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
The Amendment filed on March 24th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-22 are pending in the application.
The rejection of claims 1-4, 7-11, 13, and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mitra (US 20220249342 A1), as evidenced by Eastman (“Solvent selector chart”) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 5 and claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mitra (US 20220249342 A1) and Alper (US 5837146 A) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 12 and claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mitra (US 20220249342 A1) and Farmer (WO 2023196762 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 14 and claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mitra (US 20220249342 A1) and Xie (“Advantages of Amino Acid-Based Surfactants over Traditional Surfactants”) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mitra (US 20220249342 A1) and Mohammad (JP 2017114800 A) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Mitra (US 20220249342 A1), Farmer (WO 2023196762 A1), and Mohammad (JP 2017114800 A) is withdrawn.
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 1-4, 7-11, 13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra (US 20220249342 A1), and in further view of Dani (US 20200080031 A1), as evidenced by Eastman (“Solvent selector chart”).
With regard to claims 1-4 and 21-22, Mitra discloses a cosmetic cleaning composition (see Abstract). Mitra further discloses the cleaning composition comprising an oil component and a polymer component (see [0008]). Mitra further discloses the cleansing coagulate system as being prepared by the reaction of the oil component with a methacrylate polymer component (see [0014]). Linseed oil and poly(isobutyl methacrylate) are disclosed as suitable (see [0013]). Mitra further discloses isopropyl alcohol (see [0024]). Isopropyl alcohol is disclosed in the instant specifications as a suitable solvent. Mitra further teaches the composition may be an oil-in-water emulsion (see [0033]) comprising 0.1-20wt% of the polymer (see [0052]). Mitra further teaches the composition as imbued in a pad or wipe (see [0028]-[0029]). Mitra discloses isopropyl alcohol (see [0027]), also listed as isopropanol (see [0095]), at 0.5-20wt% (see [0097]). Isopropyl alcohol is disclosed in the instant specifications as a suitable solvent. Mitra further teaches water at 10-90wt% (see [0087]). Mitra discloses the composition may comprise surfactants (see [0066]) and further discloses that at least one of the surfactants may be anionic (see [0102]) at 1-5wt% (see [0102]). Mitra further discloses the pH of the composition may be between 3.0 and 7.0 (see [0091]).
While the reference does not teach a single embodiment with each limitation together. However, the reference discloses a cosmetic cleansing composition (see Abstract) and further discloses the composition may be imbued in a wipe (see [0028]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the wipe and composition of Mitra as wipes are conventional cosmetic articles of manufacture, as disclosed by Mitra.
However, Mitra fails to disclose the substrate as being impregnated with the cleaning composition, wherein the amount of the cleansing composition relative to the substrate from about 20:1 to 1:20 by weight.
Dani discloses a Pre-moistened multi-layer wipes in which the fibrous substrate for the wipes comprises 70% or more pulp fibers (see Abstract), wherein the composition impregnated onto the wipe comprises at least 90wt% of water (see [0101]) and anionic surfactants (see [0096]), an analogous art. Dani further discloses the loading ratio of 1:1 to 4:1 as providing optimal hand feel (see [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the composition to substrate ratio of Dani with the composition of Mitra to provide optimal hand feel, as disclosed by Dani.
With regard to claims 7-9, Mitra further discloses the cleansing coagulate system as being prepared by the reaction of the oil component with a methacrylate polymer component (see [0014]). Linseed oil and poly(isobutyl methacrylate) are disclosed as suitable (see [0013]).
With regard to claim 10, Mitra discloses isopropyl alcohol (see [0027]). The Hansen Solubility Parameters of isopropyl alcohol are 15.8MPa0.5 (D), 6.1MPa0.5 (P), and 16.4MPa0.5 (H), as evidenced by Eastman. This results in an Ra value of 4.97MPa0.5, as shown below.
R
a
=
4
(
D
-
D
1
)
2
+
(
P
-
P
1
)
2
+
(
H
-
H
1
)
2
R
a
=
4
(
16.4
-
15.8
)
2
+
(
5.0
-
6.1
)
2
+
(
11.7
-
16.4
)
2
R
a
=
4
(
0.6
)
2
+
(
-
1.1
)
2
+
(
-
4.7
)
2
R
a
=
4
0.36
+
1.21
+
22.09
R
a
=
1.44
+
1.21
+
22.09
R
a
=
24.74
R
a
=
4.97
With regard to claim 11, Mitra discloses isopropyl myristate (see [0081]).
With regard to claim 13, Mitra discloses the composition may comprise surfactants (see [0066]) and further discloses that at least one of the surfactants may be anionic (see [0102]) at 1-5wt% (see [0102]).
With regard to claim 19 and claim 20, Mitra discloses the composition may be used for makeup removal (see [0215]). Mitra further discloses the cosmetic composition is applied to keratinous tissue via a cloth (see [0210]).
Claim 5 and claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra (US 20220249342 A1) and Dani (US 20200080031 A1), and in further view of Alper (US 5837146 A).
With regard to claim 5 and claim 6, Mitra and Dani disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Mitra and Dani fail to disclose the hydrophobic polymer as the reaction product of about 72 to about 77% of linseed oil and about 23 to about 28% of isobutyl methacrylate polymer.
Alper discloses oil coagulate compositions (see Abstract). Alper further discloses the composition as composed of a thermal reaction product of linseed oil and isobutyl methacrylate polymers (see Abstract). Alper further discloses the composition coagulates oil independent of both agitation and temperature (see Abstract). Alper further teaches the coagulate forms a homogenous, uniphase compound when cooled (see Col 5 line 26-30). Alper further discloses the coagulate may be impregnated onto a porous substrate (see Col 6 line 24-25). Alper further discloses the coagulate may be diluted with a solvent, such as an alcohol (see Col 5 line 44-48). Alper further teaches the oil may comprise 72-77% of the coagulate mixture and the polymer may comprise 23-28% (see Col 5 line 66-68 – Col 6 line 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the coagulate mixture of Alpur in the composition of Mitra for the purpose of producing a homogenous, uniphase compound, as disclosed by Alpur. Further, Mitra discloses the cleansing coagulant system is prepared as a homogenous thermal reaction product (see [0014]). Therefore, Mitra desires a homogenous material.
Claim 12 and claim 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra (US 20220249342 A1) and Dani (US 20200080031 A1), and in further view of Farmer (WO 2023196762 A1).
With regard to claim 12 and claim 16, Mitra and Dani disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Mitra further discloses the composition may comprise surfactants (see [0066]). Mitra further discloses at least one surfactant may be anionic (see [0102]) and the surfactants in a range from 1-5wt% (see [0102]).
However, Mitra and Dani fail to disclose at least one of the one or more surfactants is a biosurfactant, wherein the biosurfactant is a glycolipid selected from sophorolipids, rhamnolipids, trehalose lipids, mannosylerythritol lipids, or combinations thereof.
Farmer discloses a composition which may be used to remove makeup (see page 7 line 10-11). Farmer further discloses rhamnolipids as useful to lubricate skin, minimize the appearance of wrinkles, and increase smoothness of skin (see page 13 line 15-17) and may be utilized in the composition at from 0.05-10wt% (see page 13 line 18-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the rhamnolipids of Farmer in the composition of Mitra for the purpose of lubricating skin, minimizing the appearance of wrinkles, and increasing smoothness of skin, as disclosed by Farmer.
Claim 14 and claim 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra (US 20220249342 A1) and Dani (US 20200080031 A1), and in further view of Xie (“Advantages of Amino Acid-Based Surfactants over Traditional Surfactants”).
With regard to claim 14 and claim 15, Mitra and Dani disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Mitra and Dani fail to disclose at least one of the one or more anionic surfactants is an acyl taurate.
Xie discloses sodium methyl cocoyl taurate as a very mild, non-toxic, and high-safety anionic surfactant (see “Advantages”). Xie further discloses sodium methyl cocoyl taurate as useful in personal cleaning products and having good water solubility, hard water resistance, and good effectiveness in a wide pH range (see “Sodium Methyl Cocoyl Taurate”). Further, the instant specifications disclose sodium methyl cocoyl taurate as a suitable anionic surfactant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the sodium methyl cocoyl taurate of Xie in the composition of Mitra. One having ordinary skill in the art would utilize the sodium methyl cocoyl taurate to enhance the composition due to its good water solubility, hard water resistance, and good effectiveness in a wide pH range, as disclosed by Xie.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra (US 20220249342 A1) and Dani (US 20200080031 A1), and in further view of Mohammad (JP 2017114800 A).
With regard to claim 17, Mitra and Dani disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Mitra and Dani fail to disclose the oil-in-water emulsion is a dispersion having a droplet size from about 10 nm to about 1 pm.
Mohammad discloses an oil-in-water composition which may be a skin care cosmetic composition (see Abstract). Mohammad further discloses a particle diameter of less than 100nm (see Abstract). Mohammad further teaches a particle size of less than 30nm and greater than 1nm as advantageous as the active ingredients may be applied to the keratin material in a homogeneous and concentrated manner (see [0033]). Mohammad further teaches this size of particle can improve the bioavailability of the active ingredients (see [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 1nm-30nm particle size of Mohammad in the oil-in-water composition of Mitra for the purpose of advantageously applying the active ingredients to the keratin material in a homogeneous and concentrated manner and improving the bioavailability of the active ingredients, as disclosed by Mohammad. One having ordinary skill in the art would utilize the 1nm-30nm particle size of Mohammad to enhance the oil-in-water composition of Mitra due to the advantageous application of the active ingredients to the keratin material in a homogeneous and concentrated manner and improving the bioavailability of the active ingredients, as disclosed by Mohammad.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra (US 20220249342 A1), Dani (US 20200080031 A1), and Farmer (WO 2023196762 A1), and in further view of Mohammad (JP 2017114800 A).
With regard to claim 18, Mitra discloses a cosmetic cleaning composition (see Abstract). Mitra further discloses the cleaning composition comprising an oil component and a polymer component (see [0008]). Mitra further discloses the cleansing coagulate system as being prepared by the reaction of the oil component with a methacrylate polymer component (see [0014]). Linseed oil and poly(isobutyl methacrylate) are disclosed as suitable (see [0013]). Mitra further discloses isopropyl alcohol (see [0024]). Isopropyl alcohol is disclosed in the instant specifications as a suitable solvent. Mitra further teaches the composition may be an oil-in-water emulsion (see [0033]) comprising 0.1-20wt% of the polymer (see [0052]). Mitra further teaches the composition as imbued in a pad or wipe (see [0028]). Mitra further teaches water at 10-90wt% (see [0087]). Mitra discloses isopropyl alcohol (see [0024]). Isopropyl alcohol is disclosed in the instant specifications as a suitable solvent. Mitra discloses the composition may comprise surfactants (see [0066]) and further discloses that at least one of the surfactants may be anionic (see [0102]) at 1-5wt% (see [0102]). Mitra further discloses the pH of the composition may be between 3.0 and 7.0 (see [0091]).
However, Mitra fails to disclose the substrate as being impregnated with the cleaning composition, wherein the amount of the cleansing composition relative to the substrate from about 20:1 to 1:20 by weight.
Dani discloses a Pre-moistened multi-layer wipes in which the fibrous substrate for the wipes comprises 70% or more pulp fibers (see Abstract), wherein the composition impregnated onto the wipe comprises at least 90wt% of water (see [0101]) and anionic surfactants (see [0096]), an analogous art. Dani further discloses the loading ratio of 1:1 to 4:1 as providing optimal hand feel (see [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the composition to substrate ratio of Dani with the composition of Mitra to provide optimal hand feel, as disclosed by Dani.
Mitra further fails to disclose 1-8wt% of at least one of the one or more rhamnolipids.
Farmer discloses a composition which may be used to remove makeup (see page 7 line 10-11). Farmer further discloses rhamnolipids as useful to lubricate skin, minimize the appearance of wrinkles, and increase smoothness of skin (see page 13 line 15-17) and may be utilized in the composition at from 0.05-10wt% (see page 13 line 18-20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the rhamnolipids of Farmer in the composition of Mitra for the purpose of lubricating skin, minimizing the appearance of wrinkles, and increasing smoothness of skin, as disclosed by Farmer. One having ordinary skill in the art would utilize the sodium methyl cocoyl taurate to enhance the composition due to its good water solubility, hard water resistance, and good effectiveness in a wide pH range, as disclosed by Xie.
Mitra further fails to disclose the oil-in-water emulsion is a dispersion having a droplet size from about 10 nm to about 1 pm.
Mohammad discloses an oil-in-water composition which may be a skin care cosmetic composition (see Abstract). Mohammad further discloses a particle diameter of less than 100nm (see Abstract). Mohammad further teaches a particle size of less than 30nm and greater than 1nm as advantageous as the active ingredients may be applied to the keratin material in a homogeneous and concentrated manner (see [0033]). Mohammad further teaches this size of particle can improve the bioavailability of the active ingredients (see [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the 1nm-30nm particle size of Mohammad in the oil-in-water composition of Mitra for the purpose of advantageously applying the active ingredients to the keratin material in a homogeneous and concentrated manner and improving the bioavailability of the active ingredients, as disclosed by Mohammad. One having ordinary skill in the art would utilize the 1nm-30nm particle size of Mohammad to enhance the oil-in-water composition of Mitra due to the advantageous application of the active ingredients to the keratin material in a homogeneous and concentrated manner and improving the bioavailability of the active ingredients, as disclosed by Mohammad.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1-22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Mitra teaches away from the use of surfactants. Applicant further argues that Mitra presents no motivation for the use of anionic surfactants specifically. While Mitra does not include anionic surfactants in the disclosed examples, the entire reference must be considered. As stated above, Mitra discloses the composition may comprise surfactants (see [0066]) and further discloses that at least one of the surfactants may be anionic (see [0102]) at 1-5wt% (see [0102]). Mitra further discloses “One of ordinary skill in the art, however, will appreciate that other ranges are within the scope of the invention. Thus, in various embodiments, when present, each of the at least one surfactant may be present in a composition according to the disclosure from about 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.7, 0.75, 0.8, 0.9, 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 2, 3, 4, to about 5 percent, by weight, including increments and ranges therein and there between.” (see [0107]). Mitra discloses that one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize at least one surfactant and further discloses the surfactant may be anionic.
Applicant further argues that in some embodiments the cleansing coagulant system is included in the cosmetic cleansing composition in an activated form with or without a solvent, and further discloses that in such embodiments that include a solvent, the solvent may be present in either or both the cleansing coagulant system and the cosmetic carrier system. As stated above, Mitra further teaches water at 10-90wt% (see [0087]). Mitra discloses isopropyl alcohol (see [0024]). Isopropyl alcohol is disclosed in the instant specifications as a suitable solvent.
Applicant further argues that Mitra discloses the cosmetic cleansing composition may be any suitable cosmetic cleansing composition, such as, but not limited to, an anhydrous cleansing oil, foaming cleanser, a cleansing milk, lotion or cream, an emulsion such as a water-in-oil or oil- in-water emulsion, or a multi-phase composition comprising at least one water phase, and is easy on the skin, efficiently removes makeup, sebum, dirt and skin debris without smudging, and provides a soft and smooth skin feel after use. Applicant further argues that the compositions of Mitra can be anhydrous and not be an oil-in water emulsion, contrary to these requirements of the present invention. As stated above, Mitra teaches water at 10-90wt% (see [0087]). While Mitra may encompass anhydrous compositions, Mitra discloses the composition may comprise water.
Applicant argues that Examiner is “plucking” as no single embodiment of Mitra discloses the entirety of the claimed invention. Surfactants, solvents, and water are well known in the art. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize the components of Mitra to produce a cosmetic cleaning composition.
Applicant further argues that Mitra fails to disclose the amount of the cleansing composition relative to the substrate from about 20:1 to 1:20 by weight.
Dani discloses a Pre-moistened multi-layer wipes in which the fibrous substrate for the wipes comprises 70% or more pulp fibers (see Abstract), wherein the composition impregnated onto the wipe comprises at least 90wt% of water (see [0101]) and anionic surfactants (see [0096]), an analogous art. Dani further discloses the loading ratio of 1:1 to 4:1 as providing optimal hand feel (see [0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the composition to substrate ratio of Dani with the composition of Mitra to provide optimal hand feel, as disclosed by Dani.
Applicant further argues that Xie mentions that a drawback of amino acid-based surfactants is sensitivity to pH and that they are most effective at a neutral pH and their performance may be reduced at either high or low pH values. Applicant further argues that since independent claims 1 and 18 require a pH of 4 to less than 7, persons of ordinary skill in the art would be discouraged from using an amino acid-based surfactant. Mitra further discloses the pH of the composition may be between 3.0 and 7.0 (see [0091]). Therefore, the drawbacks mentioned by Xie are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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, 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.
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights