DETAILED ACTION
Receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s Amendment/Remarks filed 8/12/2026.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 18 have been amended. Claims 6, 11 and 12 are cancelled. Claim 22 is newly added. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-10 and 13-22 remain pending in the application and are currently under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 8/12/2026 has been considered. A signed copy is enclosed herewith.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
Applicant’s amendment renders the objection of claim 1 moot. Specifically, the claim has been amended. Thus, said objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment renders the rejection of claim 12 under 35 USC 112(a) moot. Specifically, the claim has been cancelled. Thus, said rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment renders the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-10 and 12-20 under 35 USC 103 over Lucet-Levannier and Greco moot. Specifically, the references do not teach the newly added limitation, “a lignosulfonate”. Thus, said rejection has been withdrawn.
Maintained Rejections
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 1-5, 7-10 and 13-21 stand rejected and new claims 22 is newly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lucet-Levannier (FR 3075606 A1, Jun. 28, 2019, machine translation, hereafter as “Lucet-Levannier”) and Fan et al. (US 2021/0299016, Sep. 30, 2021; hereafter as “Fan”) as evidenced by Sadeghifar et al. (“Lignin as a UV Light Blocker—A Review”, Polymers 2020, 12, 1134, pp. 1-10; hereafter as “Sadeghifar”).
The instant invention is described above.
Regarding instant claims 1-5, 13-17 and 22, Lucet-Levannier teaches a composition comprising hydrophobic porous silica airgel particles having a specific surface per unit mass (SM) ranging from 500-1500 m2/g and a size expressed in volume mean diameter (D[0.5]) ranging from 1 to 1500 microns for the purpose of protecting keratin materials such as the skin from pollutants (e.g., polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); abstract; page 2, 1st para.; page 4, last para.; page 6, para. 6). Lucet-Levannier also teaches the particular silica, airgel, which is marketed under the name VM-2270 (name INCI Silica silylate), by the company Dow Corning, the particles of which have an average size ranging from 5-15 microns and a specific surface area per unit mass ranging from 600 to 800 m2/g (page 8, para. 9). Lucet-Levannier further teaches that the silica airgel particles can be present in the composition in an amount of 0.05-15% by weight, preferably from 0.1 to 10% by weight, better still from 0.25-5% by weight, and more preferably from 0.5 to 2% by weight relative to the composition (para. bridging pages 8-9). Lucet-Levannier also teaches the inclusion of anionic surfactants as well as UV filters (page 13, 2nd to last para.; page 23, last para.).
Lucet-Levannier is silent to a lignosulfonate (instant claim 1), wherein the lignin compound comprising sodium lignosulfonate (instant claims 21 and 22), wherein the lignin compound is present in an amount of 0.01 to 20% (instant claim 7), and wherein the lignin compound is present in an amount 0.5 to 15% (instant claim 18), and wherein the sodium lignin sulfonate is present in an amount 2 to 5% (instant claim 22).
Fan teaches personal care compositions for preventing pollution damage or lipid peroxidation in and/or on skin or reducing, removing, or otherwise treating pollution damage or lipid peroxidation in and/or on the skin comprising application said composition to the skin, said composition comprising a carrier and a surfactant system comprising at least one amphoteric surfactant and at least one anionic surfactant ([0035] and [0058]-[0067]). Fan teaches that the surfactant system provides skin protection from pollutants ([0033] and [0035]). Fan teaches particular anionic surfactants including sodium lignosulfonate as being a suitable anionic surfactant for the intended purpose ([0040]). The surfactant system or one or more surfactants thereof may present in the composition in an amount of from about 4 weight % to about 16 weight %, preferably about 8 weight % to about 12 weight %, or more preferably about 10 weight %, based on a total weight of the personal care composition ([0061]).
Lignin and, more particularly, sulfonated lignin are known in the art to provide UV protection as evidenced by Sadeghifar (abstract; page 4, paras 2-3; page 5, last para.).
Lucet-Levannier and Fan are drawn to topical compositions that protect skin from pollutants, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a lignin compound such as sodium lignosulfonate in amounts of from about 4 weight % to about 16 weight %, preferably about 8 weight % to about 12 weight %, or more preferably about 10 weight % in the invention of Lucet-Levannier with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Lucet-Levannier teaches that an anionic surfactant and a UV filtering agent are suitable ingredients in an anti-pollutant topical composition, Fan teaches the particular anionic surfactant, sodium lignosulfonate, is suitable in a topical anti-pollutant composition, and sodium lignosulfonate is recognized to further possess UV protective properties. Additionally, "[i]t is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art" (MPEP 2144.06(I)).
