DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after June 03, 2026, 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 06/03/2026 in the matter of Application N° 18/567,817. Said documents are entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
Thus, claims 1-10 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suresh et al. in view of Wilczek et al. and further in view of Lu et al. (WO2017075773A1), Qi et al. (U.S. patent Application publication No. 2023/0404875 A1), the relied-upon subject matter was verified in (U.S. Provisional Application No. 63/122,072 filed 12/07/2020) and Benjamin et al. (US6107366A).
Suresh et al. teach a composite opacifier dispersion comprising an aqueous dispersion medium, a processing surfactant, and a plurality of composite opacifier particles comprising metal oxide particles partially or completely encapsulated by a polycaprolactone polymer. Suresh et al. further teach that the metal oxide particles are selected from zinc oxide, titanium oxide, and mixtures thereof, and disclose particle sizes corresponding to the presently claimed composite opacifier system.
Wilczek et al. further teaches modified or encapsulated titanium dioxide comprising titanium dioxide in association with a polycaprolactone-based polymer. Wilczek et al. teach that modification of titanium dioxide with the polycaprolactone-based polymer provides improved dispersibility and permits the resulting pigment to be readily incorporated into end-use compositions.
Suresh et al. and Wilczek et al., however, do not expressly disclose that the composite opacifier particles have a weight ratio of polycaprolactone polymer to metal oxide particles of 10:1.
Lu et al. teaches composite particles comprising a polycaprolactone containing polymer and inorganic metal oxide particles, including titanium dioxide. Lu et al. further teaches a weight ratio of inorganic metal oxide particles to polycaprolactone-polyurethane microparticles ranging from 5:95 to 2:8 (See Abstract and claim 1). Expressed as the reciprocal ratio of polymer to inorganic metal oxide, the disclosed range corresponds to approximately 19:1 to 4:1. Accordingly, the presently claimed weight ratio of 10:1 falls within the range expressly taught by Lu et al.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date to employ the relative amounts of polycaprolactone-containing polymer and metal oxide taught by Lu et al. in the composite opacifier particles of Suresh et al., as modified by Wilczek et al., because Lu et al. demonstrates that such relative amounts were known and suitable for forming composite polycaprolactone containing polymer/metal oxide particles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that selecting a ration within the disclosed range, including the claimed 10:1 ratio, would provide suitable polymer/metal oxide composite particle.
Regarding claim 2, Suresh et al. teach an aqueous personal care rinse-off composition comprising a dermatologically acceptable aqueous vehicle, a dermatologically acceptable cleaning surfactant, and a composite opacifier dispersion. Suresh et al. further teaches that the composite opacifier dispersion comprises an aqueous dispersion medium, a surfactant, a polycaprolactone polymer, and a plurality of composite opacifier particles comprising metal oxide particles selected from zinc oxide, titanium oxide, and mixtures thereof. Suresh et al. disclose metal oxide particles having a particle size greater than 100 nm to about 1,000 nm, as measured by dynamic light scattering, and composite opacifier particles having an average particle size of about 50 nm to about 2,500nm.
Wilczek et al teach modified encapsulated titanium dioxide comprising an intimate mixture of crude titanium dioxide and a polycaprolactone-based polymer. Wilczek et al. further teaches that modification of the titanium dioxide with the polycaprolactone-based polymer provides improved dispersibility and improved appearance and permits the modified titanium dioxide to be incorporated into end use formulations without requiring additional dispersants. Wilczek et al. additionally discloses suitable processing aids including surfactants, wetting agents, and dispersing agents, as well as titanium dioxide particles having mean particle sizes within the nanometer range.
Suresh et al. and Wilczek et al., however, do not expressly disclose the presently claimed amounts of 40 to 90 wt% dermatologically acceptable aqueous vehicle, 5 to 30 wt% dermatologically acceptable cleaning surfactant, and 0.5 to 5 wt% composite opacifier particles, in combination with metal oxide particles having a z-average particle size of 150 to 400 nm and composite opacifier particles having a Z-average particle size of 750 to 1,600 nm, as measured by dynamic light scattering.
Qi et al. teach an aqueous personal care rinse off composition comprising 40 to 90 wt%, based on the weight of the composition, of a dermatologically acceptable aqueous vehicle; 5 to 30 wt% of a dermatologically acceptable cleaning surfactant; and 0.5 to 5 wt% of a plurality of composite opacifier particles. Qi et al. further teaches that the composite opacifier particles comprise metal oxide particles selected from zinc oxide, titanium oxide, and mixtures thereof (See paragraph 0013).
Qi et al. additionally teaches metal oxide particles having a Z-average particle size of 150 to 400 nm, as measured by dynamic light scattering. Qi et al. further disclose composite opacifier particles having a Z-average particle-size range encompassing the presently claimed range of 750 to 1,600 nm (See paragraph 0013).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date to formulate the aqueous personal care rinse-off composition of Suresh et al., as modified by the teachings of Wilczek et al., using the amounts of aqueous vehicle, cleaning surfactant, and composite opacifier particles taught by Qi et al., because Qi et al. teach that such concentrations are suitable for formulating aqueous personal care rinse-off compositions containing composite metal oxide opacifier particles. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that employing these known amounts would provide a suitable aqueous, surfactant-containing rinse-off personal care composition having the desired cleansing and opacifying properties.
It further would have been obvious to select metal oxide and composite opacifier particle sizes within the ranges taught by Qi et al. because Suresh et al. already teaches broad particle-size ranges encompassing the presently claimed particle sizes, and Qi et al. identify narrower particle-size ranges suitable for composite metal oxide opacifiers used in the same type of aqueous personal care rinse-off composition. thus, the claimed particle-size selections would have represented the selection of known suitable particle sizes from ranges already recognized in the art for composite opacifier particles used for their known opacifying function.
Regarding claim 3, Suresh et al. teach a personal care rinse off composition, wherein the aqueous personal care rinse off composition is selected from shampoo, conditioner (See paragraph 0018 and 0019), and body wash formulations (See paragraph 00237), and face wash formulation (See paragraph 00173) wherein the dermatologically acceptable cleaning surfactant is selected from betaines (as required by instant claim 4 (See paragraph 00231) wherein the additive is selected from the group consisting of surfactants, wherein the metal oxide particles are titanium dioxide particles (as required by instant claim 5 (See paragraph 117).
Suresh also teaches that the composition can further comprise an aqueous personal care rinse off composition, comprising a rheology modifier (as required by instant claim 6 (See paragraph 00180).
Regarding claims 7-9, Suresh et al. in view of Wilczek et al. and Qi et al. teach the aqueous personal care rinse-off composition according to claim 6, as discussed above. However, Suresh et al., Wilczek et al., and Qi et al. do not expressly disclose the claimed weight average molecular weight of the polycaprolactone polymer.
Benjamin et al. teaches polycaprolactone polymers and expressly teaches that preferred thermoplastic materials have a weight average molecular weight (Mw) of about 5,000 to 100,000, more preferably about 10,000 to 70,000, and most preferably about 12,000 to 65,000 (See page 8, column 6, lines 48-53). The reference further demonstrates polycaprolactone polymers having measured weight average molecular weights of 61,800, as determined by gel permeation chromatography (See Table 2b).
Thus, the weight average molecular weights taught by Benjamin et al. fall within the range of 10,000 to 1,000,000 Daltons required by claim 7 and the range of 20,000 to 200,000 Daltons required by claim 8. The disclosed polycaprolactone having a weight average molecular weight of 61,800 Daltons further falls within the range of 25,000 to 150,000 Daltons required by claim 9.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a polycaprolactone polymer having a weight average molecular weight within the ranges taught by Benjamin et al. for use as the polycaprolactone polymer of the composition taught by the combined references, since the reference establishes that polycaprolactones having such molecular weights are known and suitable polymeric materials and that molecular weight may be selected based upon the desired properties and intended use of the composition, with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining a composition containing the polycaprolactone polymer.
Suresh et al. is applied here as it relates to instant claims 1-9 above. However, fails to specifically teach rinsing the personal care off the skin or hair. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have washed the shampoo off the hair by rinsing and would have been obvious to wash the composite opacifier off the skin because it is known in the art to rinse your hair after applying shampoo and rinse the skin after applying body wash.
A personal topical application all need water as a rinsing agent for taking these personal care items off your face, body, hair and skin. Rinsing your body after applying topical agents require rinsing.
Regarding claim 10, Suresh et al. further teaches personal care compositions intended for application to mammalian skin and hair. For example, Suresh et al. teaches active agents selected from anti-wrinkle agents, skin-whitening or bleaching agents, and skin-depigmentation agents (claim 24), thereby demonstrating application of the disclosed compositions to mammalian skin. Suresh et al. further teaches that the composition may comprise water (claim 80) and may be an anti-dandruff hair-care composition selected from a shampoo, conditioner, rinse, or hair dye (claim 86).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the aqueous personal care rinse-off composition resulting from the combined teachings of Suresh et al., Wilczek et al., and Qi et al. to mammalian skin and/or hair and subsequently rinse the composition from the skin and/or hair with rinse water. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Suresh et al. expressly contemplates aqueous skin-care and hair-care compositions, including shampoos, conditioners, and rinses, which are conventionally applied to the skin and/or hair and removed by rinsing with water, with a reasonable expectation of successfully cleaning and/or treating the skin or hair.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 03, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the recited composition is not derivable from the teachings of Suresh et al. The Examiner acknowledges that Suresh et al., when considered alone, does not expressly disclose all of the limitations of the claimed composition. However, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Suresh et al. and Wilczek et al., rather than Suresh et al. alone.
As set forth in the rejection above, Suresh et al. teaches a personal care composition comprising an aqueous dispersion medium and a surfactant. wilczek et al. is relied upon for teaching composite opacifier particles comprising a metal oxide selected from zinc oxide, titanium oxide, or a mixture thereof, encapsulated in a polycaprolactone polymer. Thus, the combination of Suresh et al. and Wilczek et al. teaches or suggests the recited composition.
Applicant’s argument that the claimed composition is not derivable from Suresh et al. alone is not persuasive because it does not address the teachings of the references as combined in the rejection. The rejection is based upon what the combined teachings of Suresh et al. and Wilczek et al. would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the reasons set forth above.
Applicant’s Non-Analogous-Art Argument Regarding Wilczek et al.
Applicant further argues that Wilczek et al. constitute non-analogous art with respect to claims 2-10.
This argument is not persuasive.
A reference constitutes analogous art when it is either from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, regardless of the problem addressed, or is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
Wilczek et al. are reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention because Wilczek et al. concern the modification and encapsulation of titanium dioxide with a polycaprolactone-based polymer for the purpose of improving the dispersibility and appearance of titanium dioxide in end-use compositions. The presently claimed invention likewise concerns composite opacifier particles comprising metal oxide particles, including titanium oxide, associated with a polycaprolactone polymer and incorporated into a composition containing a surfactant.
Accordingly, the teachings of Wilczek et al. logically would have commended themselves to the attention of a person of ordinary skill seeking to formulate and disperse polycaprolactone-associated titanium dioxide composite particles. Wilczek et al. therefore is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the claimed invention and constitute analogous prior art.
Claims 2-10, Applicant further argues that the office has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 2, as amended, and that reliance upon Wilczek et al. does not cure the deficiencies of Suresh et al.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suresh et al. in view of Wilczek et al. and further in view of Qi et al.
Suresh et al. and Wilczek et al. are relied upon for the teachings discussed above. However, in view of the amendments to claims 1 and 2, Qi et al. is further relied upon for teaching the additional limitations recited in the amended claims. Because claims 3-10 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 2, the rejection of those claims likewise incorporates the combined teachings of Suresh et al., Wilczek et al., and Qi et al.
Claims 1-10 are presently rejected based upon the combined teachings of Suresh et al. in view of Wilczek et al. and Qi et al., as set forth in detail above.
Suresh et al. teach an aqueous personal care rinse-off composition comprising a dermatologically acceptable aqueous vehicle, a dermatologically acceptable cleaning surfactant, and composite opacifier particle. Suresh et al. further teach composite opacifier particles comprising metal oxide particles selected from zinc oxide, titanium oxide, and mixtures thereof and disclose metal oxide particles sizes greater than 100 nm to about 1,000 nm and composite opacifier particle sizes of about 50 nm to about 2,500 nm. These disclosed ranges encompass the presently claimed metal oxide Z-average particle-size range of 150 to 400 nm and composite opacifier Z-average particle-size range of 750 to 1,600 nm. Suresh et al. further discloses particle concentrations encompassing the presently claimed 0.5 to 5 wt% composite opacifier particles.
Suresh et al., however, do not expressly disclose the presently claimed concentrations of 40 to 90 wt% dermatologically acceptable aqueous vehicle and 5 to 30 wt% of a dermatologically acceptable cleaning surfactant. Qi et al. further teaches the use of composite metal oxide opacifier particles in such aqueous rinse-off personal care compositions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to formulate the aqueous personal care rinse-off composition taught by Suresh et al., as modified by Wilczek et al., using the concentrations of aqueous vehicle and cleaning surfactant taught Qi et al. because Qi et al. teach that such concentrations are suitable for aqueous personal care rinse-off compositions containing composite metal oxide opacifier particles. The skilled artisan therefore would have had a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining an aqueous rinse-off personal care composition having the desired cleansing and opacifying properties.
Furthermore, the particle-size limitations do not distinguish the claimed composition from the combined prior art. Suresh et al. disclosed ranges encompass the presently claimed ranges, and Qi et al. provide additional evidence regarding the suitability of metal oxide composite opacifier particles having such particle sizes in aqueous personal care rinse-off compositions.
Therefore, when the prior art is considered as a whole, the combined teachings of Suresh et al., Wilczek et al., and Qi et al. establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Applicant’s arguments directed to the references individually do not address what their combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
The arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive, and the rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained and made FINAL.
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 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
Prosecution Insights