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
Applicant’s response of 07/28/2026 has been received and entered into the application file. Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-15 are pending in this application.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and claims have overcome 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/28/2026.
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra et al. (WO 2022/172202 A1), Route et al. (WO 2014/016134 A1) as further evidenced by Steven Abott (HSP Basics, 2016).
Mitra discloses a cosmetic cleansing compositions including a cosmetic carrier system, and a cleansing coagulant system that includes at least one of each of an oil and a viscosity modifier (Abstract). The cleansing coagulant system is prepared as a reaction product of an oil component selected from the group consisting of glycerides, fatty acids, alkenes, alkynes, with a polymer component such as a methacrylate or acrylate polymer component ([0010]). The cosmetic carrier system includes one or more solvents that is suitable to provide the cosmetic coagulant system a viscosity that is desirable; solvent comprises oil, vegetable oils ([0023]) such as castor oil ([0069]). The cosmetic carrier system includes isopropyl myristate ([0022]). Mitra discloses that the coagulant system can congeal and form a viscoelastic fluid to bind and remove sebum, makeup, dirt, pollution, dead skin and other unwanted material from skin. In some embodiments, the cleansing coagulant system that includes at least one of each of an oil and a viscosity modifier includes a natural based or food derived oil, such as linseed oil, and a methacrylate polymer components, such as poly(isobutyl methacrylate) ([0009]). In some embodiments, the cleansing coagulant system is prepared as a reaction product of an oil component selected from the group consisting of glycerides, fatty acids, alkenes, and alkynes, with a polymer component, for example a synthetic polymer component such as a methacrylate or acrylate polymer component. In some embodiments, the cleansing coagulant system is prepared as a homogenous thermal reaction product. In some other embodiments, the reaction product may be produced using other reaction components that drive the formation of the reaction product that forms the cosmetic coagulant system ([0010]). The coagulant system is further mixed with solvents ([0055]).
Mitra does not explicitly mention Hansen Solubility Parameters.
Route discloses stable detergent compositions for use in laundry and/or household cleaning amongst others (Abstract). The present invention provides a liquid detergent composition comprising 10- less than 40% by weight of a surfactant, selected from non-ionic and anionic surfactants in a ratio of non-ionic : anionic surfactant from 3:1 to 1 :4 and having HLB value(Davies Scale) of not less than 15, 1.25-1 6% by weight of a fat solubilizing oil, having a Hansen solubility parameter (· HSP) that ranges from 14-22 MPa1/2 (at °C), and wherein the Hansen polar component (· P) is in the range of 0.5-10 MPa1/2 (°C ), the dispersion component (· H) is in the range of 3-10 MPa1/2 (at 25°C) and the hydrogen bond component (· D ) is in the range of 13-18 MPa 1/2 (at 25°C) (pg 4, lines 1-9).
Route discloses that solvents with specific Hansen solubility parameters are routinely used to clean oily stain.
Abott discloses that castor oil has HSP values wherein the polar component is 4.6, dispersion component is 15.9, and hydrogen bond component is 12. These values are near identical to the values claimed in the instant application. Additionally, Mitra discloses that many oils, such as castor oil, are desirable solvents within a cosmetic formulation. Castor oil would inherently have the HSP values as explained above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined a reaction product with a solvent having specific HSP values to create a cosmetic premix composition. This is taking some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 2, solvents are discussed above.
Regarding claim 3, vegetable oil is discussed above.
Regarding claim 4, Mitra discloses that the reaction product is present from about 30% to about 45% by weight ([0018]).
Regarding claim 6, Mitra discloses that the cleansing system may be provided, generally in which the coagulant product which comprises linseed oil reacted with methacrylate which is then diluted with a solvent ([0051]).
Regarding claim 7, solvents are discussed above.
Regarding claim 8, vegetable oil is discussed above.
Regarding claim 9, reaction product is discussed above. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment with different wt % of each component within a composition.
Regarding claim 11, Mitra discloses that additional compounds can be included in the composition ([0126]).
Regarding claims 12-13, a cosmetic composition comprising a premix of a reaction product, solvents, and an additional material is discussed above.
Regarding claim 14, Mitra discloses that the cleansing composition comprises polyols ([0172]).
Regarding claim 15, a reaction product of poly(isobutyl methacrylate) and linseed oil as taught by Mitra would inherently have the same properties as claimed.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 7-8 of remarks, applicant argues that Mitra does not teach or suggest the claimed “reaction product of poly(isobutyl) methacrylate) and linseed oil. And that Mitra pairs linseed oil and poly(isobutyl methacrylate) only as unreacted, coexisting components, not as reactants. However, Mitra clearly discloses that the cleaning coagulant system is prepared as a reaction product ([0010]). The Examiner cannot distinguish why the instantly claimed cosmetic premix composition would be any different from teachings of Mitra – Is it how the reaction is carried out? Is it a certain % of each reactant within such a reaction? Does it have an unexpected result? Claim 1 of instant application only says a cosmetic premix of a reaction product of poly(isobutyl methacrylate) and linseed oil but does not mention any reaction parameters that would lead the Examiner to understand why it would be different.
On pages 8-9, applicant argues that Mitra’s own reaction-product disclosure is an undifferentiated genus, never exemplified. As taught above, Mitra does teach that the coagulant system can be a reaction product. Again, paragraph [0009] specifically names poly(isobutyl methacrylate) and linseed oil in the coagulant system.
On pages 9-10, applicant argues that the only linseed oil/poly(isobutyl methacrylate) reaction product Mitra mentions belongs to third-party, non-cosmetic prior art. As discussed above, it does not matter what prior art Mitra mentions. The teaching is clear – a coagulation system prepared as a reaction product which includes poly(isobutyl methacrylate) and linseed oil.
On page 10, applicant argues that Route does not supply the missing reaction product. Again, refer to teachings of above.
Claim 1 of instant application does not separate from teachings of Mitra. Therefore, claims remain rejected.
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 JOHN SEUNGJAI KWON whose telephone number is (571)272-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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 at 571-272-0623. 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.
/JOHN SEUNGJAI KWON/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights