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 .
Receipt is acknowledged for IDS filed 06/19/2026 and 01/07/2025.
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/JP2023/020501 filed 06/01/2023 which claims benefit of Japanese application 2022-112171 filed 07/13/2022.
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.
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) 1-2, 4 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsusue (US 20210156090 A1), as evidenced by Dihora et al. (US 20100150975 A1), in view of Okawa (US 20200407912 A1).
Claim 1 is directed to solid powder cosmetic composition comprising cellulose powder having average particle size of 1 to 25 m and an aspect ration of 0.6 to 0.9, the cellulose powder is an aggregate containing an additive and fine cellulose having average fiber width of 1 to 500 nm.
Matsusue discloses powder cosmetic (see the whole document with emphasis on paragraph [0002]). Matsusue teaches fiber length/fiber width of 3 to 1,000,000 or 6 to 340,000 or 10 to 340,000 (see at least paragraphs [0035]); the fibers are disclosed to have average diameter or width of 1 to 1000 nm (paragraph [0032]); the fine cellulose fiber has excellent dispersibility in water (paragraph [0010]-[0013]) and fine cellulose fibers have width of 1 to 1000 nm or 2 to 400 nm or 3 to 100 nm (see paragraph [0032] and the fibers have width (paragraphs [0033]-[0035], [0095]-[0096], [0099]); aggregation agents are alcohols namely ethanol, isopropanol, butanol, ethylene glycol, glycerin, octanol, dodecanol, tetradecanol, oleyl alcohol (paragraph [0106]); and the aggregate composition of cellulose powder contains additives A and B (paragraphs [0052]-[0058]). Ethanol, isopropanol, butanol, ethylene glycol, glycerin, octanol, dodecanol, tetradecanol, oleyl alcohol (paragraph [0106]) meets the limitation of additive of claim 1 and glycerin of claim 4.
The diameter or width of 1 to 1000 nm or 2 to 400 nm or 3 to 100 nm (see paragraph [0032]) overlaps the claimed width range of 1 to 500 nm; and 2 to 400nm or 3 to 100 nm are species of the claimed range of 1-500 nm.
Thus, for claim 1, Matsusue does not specifically teach aspect ratio which is defined by Dihora as average fiber length to microfiber width/diameter of the fiber (see paragraph [0036], claim 9). While Matsusue teaches ratio of fiber length to fiber width, Matsusue does not teach the length of the fiber.
However, Okawa teaches powder cosmetic composition (paragraph [0002]) that comprises fine cellulose fibers having average fiber length of 0.15 mm to 0.4 mm (paragraph [0035]-[0036]) and the width ranges from 1 nm to 1000 nm or less (paragraph [0015]).
Therefore, before the effective date of the invention, the artisan would look to Okawa with respect to using cellulose powder in powder cosmetic in which the cellulose fiber has a length of 0.15 mm to 0.4 mm to use cellulose fibers population that has a ratio of the length of the fiber to the width of the fiber that would be effective cosmetic on the skin providing acceptable smoothing effect.
For claim 2, the recitation of “formed by aggregation” is a process step. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
For claim 4, the glycerin meets the requirement of the claim.
For claim 10, the composition of Matsusue is a cosmetic and a base makeup is the intended use.
Therefore, Matsusue, as evidenced by Dihora, in combination with Okawa renders claims 1-2, 4 and 10 prima facie obvious.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 5-9 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.
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLESSING M FUBARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am-6 pm (M-T).
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, Brian Yong Kwon can be reached at 5712720581. 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.
/BLESSING M FUBARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
