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
Claims 1-13, and 16-18 are pending. Claims 1-13 and 16-18 are examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 12, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections –35 USC § 112, 2nd
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 3, 7, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites “the solid anhydrous formulation for lip care of claim 1” at line 1, and claim 12 recites “the butter mixture” at line 2, there is no antecedent basis for those recitations.
Claim 7 recites parenthetical expression "(Sweet almond)" at line 4; and “(Avocado)” at line 4. The metes and bounds of Claim 7 are rendered vague and indefinite by the parenthetical recitations because it is unclear as to whether the limitation is part of the instantly claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "preferably" at line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason.
Therefore, the metes and bounds of claims are rendered vague and indefinite. The lack of clarity renders the claims very confusing and ambiguous since the resulting claims do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
All other cited claims depend directly or indirectly from rejected claims and are, therefore, also, rejected under U.S.C. 112, second paragraph for the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections –35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maron (US 20200297599 A1).
Maron teaches a solid anhydrous formulation for lip care (a hydrating cosmetic composition prepared as a solid anhydrous balm for keratinous substrates comprising fatty compounds and shea butter (thus claim 4 is met), lips are a keratinous substrate (lip care); paragraphs [0032], [0035], [0134]) comprising: greater than 40 to less than 60 percent of an oil mixture comprising at least 70 percent of C8-10 fatty acids (a fatty phase comprising a blend of two fatty compounds including C8 to C24 fatty compounds as caprylic-capric triglycerides and C10-C18 triglycerides and a plant oil wherein the blend of the two fatty compounds and plant oil are in a total amount from about 40-50 percent by weight (greater than 40 to less than 60 percent of an oil mixture) and the caprylic-capric triglycerides (thus claim 2 is met) and C10-C18 triglycerides are present in the composition between 2-50 percent by weight (mixture comprising at least 70 percent of C8-10 fatty acids) based on the total weight of the composition; paragraphs [0026]-[0027], [0037], [0112]); greater than 15 to less than 25 percent of a wax mixture comprising at least 20 percent of esters of C20-24 fatty acids with glycerol (and the fatty phase comprises at least 0.75 percent by weight of a wax and a blend of fatty compounds comprising 2-20 percent glyceryl behenate (at least 20 percent of esters of C20-24 fatty acids with glycerol) (thus claims 3 and 11 met) based on the total weight of the composition, the combination of the wax and glyceryl behenate equates up to 20.75 percent of a wax mixture (greater than 15 to less than 25 percent of a wax mixture); paragraphs [0032], [0036]-[0037], [0100]); and greater than 20 to less than 40 percent of at least one butter, wherein the at least one butter comprises a natural butter which is solid at 20C and has a melting point below 50C, wherein all percents are expressed in weight percent (and the fatty phase comprises 1-30 percent of shea butter having a melting point in the range from 30-35C (solid at 20C and has a melting point below 50C); paragraph [0035]).
Maron discloses the solid anhydrous formulation for lip care of claim 1, and Maron further discloses wherein the C8-10 fatty acids comprise Caprylic/Capric triglycerides (Caprylic/Capric triglycerides; paragraphs [0026], [0110]).
Maron discloses the solid anhydrous formulation for lip care of claim 1 or 2, and Maron further discloses wherein esters of C20-24 fatty acids with glycerol comprise Glyceryl Behenate (Glyceryl Behenate; paragraph [0100]).
Maron discloses in some embodiments, the at least one plant derived butter comprises a blend of two or more plant derived butters (thus claim 5 is met), each plant derived butter present in an amount from about 1% to about 30%, by weight, based on the total weight of the composition, and wherein the blend of two or more plant derived butters is present in an amount from at least about 20% to about 30%, by weight, based on the total weight of the composition [0018].
Maron discloses in accordance with some embodiments, the fatty compounds are selected from one or more of helianthus annuus (sunflower) seed oil, glycine soja (soybean) oil, coco-caprylate/caprate, ricinus communis (castor) seed oil, prunus amygdalus dulcis (sweet almond) (thus claim 7 is met) oil, and prunus armeniaca (apricot) kernel oil. In accordance with some embodiments, the two or more fatty compounds includes more than two fatty compounds.
Maron discloses a hydrating cosmetic composition for keratinous substrates that includes a stabilized anhydrous balm that includes at least one glycol humectant dispersed in a stabilized anhydrous fatty phase that includes at least one plant derived butter, a blend of structuring waxes, and a blend of fatty compounds and a surfactant (see Abstract).
Maron discloses natural waxes can include rice bran wax, bayberry wax, beeswax (thus part of claim 9 is met), grapefruit wax, orange peel wax, palm wax, sumac wax, sunflower wax, soy wax, and combinations thereof [[082].
Maron does not teach the components of claim 1 in one embodiment, the claimed amount of caprylic/capric triglycerides, synthetic beeswax, or a method of treating skin dryness in claims 16-18.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat skin dryness including face and lips since the Maron discloses a hydrating cosmetic composition for keratinous substrates.
It would also have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use either natural beeswax or synthetic beeswax.
Regarding the claimed amount of caprylic/capric triglycerides, or the type of beeswax, determining an appropriate amount of the components within the composition or the proper type of beeswax is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of the ordinary skills in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention.
Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIUWEN MI whose telephone number is (571)272-5984. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anand Desai can be reached on 571-272-0947. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/Qiuwen Mi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights