The copending application claims cellulose acetate particles comprising: a base particle that contains the cellulose acetate as a main component, and a coating layer coating the base particle and containing at least one coating material selected from the group consisting of fatty acids, fatty acid metal salts, amino acid compounds, etc. (copending claims 1 and 11-12). The particles further comprise: an intermediate layer between the base particle and the coating layer, wherein the intermediate layer contains at least one intermediate material selected from the group consisting of polyamine compounds, polyquaterniums, polysaccharide compounds, and polyacrylic acids (copending claims 13 and 14). The only difference between the copending claims and the instant claims is that the copending claims do not explicitly define a basic polysaccharide or its salt.
Mori discloses a makeup cosmetic which imparts excellent finishing effects such as spreading, skin familiarity, and adhesion by the effect of chitosan-encapsulated cellulose composite particles (p. 1, para. 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select chitosan as the polysaccharide in the intermediate layer of the copending claims since chitosan-encapsulated cellulose powder is known and routine in the art of cosmetic powders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select chitosan, a basic polysaccharide, as the polysaccharide in the above intermediate layer, since chitosan is known and effective for imparting excellent finishing effects to cosmetic powders containing cellulose.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, and 9-12 of copending Application No. 18/542,778 in view of Mori. The Obviousness Double Patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims and would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Mori.
The copending application claims cellulose particles each comprising: a base particle containing cellulose as a main component; and a coating layer that covers the base particle (copending claim 1). The coating layer contains, as the coating material, at least one selected from the group consisting of a fatty acid, a fatty acid metal salt, and an amino acid compound (copending claim 7). The particles further comprising an intermediate layer between the base particle and the coating layer (copending claims 9-10), wherein the intermediate layer contains a polysaccharide compound (copending claims 11-12). The only difference between the copending claims and the instant claims is that the copending claims do not explicitly define a basic polysaccharide or its salt.
Mori discloses a makeup cosmetic which imparts excellent finishing effects such as spreading, skin familiarity, and adhesion by the effect of chitosan-encapsulated cellulose composite particles (p. 1, para. 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select chitosan as the polysaccharide in the intermediate layer of the copending claims since chitosan-encapsulated cellulose powder is known and routine in the art of cosmetic powders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select chitosan, a basic polysaccharide, as the polysaccharide in the above intermediate layer, since chitosan is known and effective for imparting excellent finishing effects to cosmetic powders containing cellulose.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, and 6-7 of copending Application No. 18/808,713 in view of Mori. The Obviousness Double Patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims and would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Mori.
The copending application claims cellulose particles comprising: mother particles, containing cellulose as a principal component; and a coating layer that coats the mother particles (copending claim 1). The coating layer contains at least one coating material selected from the group consisting of a fatty acid, a fatty acid metal salt, an amino acid, and an amido acid salt (copending claim 3). The particles further comprise an intermediate layer between the mother particles and the coating layer (copending claim 6), wherein the intermediate layer contains a polysaccharide compound (copending claim 7). The only difference between the copending claims and the instant claims is that the copending claims do not explicitly define a basic polysaccharide or its salt.
Mori discloses a makeup cosmetic which imparts excellent finishing effects such as spreading, skin familiarity, and adhesion by the effect of chitosan-encapsulated cellulose composite particles (p. 1, para. 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select chitosan as the polysaccharide in the intermediate layer of the copending claims since chitosan-encapsulated cellulose powder is known and routine in the art of cosmetic powders. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select chitosan, a basic polysaccharide, as the polysaccharide in the above intermediate layer, since chitosan is known and effective for imparting excellent finishing effects to cosmetic powders containing cellulose.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 20 of copending Application No. 18/461,482 in view of Takekawa and Mori. The Obviousness Double Patenting rejection is appropriate because while the conflicting claims are not identical, the examined claims are not patentably distinct from the reference claims and would have been obvious over the reference claims in view of Takekawa and Mori.
The copending application claims cellulose particles, each comprising: a base particle containing cellulose as a main component, a coating layer that covers the base particle; and an intermediate layer between the base particle and the coating layer (copending claim 1). The coating layer contains at least one coating material selected from the group consisting of a fatty acid, a fatty acid metal salt, and an amino acid compound. (copending claim 20). The only difference between the copending claims and the instant claims is that the copending claims do not explicitly define the intermediate layer as a basic polysaccharide.
Takekawa discloses a cosmetic powder in which the surface of the at least one cosmetic powder is chemically modified with at least one polysaccharide, wherein the polysaccharide is chemically immobilized on the surface of the at least one powder ([0014]). Examples of substrates include microcrystalline cellulose and cellulose powder ([0038]). Suitable polysaccharides for surface treatment include chitosan ([0050]; [0082]; claim 5). The surface treated cosmetic powder may be used as is in a cosmetic composition, or it may be further treated with one or more additional surface treatment agents ([0053]). Examples of additional surface treatment agents include fatty acids and their salts and soaps (fatty acids/alkyl carboxylic acids salt) ([0055]-[0056]).
Mori discloses a makeup cosmetic which imparts excellent finishing effects such as spreading, skin familiarity, and adhesion by the effect of chitosan-encapsulated cellulose composite particles (p. 1, para. 1).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a polysaccharide such as chitosan as the intermediate layer of the copending claims since polysaccharide surface treatments and chitosan-encapsulated cellulose powders are known and routine in the art of cosmetic powders as taught by Takekawa and Mori. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select a basic polysaccharide as the intermediate layer, since polysaccharides such as chitosan are known and effective for imparting excellent finishing effects to cosmetic powders containing cellulose.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUSANNAH S ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0112. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5 (Flex).
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, Sue X Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/SUSANNAH S ARMSTRONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616