ETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-25 are pending in the instant application.
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 .
Priority
The instant application claims priority to 371 of PCT/IB2023/053096 filed 03/28/2023 which claims priority to the U.S. Provisional Application Serial No. 63/325002 filed March 29, 2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, except where noted. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement was considered by the examiner. Please see attached initialed Forms 1449.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fukada et al. (US 2022/0280396 A1).
Fukada discloses a water-in-oil emulsion composition comprising at least one ascorbic acid phosphate ester compound, clay mineral, oil-based agent, and water (Abstract). The water-in-oil emulsion comprises disteardimonium hectorite ([0018]). The emulsion includes hydrophobic solvent (oils) ([0060]). The emulsion also includes amphiphilic agent such as polyglycerin fatty acid esters ([0083]). The modified clay mineral (disteardimonium hectorite) is about 0.2% by mass to 4.5% by mass within the emulsion ([0011]). The emulsion is a cosmetic emulsion ([0022]). The emulsion can include hydrocarbon oil (non-polar oil) ([0059]). Volatile oil (light fluid isoparaffin) and non-volatile oil (squalene) can be included ([0065]). The emulsion can comprise preservatives such as phenoxyethanol ([0089-0090]). Phenoxyethanol can be 0.1% by mass to 0.6% by mass ([0091]). The emulsion can further comprise an amphiphilic surfactant such as polyglyceryl-2 diisostearate ([0083]). The amphiphilic surfactant can be about 1% by mass to 20% by mass ([0085]).
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 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fukada et al. (US 2022/0280396 A1), Mintel (Nars Cosmetics, March 2022) and Yu (US 2006/0127331 A1).
Fukada discloses a water-in-oil emulsion composition comprising at least one ascorbic acid phosphate ester compound, clay mineral, oil-based agent, and water (Abstract). The water-in-oil emulsion comprises disteardimonium hectorite ([0018]). The emulsion includes hydrophobic solvent (oils) ([0060]). The emulsion also includes amphiphilic agent such as polyglycerin fatty acid esters ([0083]). The modified clay mineral (disteardimonium hectorite) is about 0.2% by mass to 4.5% by mass within the emulsion ([0011]). The emulsion is a cosmetic emulsion ([0022]). The emulsion can include hydrocarbon oil (non-polar oil) ([0059]). Volatile oil (light fluid isoparaffin) and non-volatile oil (squalene) can be included ([0065]). The emulsion can comprise preservatives such as phenoxyethanol ([0089-0090]). Phenoxyethanol can be 0.1% by mass to 0.6% by mass ([0091]). The emulsion can further comprise an amphiphilic surfactant such as polyglyceryl-2 diisostearate ([0083]). The amphiphilic surfactant can be about 1% by mass to 20% by mass ([0085]).
Mintel discloses a commercial product comprising disteardimonium hectorite, hydrophobic solvent (coco-caprylate) and amphiphilic agent (phenoxyethanol).
Above references do not explicitly mention UV absorbing organic molecules.
Yu discloses compositions useful for moisturizing keratinous materials (Abstract). Yu teaches that cosmetic compositions commonly and routinely include UV absorbers such as benzophenones, benzoic acid derivatives, camphor derivatives, cinnamates, and salicylates ([0036]). These compositions also commonly include pigments (claim 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary person in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have created a cosmetic composition comprising a modified hectorite organoclay, one hydrophobic solvent, and one amphiphilic agent. This is taking some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-4, water-in-oil emulsion, disteardimonium hectorite, and its’ mass is taught above.
Regarding claims 5-8, hydrophobic solvent is taught above.
Regarding claim 9, Fukada discloses many volatile and non-volatile hydrocarbon oils. Furthermore, Fukada discloses that one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely experiment with any and all hydrocarbon oils depending on the desired cosmetic characteristic ([0065]). In water-in-oil emulsions, the oil content is easily adjusted to alter the feel of the formulation ([0067]).
Regarding claims 10-13, an amphiphilic agent such as phenoxyethanol is taught above.
Regarding claims 14-18, amphiphilic surfactants such as polyglyceryl-2 diisostearate are taught by Fukada above.
Regarding claim 19, Mintel discloses UV scattering powder such as titanium dioxide to be included in the emulsion.
Regarding claim 20, UV absorbers are taught above.
Regarding claim 21, pigments are taught above.
Regarding claim 22, Mintel discloses the product is free of PEG (pg 1).
Regarding claim 23, above references do not mention that the composition includes microplastic particles. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would routinely create products safe for consumers. These products would be free of harmful substances such as microplastic.
Regarding claim 24, Fukada teaches the mass % of disteardimonium hectorite. Fukada also discloses that the volatile and non-volatile oil solvent can be 1% by mass to 20% by mass ([0060]). Phenoxyethanol can be 0.1% by mass to 0.6% by mass ([0091]). The emulsion can further comprise an amphiphilic surfactant such as polyglyceryl-2 diisostearate ([0083]). The amphiphilic surfactant can be about 1% by mass to 20% by mass ([0085]). Fukada discloses the mass % of routinely used ingredients within a cosmetic composition.
Regarding claim 25, Fukada discloses that the composition is a cosmetic product applied to skin ([0003]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN SEUNGJAI KWON whose telephone number is (571)272-7737. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached at 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 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.
/JOHN SEUNGJAI KWON/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights