Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitations “e.g., ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, etc.)” and “(e.g., ethylene glycol, propylene glycol, butylene glycol, pentylene glycol, caprylyl glycol, etc.)”. The terms “e.g.,” and “etc” render the claim indefinites because it is unclear if the limitations after these terms are part of the claimed limitations. Also it is unclear what is meant by “etc.”?. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3 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.
4 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, 7-8, 10-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Mitra et al. (US 2022/0249342 A1).
Mitra et al. (US’ 342 A1) teaches a multi-phase cleaning composition comprising an oil phase include an oil component and a polymer component and water phase (see page 3, paragraph, 0043 and claim 1), wherein the cleaning composition comprises a reaction product (hydrophobic polymer) of an oil component with a methacrylate or acrylate polymer component (see page 4 paragraph, 0046), wherein the oils include drying oils comprise sunflower, tung and linseed and semi-drying oils comprising soybean and cottonseed oils as claimed in claims 1-3 (see page 5, paragraph, 0058), wherein the polymers include poly(isobutyl methacrylate) as claimed in claims 4, 7 and 8 (see page 5, paragraph, 0045), wherein the cleaning composition also comprises organic solvents include polyols, ethyl alcohol (ethanol) and isopropyl alcohol as claimed in claims 1 and 10-13 (see page 2 paragraph, 0027) and wherein the multi-phase cleaning composition also comprises sodium chloride (electrolyte) as claimed in claims 14 and 15 (see page 11, paragraph, 0138), and wherein the cleaning composition is free from surfactants as claimed in claim 16 (see page 11 paragraph, 0146). Mitra et al. (US’ 342 A1) also teaches a method for cleaning keratinous tissues include skin by applying the cleaning composition to the skin and removing makeup from skin and rinse-off formulation as claimed in claims 19 and 20 (see page 14, paragraph, 0202-0205). Mitra et al. (US’ 342 A1) as described above, teaches a multi-phase cleaning composition comprising an oil phase and water phase identical to the claimed composition, which inherently that the multi-phase cosmetic cleaning composition be mixed before application to the skin or hair as claimed in claim 19 and 20. Mitra et al. (US’ 342 A1) also teaches a multi-cleaning composition identical to the claimed composition which inherently should have same phase separation within the claimed time as claimed in claim 17. Mitra et al. (US’ 342 A1) teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Mitra et al. (US’ 342 A1) anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5 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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra et al. (US 2022/0249342 A1).
Mitra et al. (US’ 342 A1) teaches a multi-phase cleaning composition includes a cleaning coagulant system that includes a reaction product (hydrophobic polymer) of an oil component and a polymer component and water phase (see pages 3-4, paragraphs, 0043-0046 and claim 1), and wherein the polymer component includes poly(isobutyl methacrylate) (see pages 3-4, paragraph, 0045) and wherein the oil in the cleaning coagulant system is present in a range from about 30% to about 45% by wt., and the polymer is present in a range from about 0.1% to about 20% wt., (see page 2, paragraph, 0022).
The prior art of Mitra et al. (US’ 342 A1) teaches the percentage amounts of the oil and the polymer and wherein the percentage amounts are closed to or overlapped with claimed percentage amounts as claimed in claim 5
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Mitra et al. (US’ 342 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the amounts of the ingredients in the cleaning composition in order to get the maximum effective amounts of these ingredients in the claiming composition and thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a cleaning composition to have similar property to those claimed, absent unexpected result.
Allowable Subject Matter
6 Claims 6 and 9 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. The closest prior art of record (US 2022/0249342 A1) teaches a cosmetic cleaning coagulant system include a reaction product of an oil component and methacrylate or acrylic polymer component (see page 4, paragraph, 0046), wherein the oil component in the amount of is present in a range from about 30% to about 45% by wt., (see page 2, paragraph, 0022). However, the closest prior art of record (US’ 342 A1) does not teach or disclose a reaction product that comprises of about 72 to about 77 parts by weight of oil as claimed in claims 6 and 9.
7 Claim 18 is allowed. The closest prior art of record (US 2022/0249342 A1) does not teach or disclose a reaction product that comprises of about 72 to about 77 parts by weight of oil as claimed in claim 18.
Further, the Patent No. (US, 5,698,139 A) teaches coagulant composition comprising poly (linseed oil/isobutyl methacrylate) wherein the linseed oil comprises from 72% to 77% by wt., and the polymer range from 23% to 28% by wt., (see col. 2, lines 55-57 and col. 3,lines 5-10). However, the coagulant composition of (US, 5,698,139 A) is used for treatment of oil slicks and spills on the surface of bodies of water (see col. 1, lines 21-26) and not used in a cosmetic composition and is not applied on skin or hair or used to remove make-up and therefore, the teaching of (US, 5,698,139 A) could not be combined with the cosmetic composition of (US 2022/0249342 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571)272-2817. 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761