It is noted that while the references do not explicitly teach sodium lignin sulfonate in an amount of 2 to 5%, “where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05(I)). In this case, the prior art teaches the overlapping range of about 4 weight % to about 16 weight %.
Regarding instant claims 8, 19, 20 and 22, Lucet-Levannier and Fan teaches the elements discussed above. Lucet-Levannier further teaches that the silica airgel particles can be present in the composition in an amount of 0.05-15% by weight, preferably from 0.1 to 10% by weight, better still from 0.25-5% by weight, and more preferably from 0.5 to 2% by weight relative to the composition (para. bridging pages 8-9). The surfactant system or one or more surfactants thereof may present in the composition in an amount of from about 4 weight % to about 16 weight %, preferably about 8 weight % to about 12 weight %, or more preferably about 10 weight %, based on a total weight of the personal care composition ([0061]). Utilizing the percentages taught by Lucet-Levannier and Fan, a ratio range of lignin compound to the porous silica can be calculated as 32:1 to about 1:1 encompasses/overlaps with the claimed ranges of 1:10 to 200:1 (instant claim 8), 1:1 to 24:1 (instant claim 19), and 2:1 to 12:1 (instant claims 20 and 22).
While the references do not explicitly teach the ratio ranges of lignin compound to the porous silica, “where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists” (MPEP 2144.05(I)). Furthermore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the ratio of lignin compound to the porous silica by routine experimentation with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" and it is the normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known and determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages (MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Regarding instant claim 9, Lucet-Levannier and Fan teaches the elements discussed above. Lucet-Levannier also teaches formulations comprising about 73-91% water (Examples).
Regarding instant claim 10, Lucet-Levannier and Fan teaches the elements discussed above. Lucet-Levannier also teaches that the composition can be in the form of an oil-in-water emulsion (para. bridging pages 28-29).
Thus, the combined teachings of Lucet-Levannier and Fan render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Fan reference presents an exhaustive list of ingredient of other known genera of anionic surfactants that may be used at paragraph [0038]. Applicant asserts no preferences, and thereby no guidance or teaching, is particularly offered for use of sodium lignosulfonate in Fan’s disclosed invention. Applicant asserts Fan leaves a skilled artisan without clear motivation to pursue a particular subset of said laundry list over another as a starting point for experimentation. Applicant also argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily recognize the particular function of anionic surfactants in a personal care composition is to provide cleansing and foaming effects as cleaning agents. Applicant asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art would have no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to select sodium lignosulfonate specifically over more commonly used anionic surfactants such as sodium cocoyl glutamate. Remarks, pages 6-8.
In response, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Lucet-Levannier and Fan. Lucet-Levannier and Fan are both drawn to topical compositions that protect skin from pollutants. Lucet-Levannier teaches the inclusion of anionic surfactants as well as UV filters (page 13, 2nd to last para.; page 23, last para.). Fan teaches particular anionic surfactants including sodium lignosulfonate as being a suitable anionic surfactant for the intended purpose ([0038]). The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination (MPEP 2144.07). Fan teaches a finite group of suitable anionic surfactants and, as such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to choose any one of the anionic surfactants taught by Fan including sodium lignosulfonate because each are identified, predictable solutions in the prior art. Furthermore, the prior art recognized that lignosulfonate also provides UV filtering/protective properties as evidenced by Sadeghifar. As mentioned above, Lucet-Levannier teaches the inclusion of UV filters. Accordingly, a skilled artisan would have selected sodium lignosulfonate because of its known dual functionality of an anionic surfactant and its UV protective properties. For these reasons, applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Thus, said rejection is maintained.
New Objections/Rejections
In light of Applicant’s amendments, the following rejections have been newly added:
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, 18, 19, 20 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities: the claims recite, “the lignin compound”. For improved readability and consistency, it is suggested that the limitation, “the lignin compound” is replaced with “the lignosulfonate” in each instance. Appropriate correction is requested.
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 22 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 22 recites the limitation "the porous silica" in line 4 of the claim. The phrase “porous silica” is not recited prior to said phrase and, as such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Conclusion
All claims have been rejected; no claims are allowed.
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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY HAGOPIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6097. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sue Liu can be reached on 571-272-5539. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Casey S. Hagopian
Examiner, Art Unit 1617
/CARLOS A AZPURU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights