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 .
DETAILED ACTION
STATUS OF THE CLAIMS: Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of species in the reply filed on February 16, 2026 is acknowledged. All claims were examined in its entirety.
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 1-20 (including claims dependent thereon) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mintel (Database accession # 8200475’2020) in view of Popp et al. (US Patent 6433024).
Applicants claims cosmetic methods for treating and a composition comprising the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
540
710
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
176
696
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
36
352
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Mintel teaches a similar composition for cosmetic treatment for caring for keratin materials (e.g., skin).
Mintel does not disclose the composition comprising mono or dialkyl isosorbide.
Popp teaches compositions comprising mono or dialkyl isosorbide at pH 3-5. (See Abstract, column 2, lines 39-42, column 3, lines 31-39, and Examples 3 and 4).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Mintel and Popp to design a composition for cosmetic treatment for caring for keratin materials comprising mono or dialkyl isosorbide having an acidic pH to improved its stability and formulation compatibility. It is well known in the art that mono and dialkyl isosorbides are stable in air and in solution with good solubility in water and common organic solvents. Additionally, it is well known in the art that mono and dialkyl isosorbides improve bioavailability, has sustained action and versatility in formulation, and has a well-established safety profile, making them suitable for various dosage forms. All of the moieties are taught in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, would be motivated to combine the teachings of Mintel and Popp when confronted with an alternate composition for cosmetic treatment for caring for keratin materials comprising mono or dialkyl isosorbide having an acidic pH to improved its stability and formulation compatibility, and thus is an obvious alternative. See In re Payne, 203 USPQ 245(CCPA 1979).
Since Applicant’s claims are prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of Mintel and Popp, Applicant’s claims are obvious, and therefore, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claims 1-20 (including claims dependent thereon) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mintel (Database accession # 8200475’2020) in view of Pilz et al. (US Pub. 2014/0369943).
Applicants claims cosmetic methods for treating and a composition in claims 1-20.
Mintel teaches a similar composition for cosmetic treatment for caring for keratin materials (e.g., skin).
Mintel does not disclose the composition comprising mono or dialkyl isosorbide.
Pilz teaches compositions comprising mono or dialkyl isosorbide with an acidic pH. (See Abstract, paragraphs [0004]-[0016], and Examples a and b).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to be motivated to combine the teachings of Mintel and Pilz to design a composition for cosmetic treatment for caring for keratin materials comprising mono or dialkyl isosorbide having an acidic pH to improved its stability and formulation compatibility. It is well known in the art that mono and dialkyl isosorbides are stable in air and in solution with good solubility in water and common organic solvents. Additionally, it is well known in the art that mono and dialkyl isosorbides improve bioavailability, has sustained action and versatility in formulation, and has a well-established safety profile making them suitable for various dosage forms. All of the moieties are taught in the art. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, would be motivated to combine the teachings of Mintel and Pilz when confronted with an alternate composition for cosmetic treatment for caring for keratin materials comprising mono or dialkyl isosorbide having an acidic pH to improved its stability and formulation compatibility, and thus is an obvious alternative. See In re Payne, 203 USPQ 245(CCPA 1979).
Since Applicant’s claims are prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of Mintel and Pilz, Applicant’s claims are obvious, and therefore, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Conclusion
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-20 are rejected. No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL V WARD whose telephone number is (571)272-2909. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am to 5pm.
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, James Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached at 571-272-5548. 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.
/PAUL V WARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1622
Prosecution Insights