DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after October 6, 2023, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants’ claimed invention filed on 10/06/2023 in the matter of Application N° 18/554,377. Said documents are entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
The present application, filed on or after October 06, 2023, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Thus, claims 1-5 and 8-18 represent all claims currently under consideration.
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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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 1-5 and 8-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US20170181948A1), in view of Lowell et al. (US4401813A), and VanGinkel C.G. et al. “The biodegradability and nontoxicity of carboxymethyl cellulose (DS 0.7) and intermediates, “Environmental Toxicology and chemistry, 1996, volume 15, issue 3, pages 270-274, see entire document, especially, pg. 270-273.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Wu teaches 1.00 wt.% CMC and 0% hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, or 0.01 to 10 wt.% of at least one polymer originating from nature or at least one derived from fossil polymers (See paragraph 0395, Table 30, example t). Furthermore, at least one personal care additive contains 10.00 wt% glycerin (See paragraph 0395, Table 30, example t), and 44.0 wt% water (See paragraph 0395, Table 30, example t). The low substituted carboxymethyl cellulose has an average carboxymethyl substitution degree per anhydroglucose unit that ranges from about 0.5 to about 0.7 (See paragraph 0122). High molecular weight carboxymethyl cellulose is defined as having an average degree of carboxymethyl substitution (C.M.D.S.) of 0.4 (or about 0.4) to 1.5 (or about 1.5) ionizable carboxymethyl ether groups per repeating anhydroglucose chain unit of the cellulose molecule. Low substituted carboxymethyl cellulose is easily biodegradable (See paragraph 0395, Table 30, example t.). Additionally, according to the paper “The biodegradability and no toxicity of carboxymethyl cellulose (DS 0.7) and intermediates: by VanGinkel C.G. et al. carboxymethyl cellulose with the previously mentioned average degree of carboxymethyl substitution (DS) per anhydroglucose unit is naturally biodegradable, (See paragraph 1, on pg. 273, column 2).
Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches the nature-derived polymer is chosen from the group that includes hydroxypropyltrimonium hydrolyzed potato starch, hydroxypropyltrimonium hydrolyzed corn (maize) (See paragraph 0129), and xanthan gum, and guar gum (See paragraph 0133).
Regarding claim 3, Wu teaches wherein the nature derived polymer is xanthan gum (See paragraph 0133).
Regarding claim 4, Wu teaches wherein the fossil derived polymer is an acrylate-based polymer, and methacrylate-based polymer (See paragraph 0132), and vinyl pyrrolidone based polymer (See paragraph 0133).
Regarding claim 8, Wu teaches wherein the composition is an emulsion (See paragraph 0219), a suspension, a dispersion, a cream, a lotion, a foam, a spray, and a gel (See paragraph 0182).
Regarding claims 9, 15, and 17, Wu teaches wherein the emulsion is an oil-in-water emulsion, or a water in oil emulsion (See paragraph 0219).
Regarding claim 10, Wu teaches wherein the oil in water emulsion (See paragraph 0219), is a body lotion, a cream, a gel (See paragraph 0182), a serum (See paragraph 0214), a fluid (See paragraph 0171), a sunscreen (See paragraph 0280).
Regarding claim 11, Wu teaches the gel is stable (See paragraph 0126), imparts high viscosity (See paragraph 0127; a viscosity-modifying agent may be added to further impart viscosity), and gives the user an aesthetic feel (See paragraph 0001). It also naturally gives the user an aesthetic feel by promoting hair growth or delaying hair loss.
Regarding claim 12, Wu teaches hair care products (See paragraph 0001), hair conditioners, shampoo, leave-in and rinse off conditioners (See paragraphs 0183 and 0282), body cleansing products (See paragraph 0183), sprays, creams, lotions, gels, and ointments (See paragraph 0182), and fragrances and dyes (See paragraph 0280).
Regarding claim 18, Wu teaches wherein the skin care additive is selected from vitamin B compounds, vitamin E compound, and vitamin C compounds (See paragraph 0255). Vitamin D compounds (See paragraph 0215), peptides, and protease (See paragraph 0214). Sunscreen, chelators, and preservatives (See paragraph 0280). Glycerin and glycol (See paragraph 0395 and 0027).
Wu does not teach wherein the low substituted CMC is in the form of a solid particulate or a powder.
Lowell teaches with regards to instant claim 5, the low substituted CMC (See column 1, lines 42-44). The degree of substitution ranges from 0.4 to 1.4 and can take the shape of a powder or solid particle (See column 7, line 51). Because Wu and Lowell both teach the low substituted CMC, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wu and Lowell, and in order to better control the composition and properties of the manufactured products, design an aqueous personal care composition using the low substituted CMC as disclosed in Wu, while using the low substituted CMC as a powder or solid particulate, as disclosed in Lowell.
Regarding claim 14, according to claim 1 (a) Wu teaches the aqueous personal care composition. Wu teaches how to prepare an aqueous solution (See paragraph 0001), such as table 30, example t, 44.40 wt.% water. Composition of personal care (See paragraph 0001). According to claim (1a), low substituted carboxymethyl cellulose can be condensed (See paragraph 0395, Table 30 example t, 1.00 wt.% CMC and 0% HPMC, or in combination with at least one polymer derived from nature or at least one derived from fossil fuels;) powder can be dispersed in water while being continuously mixed (See paragraph 0374); the mixed solution can be heated for expedited processing; and the homogenous aqueous composition can be obtained (See paragraph 0374). Wu does not teach the low substituted carboxymethyl cellulose powder particles comprising low substituted CMC. Nevertheless, Lowell teaches the low substituted CMC (See column 1, lined 42-44, degree of substitution is from 0.4 to 1.4) in the state of powder particles (See column 7, line 51). Given that Lowell and Wu both teach the low substituted CMC, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wu and Lowell, in order to better control the composition and properties of the manufactured products, the process for creating the aqueous personal care composition that contains the low substituted CMC, as disclosed in Wu, should be created. Additionally, the low substituted CMC should be used as powder particles, as disclosed in Lowell.
Regarding claim 13, VanGinkel teach according to OECD test method 301D (pg. 271, column 2, paragraph 7-8, about 50% degradation after 20 days; also see pg. 272, Fig. 1), VanGinkel teaches that low substituted carboxymethyl cellulose (See pg. 270, column 2, paragraph 2; degree of substitution=0.7) is easily biodegradable (See pg. 273, column 2, paragraph 1), with approximately 50+ biodegradation after 28 days. Considering that VanGinkel and Wu both reveal the low substituted CMC. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wu and VanGinkel. In order to better control the environmental impact of the manufactured products, the process for preparing an aqueous personal care position should be designed to use the low substituted CMC of certain biodegradability, as disclosed in VanGinkel, while also incorporating the low substituted CMC, as disclosed in Wu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to adjust the biodegradability of the low substituted carboxymethyl cellulose to be within the specified range during routine experimentation to better control the environmental impact of the manufactured products, even though neither Wu nor VanGinkel teach 71% biodegradation after 28 days for the said low substituted CMC.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Wu et al. expressly teaches low-substituted carboxymethyl cellulose having an average degree of substitution per anhydroglucose unit ranging from about 0.5 to about 0.7, which overlaps the claimed range of 0.5 to less than 0.65. it is well established that a prior art range that overlaps or encompasses a claimed range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, Wu et al. teaches or at least suggests the claimed DS range.
Additionally, Lowell et al. discloses CMC materials having degrees of substitution ranging from about 0.4 to about 1.4, which also encompasses the claimed range. Lowell et al. further teaches that CMC is commercially available in a variety of viscosity grades and molecular weights, including high molecular weight materials (e.g., on the order of 1,000000 Daltons), and may be provided in powder or particulate form. These teachings demonstrate that viscosity, molecular weight, and substitution levels are recognized variables that can be selected and optimized depending on the desired formulation properties.
VanGinkel et al. likewise teaches CMC materials within overlapping substitution ranges (e.g., around 0.7) and further describes properties such as biodegradability and functionality of such materials.
Taken together, the cited references consistently teach low-substituted CMC within overlapping DS ranges and recognize that properties such as viscosity, solubility, and performance in aqueous systems are dependent on these parameters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to select and optimize the degree of substitution, molecular weight, and viscosity of CMC within known ranges to achieve desired formulation characteristics, such as suspension stability and rheological performance, as this represents routine optimization of result-effective variables.
The applicant’s argument that the claimed DS range is critical is not supported by sufficient evidence demonstrating that the claimed range yields unexpected results relative to the prior art. In the absence of such evidence, the selection of a value within an overlapping range is considered an obvious matter of routine optimization.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wu et al. and Lowell et al. to formulate an aqueous personal care composition using low-substituted CMC, as taught by Wu et al., while selecting appropriate viscosity grades and physical forms (e.g., powders or particulates) as taught by Lowell et al. in order to control the composition and properties of the final product. Such a combination would have yielded predictable results.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Wu et al. in view of Lowell et al. and further in view of VanGinkel et al. is maintained.
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 Kimberly Barber whose telephone number is (703) 756-5302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A. Wax, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
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.
/KIMBERLY BARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615