DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election of a polysaccharide containing a sulfate group extracted from Aphanothece sacrum, “silica, hydrous silica”, and zinc oxide and/or titanium oxide in the reply filed on 9 February 2026, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-8 are pending and under consideration in the instant Office Action, to the extent of the following elected species:
the specific polysaccharide (A) is a polysaccharide containing a sulfate group extracted from Aphanothece sacrum;
the specific hydrophilization treatment is coating a part or all of a surface of the inorganic powder with silica and hydrous silica; and
the specific inorganic powder (B) is zinc oxide and/or titanium oxide.
NOTE: The election of “silica, hydrous silica” as the surface treatment in lines 4-5 of pg. 2 of the remarks is interpreted as hydrous silica, a member of the genus “silica”.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of parent Japanese Patent Application No. JP 2021-083629, filed on 18 May 2021, have been received from the International Bureau.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 23 October 2023, and 16 May 2025, were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Objection to title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The title of the instant application is “Aqueous dispersion”. The title should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive and should contain fewer than 500 characters. The title does not reflect the main inventive concept of Applicant’s invention and the major components of the invention. The title is generic and can be applicable to any “aqueous dispersion”. The Examiner advises Applicant to consider including major components of the composition, primary purpose of the invention, and/or the general steps taken to achieve the claimed invention in the title to precisely reflect the inventive concept. Inasmuch as the words "new", "improved", "improvement of", and "improvement in" are not considered as part of the title of an invention, these words should not be included at the beginning of the title of the invention and will be deleted when the Office enters the title into the Office’s computer records, and when any patent issues. Similarly, the articles "a," "an," and "the" should not be included as the first words of the title of the invention and will be deleted when the Office enters the title into the Office’s computer records, and when any patent issues.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 3-5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites a “hydrophilization treatment-inorganic powder (B)” in line 3 and claim 5 recites the same in line 2. Because the inorganic powder (B) is treated with a hydrophilization treatment, clarity would be improved if the word “treatment” were replaced with “treated”, resulting in the phrase “hydrophilization treated-inorganic powder (B)” (bold added for emphasis).
Claim 3 recites “hydrous alumina, zirconia, hydrous alumina and zirconia” in line 4. The duplicated species hydrous alumina and zirconia should be deleted.
Claim 4 recites “the inorganic powder is” in line 2. The designator “(B)” appears to have been inadvertently omitted and should be placed after the word “powder” as in claims 1 and 5.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2 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 2 recites a “weight-average molecular weight of 3,500,000 to 20,000,000” in lines 2-3. The molecular weight should have a proper unit of measure such as daltons, g/mol, etc. Applicant may overcome this rejection by amending the claim to recite an appropriate unit of measure.
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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kanagawa University et al. (Japanese Patent Application No. JP 2008-007491, published on 17 January 2008, cited in the IDS filed on 23 October 2023, references to English translation, hereafter referred to as Kanagawa) in view of Doi et al. (Biol. Pharm. Bull. 2018, 41, 1554., hereafter referred to as Doi).
Kanagawa teaches cosmetic product that provides anti-ultraviolet properties, which is interpreted as equivalent to a sunscreen cosmetic (Abstract). The product contains “fine particles of titanium oxide” coated on the surface with hydrous silicic acid, otherwise known as hydrous silica, a higher alcohol, oily components, and a polysaccharide (claims 1-2). The coating on the TiO2 is taught to prevent loss of uniform UV protection due to sweating (pg. 3, Description, para. 3-6). The polysaccharide is taught to be present in an amount from 0.01-1% w/w and the coated TiO2 is taught to be present in amount from 1-20% w/w, which is equivalent to coated TiO2 being present in an amount of 1-2,000 parts by weight for every 1 part by weight of the polysaccharide (claims 1 and 4).
Guidelines on the obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions are provided in MPEP § 2144.05. With respect to claimed ranges which “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). These guidelines apply to the quantities of coated TiO2 and polysaccharide. The range taught by Kanagawa encompasses the range recited in instant claim 4 and therefore renders the recited range obvious.
Kanagawa does not teach the specific polysaccharide to be a polysaccharide with a sulfate group with a weight-average molecular weight (MW) of 3.5-20x106 derived from Aphanothece sacrum. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of Doi.
Doi teaches the unique physical and physiological characteristics of the polysaccharide Sacran, which is isolated from the alga Aphanothece sacrum (Suizenji-nori), and its impact on the skin of individuals who apply the polysaccharide to their skin (Abstract). Rough skin is taught to be characterized by low hydration and high levels of water loss, which Doi contrasts with atopic dermatitis (AD), a “substantially allergic disease” in which patients possess lower epidermal barrier function (pg. 1554, left col., para. 1). Sacran is taught to be “a polysaccharide isolated from the alga Aphanothece sacrum (Suizenji-nori)…composed of 11 kinds of saccharides, including sulfate and carboxylic acid groups” (pg. 1554, left col., para. 2) with a molecular weight from 16-29x106, which overlaps with the range recited in instant claim 2 (pg. 1559, left col., final para.). Sacran is additionally taught to have higher water-retention than hyaluronic acid, to be able to form a film that can “decrease the water evaporation rate”, and to “improve skin conditions both in healthy subjects and in patients with AD” (pg. 1554, left col., para. 2 - right col., para. 1). After mimicking the effects of rough skin and AD in patients, Doi used a composition comprising sacran to improve skin conditions and found that the mechanism includes “trapping” molecules that impart negative effects (pg. 1559, right col., para. 2-7).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, in view of the teachings of Doi to use the polysaccharide sacran in the cosmetic composition of Kanagawa because combining prior art elements to impart a known benefit yields predictable results. Kanagawa teaches a cosmetic composition that is equivalent to a sunscreen comprising titanium oxide coated in hydrous silica and a polysaccharide in amounts that overlap with the ranges recited in instant claim 5. In view of the teachings of Doi, a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to use a sacran as a polysaccharide in the invention of Kanagawa because Doi teaches the polysaccharide to be a superior skin moisturizer that treats not only rough, dry skin but also atopic dermatitis, which the ordinary artisan would recognize as desirable in a cosmetic composition that is intended to be applied to the skin of users. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of instant claims 1-8 in view of the teachings of Kanagawa and Doi.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure includes Morone et al. (Algal Res. 2019, 41, 101541.) which provides a review of the potential for cyanobacteria to be used in cosmetics and cosmeceuticals (Title and Abstract). Sacran in particular is taught to have superior moisturizing ability than hyaluronic acid (pg. 4, 2.2. Moisturizing) and anti-inflammatory abilities than hydrocortisone (pg. 5, 2.4. Anti-inflammatory).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean J. Steinke, Ph.D., whose telephone number is (571) 272-3396. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri., 09:00 - 17:00 ET.
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, David Blanchard, can be reached at (571) 272-0827. 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.
/S.J.S./
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/TIGABU KASSA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights