DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on May 14, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims have the same common special technical feature and do not lack unity. This is not found persuasive because the reference cited discloses a composition comprising all the components of the instant composition claims. Therefore, the common technical feature is not special and evidence has been provided.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2 and 9-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 14, 2026.
Claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 - Indefiniteness
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.
Claims 11-12 are 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.
The claims make reference to a figure for the determination of the ratios of algin, konjac gum and xanthan gum without providing numbers to aid in determining the proper ratio. Therefore it is not clear what number are encompassed by the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 - Anticipation
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1) Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mintel, (Record ID 6053473).
Mintel disclose a Dry Scalp Treatment comprising aqua (water), glycerin, algin and xanthan gum.
In regards to claim 5, the composition is a gel that is suitable for the scalp, which would make it suitable for skin.
Mintel anticipates the instant claims.
2) Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mintel, (Record ID 6616081).
Mintel discloses a gold moist eye mask comprising water, glycerin, propylene glycol, xanthan gum, glucomannan (konjac gum) and sodium hyaluronate.
Mintel anticipates the instant claims.
3) Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sun et al. (CN 107157896).
Sun et al. disclose a facial mask comprising konjac, xanthan gum and algin. The composition comprises 20% konjac, 16% xanthan gum and 40% algin (Example 1).
Sun et al. anticipate the instant claims.
4) Claims 1, 3-6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ding et al. (CN 105342873).
Ding et al. disclose a skin care gel comprising 0.1-1 pt. wt. sodium alginate, 0.1-1 pt. wt. gellan gum, 0.1-1 pt. wt. konjac gum (0.4%), 0.1-20 pts. wt. polyhydric alcohol, 0.1-1 pt. wt. agar, 0.05-50 pts. wt. gelatin, 0.1-5 pts. wt. calcium ion solution, 0.01-20 pts. wt. active substance, 0.005-20 pts. wt. toner, 0.01-5 pts. wt. xanthan gum (2%), 0.01-5 pts. wt. carrageenan, 0.01-5 pts. wt. locust bean gum, 0.01-5 pts. wt. algin (2%), 0.01-5 pts. wt. sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, 0.01-5 pts. wt. hydroxyethyl cellulose, 0.01-5 pts. wt. hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, 0.01-5 pts. wt. sclerotium gum, 0.01-5 pts. wt. Arabic gum, 0.01-5 pts. wt. Indian gum, 0.01-5 pts. wt. karaya gum, 0.01-5 pts. wt. guar gum, 0.01-5 pts. wt. tamarind gum, 0.01-5 pts. wt. pectin, 0.01-5 pts. wt. sodium hyaluronate, 0.01-10 pts. wt. starch, 0.01-10 pts. wt. glucose, 0.5-5 pts. wt. magnesium aluminum silicate, 0.1-10 pts. wt. Tremella polysaccharide, and balance water.
The amount of components equal 244 parts using the highest values of each range. When 1 to 10 times water is added, the amount of algin, konjac and xanthan gum meet the limitations of the instant claims. In regards to claims 11-12, see Indefiniteness Rejection above.
At the highest amount, the three components meet the limitation of instant claim 3 reciting 0.2 to 5.0% by weight of i).
In regards to claim 4, the composition is a gel that is suitable for the skin, which would make it suitable for hair.
In regards to claim 6, the composition comprises humectants.
Ding et al. anticipate the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Obviousness
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 3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ding et al. (CN 105342873).
Ding et al. are discussed above and is believed to anticipate the instant claims. However, purely arguendo and for the purposes of this rejection, Ding et al. differ from the instant claims insofar as it does not disclose the amounts of the claims.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have added 3 times the amount of water to the composition of Ding et al. because this is an amount suggested by Ding et al.
In regards to the ratio, the ratio would determine the properties of the gel composition because they are gelling agents. Therefore, it would have taken no more than the relative skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the ratios of konjac, algin and xanthan gum motivated to obtain the desired rheology of the composition.
Claims 1, 3-6 and 11-12 are rejected.
Claims 2 and 9-10 are withdrawn.
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEZAH ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-1071. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-7:30.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/LEZAH ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights