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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-21 are pending and under examination in this office action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed 1/14/25. The Examiner has considered the references cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see the attached USPTO Form 1449. Some of the Literature submitted are not accepted as they cannot be read. Applicant should resubmit a clear copy for the record.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonner et al (US 9370478, From Applicant’s IDS) in view of JP 5212609 and Lindemann et al. (US 2021/0387946), Hyakawa et al. (US 2019/0254938) and Dobrawa et al. (US 2013/0281594)
Bonner teaches with regards to instant claims 1, 11 and 18 a skin care composition comprising a hydrophobic and a hydrophilic cellulose (see abstract and col. 1, lines 50+), dispersing agents ie., cosmetically suitable carrier (see col. 5, lines 10+) wherein the ratio of the hydrophilic linear and hydrophobic cellulose is about , 1:4, 1:1, 1:2, 1-3, 7.5:1 , (see col. 5, lines 50+, as required by instant claims 2 and 12) wherein the formulation comprises alpha hydroxy acid i.e., glycolic, lactic acid (as required by the instant claims 1, 17 and 21 (see col. 9, lines 62+, col. 20, lines 20+).) wherein the bulk density is from about 0.1 to about 2 (g/cm.sup.3), more preferably from about 0.15 to about 1.8 g/cm.sup.3, and most preferably from about 0.15 to about 1.6 g/cm.sup.3 per conversion the ratios will overlap(see col. 11, lines 17+, as required by instant claims 1, 4-5, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 18) wherein the particle size varies from 90.. (see Table 2, as required by instant claim 6). In general, Bonner teaches the cellulose from 10-50% (see col. 8, lines 45+)
However, Bonner fails to teach the concentration of lactic acid.
JP teaches with regards to instant claims 1 and 11 an external skin formulation comprising hydroxyethyl cellulose and microcrystalline (see translation) as evidenced by google search hydroxyethyl cellulose and microcrystalline cellulose and as evidenced by @2023 Bit Flip LLC, microcrystalline cellulose has low bulk density (see attachment and hydroxy ethyl cellulose has high bulk density). The reference further teaches the formulation comprises lactic acid.
However, the JP reference fails to teach the percentage of lactic Acid and the ratio of the first and second cellulose.
Lindemann teaches a cosmetic composition (see 0215) comprising cellulose with a bulk density of 0.20 g/ml which is 200 g/l the same required by claim 1(see 0007),0.15 g/ml, 0.30 g/ml (see 0105) and alpha-hydroxy acid (i.e., lactic acid, see 0220) administered as a solid dispersion to the skin (see 0255). Lindeman also teaches that in the solid dispersion could have mixtures of polymer (see 0082), having a particle size 250-595 μm and less than 95 (see 0382)
Hyakawa US 2019/0254938) teaches skin cosmetic formulation comprising 0.1-5% polymer and dispersant (ie., hydrophilic or hydrophobic dispersant), wherein the polymer is a cellulose type wherein it can be used in combination (see 0124)
Kobashi teaches with regards to instant claim 1, a cosmetic composition for the skin (see tittle; 0003) comprising cellulose (see tittle, claim 1) with a bulk density ranging from 0.1 or more, 0.5 and 0.9 or less
Dobrawa teaches the use of high bulk density that is administered as a solid dispersion to the skin (see 0007) wherein the bulk density is 0.58 g/cm3 which is relatively close in density.
Although the concentration of the lactic was not taught composition in the amounts and for the periods of time claimed by applicant. The dosageamount of a pharmaceutical composition is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ. MPEP 2143 states "when there is motivation to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." Therefore, the skilled artisan would have had reason to try these methods with the reasonable expectation that at least one would be successful.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have combined the cited references by modifying Bonner to result in the instant claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success. Additionally, one would have been motivated to combine these references and make the modification because they are drawn to same technical fields (constituted with same ingredients and share common utilities, and pertinent to the problem which applicant concerns about. MPEP 2141.01(a)
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY V GEMBEH whose telephone number is (571)272-8504. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm.
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.
/SHIRLEY V GEMBEH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615 9/14/26
Prosecution Insights