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 1-27 are pending. Note that, Applicant’s amendment and arguments filed January 28, 2026, have been entered.
Objections/Rejections Withdrawn
The following objections/rejections as set forth in the Office action mailed 10/28/25 have been withdrawn:
The objection to claims 1-26 due to minor informalities has been withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 1-26 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of copending Application No. 19/288889 (reference application), has been withdrawn due to the filing of a terminal disclaimer.
Claim Objections
Claim 22 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 27. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
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 1-9, 12-22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB2,351,979 in view of WO2017/106276.
With respect to independent, instant claims 1, 9, 14, and 27, ‘979 teaches an aqueous liquid shower gel composition 30 comprising: (1) 1% to 20% by wt., preferably 2% to 18%, and most preferably 5% to 18% by wt. of a C12 to C24 fatty acid or mixture of fatty acid; -2- 5 10 15 20 (2) 1-10% by wt. of an alkali metal source (e.g., alkali metal hydroxide, alkali metal carbonate); mono-, di- or triethanolamine salts; salts of C2-C4 alkylamines etc.) which reacts with free fatty acids to form soap in situ; (3) 1% to 20%, preferably 5 to 15% by wt. of one or more anionic surfactants; (4) 1% to 15%, preferably 1% to 10% by weight of an amphoteric/zwitterionic surfactant; (5) about 1% to 7% by wt. isoprene glycol; and (6) about 2% to 8% dialkylene glycol, preferably 4% to 8% dipropylene glycol. Alternatively, the "soaps" may be introduced directly into the compositions rather than being prepared in situ. In this case, components (1) and (2) would comprise 1 to 20% by wt. "soap" and (3)-(6) will be the same. See page 2. More particularly, using compositions of invention, the compositions will 5 not freeze at temperatures as low as -5°C and even as low as -10°C. Compositions have viscosity of 50 to 8000 cps (measured at 10S¹), preferably 100 to 3000 cps, more preferably 100 to 1000 cps and most preferably 300 to 800 cps. See page 3.
The term "soap" is used herein in its popular sense, i.e. the alkali metal or alkanol ammonium salts of aliphatic alkane- or alkene monocarboxylic acids. Sodium potassium mono-, di- and tri-ethanol ammonium cations, or combinations thereof, are suitable for purposes of this invention. In general, sodium soaps are used in the compositions of this invention, but from about 1% to about 25% of the soap may be potassium soaps. The soaps useful herein are the well known alkali metal salts of natural of synthetic aliphatic (alkanoic or alkenoic) acids having about 12 to 22 carbon atoms, preferably about 12 to about 18 carbon atoms. Soaps may be made by the classic kettle boiling process or modern continuous soap manufacturing processes wherein natural fats and oils such as tallow or coconut oil or their equivalents are saponified with an alkali metal hydroxide using procedures well known to those skilled in the art. Alternatively, the soaps may be made by neutralizing fatty acids, such as lauric (C12), myristic (C14), palmitic (C16), or stearic (C18) acids with an alkali metal hydroxide or carbonate. See pages 3-5.
In addition, the compositions of the invention may include optional ingredients as follows: Organic solvents, such as ethanol; auxiliary thickeners, such as carboxymethylcellulose, magnesium aluminum silicate, hydroxyethylcellulose, methylcellulose, carbopols, glucamides, or Antil® from Rhone Poulenc; perfumes; sequestering agents, such as tetrasodium ethylene diaminetetraacetate (EDTA), EHDP or mixtures in an amount of 0.01 to 1%, preferably 0.01 to 0.05%; and coloring agents, opacifiers and pearlizers such as zinc stearate, magnesium stearate, TiO2, EGMS (ethylene glycol monostearate) or Lytron 621 (Styrene/Acrylate copolymers); all of which are useful in enhancing the appearance or cosmetic properties of the product. The compositions may further comprise antimicrobials such as 2-hydroxy4,2'4' trichlorodiphenylether (DP300); preservatives such as dimethyloldimethylhydantoin (Glydant XL 1000), parabens, sorbic acid etc. The compositions may also comprise coconut acyl mono- or diethanol amides as suds boosters, and strongly ionizing salts such as sodium chloride and sodium sulfate may also be used to advantage. Antioxidants such as, for example, butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) may be used advantageously in amounts of about 0.01% or higher if appropriate. Cationic conditioners which may be used include Quatrisoft LM-200 20 Polyquaternium-24, Merquat Plus 3330 - Polyquaternium 39; and Jaguar® type conditioners. See pages 10 and 11.
‘979 does not teach the specific pH of the composition or a composition in the form of a gel having a specific pH containing a fatty acid salt and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claims 1, 9, 14, and 27 along with the respective dependent claims.
‘276 teaches self-thickening surfactant compositions, preparation methods thereof, and their applications in cosmetics and personal care, home care, industrial and institutional cleaning, oil fields, etc. See page 1. For example, ‘276 teaches compositions containing one or more N-acyl acidic amino acid and/or a salt thereof; B. one or more amphoteric surfactant; C. optionally water; D. optionally one or more other ingredients; wherein component C (water) can be added separately and/or along with any of components A, B and/or D; and the composition has a pH in the range of about 4.0 to about 7.0 with a viscosity in the range of about 200 to about 100,000 mPa.s when mixed with water. See page 4. The cosmetic or personal care cleansing composition is selected from liquid cleansers, body washes, shower gels, hair shampoos, baby shampoos, and facial cleansers. See page 8. Additional ingredients include thickeners such as carbomer, acrylates copolymer, xanthan gum, cellulose, guar gum, starch, carageenan, sodium alginate, bentonite, etc. See page 15, lines 1-20.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate the composition as taught by ‘979 to have a pH, for example, of 7 as recited by the instant claims, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘276 teaches the formulation of a similar composition at a pH, for example, of 7 and further, ‘979 teaches that the amounts and types of components added to the composition may be varied within wide ranges which would allow for the formulation of the composition at various pH values including 7.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a thickener such as xanthan gum in the composition taught by ‘979, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘276 teaches the equivalence of xanthan gum to cellulose thickeners in a similar composition and further, ‘979 teaches the use of cellulose thickeners.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition in the form of a gel having a specific pH containing a fatty acid salt and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claims 1 and 14 along with respective dependent claims, with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of ‘979 in view of ‘276 suggest a composition in the form of a gel having a specific pH containing a fatty acid salt and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claims 1, 9, 14, and 27 along with the respective dependent claims. Note that, the Examiner asserts the broad teachings of ‘979 in view of ‘276 would suggest compositions having the same percentage of natural or naturally-derived ingredients as recited by the instant claims because ‘979 in view of ‘276 teaches compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by independent, instant claims 1, 9, 14, and 27 along with the respective dependent claims.
Claims 10, 11, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB2,351,979 in view of WO2017/106276 as applied to claims 1-9, 12-22, and 25-27 above, and further in view of WO2006/085907 or Shimada et al (US2016/0067155).
‘979 is relied upon as set forth above. However, ‘979 does not teach the use of a moisturizer such as trehalose in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Shimada et al teach a cosmetic product comprising a first composition and a second composition different from the first composition as constituent elements of the cosmetic product and which foams by mixing the first composition and the second composition, wherein the first composition is a liquid or creamy composition containing a bicarbonate and/or a carbonate, and the second composition is a liquid or creamy composition containing an a-hydroxy acid and/or a saturated dibasic acid in which the content of water is 1.0-fold or less in terms of weight ratio with respect to the a-hydroxy acid and/or the saturated dibasic acid. See claim 1. The first composition preferably contains a moisturizer selected from polyhydric alcohols, reducing sugars, sugar alcohols and derivatives thereof. By this, it becomes possible to realize excellent foaming and foam retention. As the above-described moisturizer, for example, polyglycerin, trehalose, xylitol, xylose, maltitol, raffinose, glycosyl glucose, maltose, oligosaccharide, glycosyl trehalose and derivatives thereof are preferably used. See paras. 66-67.
‘907 provides a sanitizing composition in the form of a viscous liquid or gel suitable for use as a handwash composition comprising alcohol, water and a thickener wherein the viscous liquid or gel has particles suspended therein, wherein said particles provide the composition with a granular texture and are capable of being worn away when rubbed. See Abstract. Preferably, at least some of the particles contain an emollient and/or moisturizer. See para. 48. Suitable thickeners include trehalose, honey extract, etc.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a moisturizer such as trehalose or honey in the composition taught by ‘979, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Shimada et al or ‘907 teaches the use of moisturizers such as trehalose or honey as moisturizers in a similar composition and further, ‘979 teaches the use of various optional cosmetic ingredients which would encompass moisturizers.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12-22, and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allef et al (US 2014/0349902) in view of WO2021/197906.
With respect to independent, instant claims 1, 9, 14, and 27, Allef et al teach compositions comprising water, at least one biosurfactant and at least one fatty acid. which are characterized in that the fraction of the sum of all surfactants in the composition is from 1 to 30% by weight. and that the fraction of fatty acid, based on the sum of fatty acid and surfactants, is from 0.1 to 20% by weight, and to the use thereof as or for producing bath additives, shower gel, shampoos, conditioners, body cleansers or skin cleansers. See Abstract. Fatty acids which can be present in the compositions according to the invention are all known aliphatic, branched or unbranched, saturated or unsaturated carboxylic acids or (poly)hydroxycarboxylic acids, or di-, tri-or oligomers thereof. Suitable fatty acids include lauric acid, myristic acid, linoleic acid, etc. See para. 29. It may be advantageous if the composition according to the invention comprises at least one thickener. The fraction of thickeners in the composition is preferably from 0.05 to 20% by weight, preferably from 0.1 to 10% by weight and particularly preferably from 0.5 to 5% by weight, based on the composition. Suitable thickeners include xanthan gum, guar gum, etc. See paras.47-48. Further particularly preferred compositions according to the invention are free from sulphates and moreover free from polyethylene glycol (PEG) and/or derivatives thereof and propylene glycol (PPG) and/or derivatives thereof. See para. 57. The compositions according to the invention preferably have a pH, determined by means of a pH meter of the PB 11 type from Sartorius, from 5 to 8. Preferred compositions have a viscosity, determined at 25° C. using a DV-I Prime Brookfield viscometer type from 500 to 20 000 mPas. See paras. 58-59. The compositions according to the invention can comprise, as further components, in particular e.g. those which are e.g. selected from the group of emollients, emulsifiers, viscosity regulators/stabilizers, UV photoprotective filters, antioxidants, solids and fillers, film formers, pearlescent additives, deodorant and antiperspirant active ingredients, insect repellents, self-tanning agents, conditioners, (cosmetic) active ingredients, care additives, superfatting agents, solubility promoters (solubilizers), pearlizing agents and solvents, with the proviso that the specified components are not identical to the biosurfactants, surfactants, thickeners. See para. 53.
Allef et al do not teach the use of a fatty acid salt or a composition in the form of a gel having a specific pH containing a fatty acid salt and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claims 1, 9, 14, and 27 along with the respective dependent claims.
‘906 teaches a cleansing composition comprises: less than 12% by weight of a C10-C18 fatty acid; 0.25 to 5% by weight of a surfactant; and 0.1 to 3% by weight of an organic buffer. A method of forming a foaming composition is accomplished by forming the cleansing composition and agitating the resulting composition for less than or equal to 5 minutes. See Abstract. The fatty acid of the cleansing composition can be present in an amount of less than 20% by weight. For example, the fatty acid can be present in an amount of less than 16%, by weight, for example, less than 13% by weight, for example, less than 12% by weight, for example, 5% by weight to 20% by weight, for example, 7.5% by weight to 15% by weight, for example, 9% by weight to 12% by weight, for example, 10% by weight to 11.5% by weight. The fatty acid contains at least 10 carbon atoms, preferably at least 12 carbon atoms. The fatty acid can contain 10 to 18 carbon atoms, preferably, 12 to 16 carbon atoms. The fatty acids can be saturated, unsaturated, straight chain, or branched. The fatty acid can be selected from lauric acid, myristic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid, behenic acid, oleic acid, linoleic acid, lanolic acid, isostearic acid, arachidonic acid, hydroxystearic acid, or a combination thereof. See page 5, lines 20-35. The fatty acid can be neutralized with a neutralizing agent to form soap. For example, the fatty acid can be neutralized with an oxide. The oxide can include, but is not limited to, sodium hydroxide (NaOH), potassium hydroxide (KOH), sodium carbonate (Na2CO3), ammonium hydroxide (NH4OH)or a combination thereof. In an aspect, the fatty acid is neutralized with sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide. In a preferred aspect, the fatty acid is neutralized with potassium hydroxide. See page 6, lines 1-10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a potassium salt of a fatty acid in the composition taught by Allef et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘906 teaches the equivalence of fatty acids to potassium salts of the fatty acids as suitable components in a similar composition and further, Allef et al teaches the use of fatty acids.
Claims 10, 11, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allef et al (US 2014/0349902) as applied to claims 1-9, 12-22, and 25-27 above, and further in view of Kalahasti et al (US2019/0038689).
Allef et al are relied upon as set forth above. However, Allef et al do not teach the use of a moisturizer such as trehalose or honey in addition to the other requisite components of the composition as recited by the instant claims.
Kalahasti et al teach methods of use and compositions useful for treating skin. The composition includes a combination of saccharide isomerate extract, Myrothamnus flabellifolia extract, algae extract, mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris) extract, and [6]-paradol. This combination can be used to create topical skin compositions that reduces erythema, cools the skin, inhibits nitric oxide synthase, decreases TNF-a production, and increases the production of occludin-1. See Abstract. The composition contains moisturizing agents that can be used with the compositions of the present invention include honey, trehalose, etc. See para. 54.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use a moisturizer such as trehalose or honey in the composition taught by Allef et al, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Kalahasti et al teach the use of moisturizers such as honey or trehalose in a similar composition and further, Allef et al teach the use of various additional ingredients in general and moisturizers would be desirable to provide moisturizing properties to the skin the composition taught by Allef et al.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejection of the instant claims under 35 USC 103 using GB2,351,979 in view of WO2017/106276, Applicant states that GB '979 requires synthetic and non-natural components that would prevent achieving 90% natural content. Additionally, Applicant states that the working examples of ‘979 contain substantial non-natural components, including sodium laurylether sulfate (SLES) at 7.8%, cationic polymer at 3.5-3.6%, isoprene glycol at 2-4%, dipropylene glycol at 5-7%, dibutylhydroxytoluene (BHT) at 0.05%, and tetrasodiumedetate tetrahydrate (EDTA) at 0.05%, wherein these additives would result in well over 10% of non-natural content thereby making the examples vastly different than the claimed "at least 90 weight percent of natural or naturally derived ingredients” as recited by the instant claims. Also, Applicant submits that the prior art does not teach or suggest the specific viscosity range and measurement method recited in the claims. Claims 1 and 9 recite that the body 10 has a dynamic viscosity “as determined with a Brookfield RV viscometer having a RV-5 spindle at 10 rpm," and claim 14 recites that the hand soap has a viscosity "as determined with a Brookfield RV viscometer having a RV-4 spindle at 10 rpm”; the cited prior art does not teach these specific measurement conditions, and different viscosity measurement methods can yield different results for the same composition.
In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of a reference are not limited to the preferred embodiments and that the broad teachings of ‘979 in view of ‘276 suggest compositions containing the same components in the same amounts as recited by the instant claims. Note that, the fact that a specific embodiment is taught to be preferred is not controlling, since all disclosures of the prior art, including unpreferred embodiments, must be considered. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of the disclosed alternatives. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). "[a] reference must be considered for everything that it teaches, not simply the described invention or a preferred embodiment." CRFD Research, Inc. v. Matal, 876 F.3d 1330, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting In re Applied Materials, Inc., 692 F.3d 1289, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); see also In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (explaining that "[t]he use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions". Additionally, disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971); a known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994); See MPEP 2123(II). The fact that a reference discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Biocraft Labs, 874 R.2d 804, 808 (Fed. Cir. 1989). See also, In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (obviousness rejection of claims affirmed in light of prior art teaching that “hydrated zeolites will work” in detergent formulations even though “the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from amount thousands of compounds”); In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 445 (CCPA 1971) (obviousness rejection affirmed where the disclosure of the prior art was huge, but it undeniably included at least some of the compounds recited in appellant’s generic claims and was a class of chemicals to be used for the same purpose as appellant’s additives).
For example, ‘979 clearly teaches an aqueous gel containing 1) 1% to 20% by wt. of a C12 to C24 fatty acid or mixture of fatty acid; (2) 1-10% by wt. of an alkali metal source (e.g., alkali metal hydroxide, alkali metal carbonate); mono-, di- or triethanolamine salts; salts of C2-C4 alkylamines etc.) which reacts with free fatty acids to form soap in situ; (3) 1% to 20%of one or more anionic surfactants; (4) 1% to 15%, of an amphoteric/zwitterionic surfactant; (5) about 1% to 7% by wt. isoprene glycol; and (6) about 2% to 8% dialkylene glycol, and water, which contains, at a minimum, 7% by weight of non-water components (e.g., fatty acid, etc.) and 93% of water and would fall within the scope of “at least 90 weight percent of natural or naturally derived ingredients” as recited by the instant claims (See page 2 of ‘979). Additionally, the Examiner asserts that ‘979 does not require the use of sulfates and would clearly suggest embodiments which are “free from sulfates” as recited by the instant claims. ‘979 teaches a variety of anionic surfactants such as a primary alkane (e.g. C8-C22) sulfonate, primary alkane (e.g., C8-C22), disulfonate, C8-C22 alkene sulfonate, Cg-C22 hydroxyalane sulfonate or alkyl glyceryl ether sulfonate (AGS); or aromatic sulfonates such as alkyl benzene sulfonate, which are not sulfates and would allow for the formulation of embodiments which are “free from sulfates” as recited by the instant claims (See page 5 of ‘979). Additionally, ‘979 clearly teaches that the compositions have a viscosity of 50 to 8000 cps (measured at 10S¹) (See page 3 of ‘979), which would clearly overlap with the viscosity range as recited by the instant claims. While the instant claims recite the specific instrument used to determine the viscosity, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘979 would suggest compositions having the same viscosity if measured with a Brookfield RV viscometer as recited by the instant claims because ‘979 teaches compositions containing the same components in the same amounts and further, such properties would flow naturally from the teachings of ‘979.
Additionally, the Examiner asserts that ‘276 is analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and ‘979 and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of ‘276 to cure the deficiencies of ‘979. ‘276 is a secondary reference relied upon for its teaching of the specific pH of the composition. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to formulate the composition as taught by ‘979 to have a pH, for example, of 7 as recited by the instant claims, with a reasonable expectation of success, because ‘276 teaches the formulation of a similar composition at a pH, for example, of 7 and further, ‘979 teaches that the amounts and types of components added to the composition may be varied within wide ranges which would allow for the formulation of the composition at various pH values including 7. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘979 in view of ‘276 are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
With respect to the rejection of instant claims 10, 11, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GB2,351,979 in view of WO2017/106276, further in view of WO2006/085907 or Shimada et al (US2016/0067155), Applicant states that the teachings of ‘979 in view of ‘276 are not sufficient to suggest the claimed invention and that the teachings of ‘907 or Shimada et al are not sufficient to remedy the deficiencies of ‘979 in view of ‘276. In response, note that, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of ‘979 are sufficient to suggest the claimed invention for the reasons set forth above. Additionally, the Examiner asserts that ‘907 and Shimada et al are analogous prior art relative to the claimed invention and ’979 and that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have looked to the teachings of ‘907 or Shimada et al to cure the deficiencies of ‘979 in view of ‘276. ‘907 or Shimada et al are secondary references relied upon for their teaching of a moisturizer such as trehalose. The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill in the art clearly would have been motivated to use a moisturizer such as trehalose or honey in the composition taught by ‘979, with a reasonable expectation of success, because Shimada et al or ‘907 teaches the use of moisturizers such as trehalose or honey as moisturizers in a similar composition and further, ‘979 teaches the use of various optional cosmetic ingredients which would encompass moisturizers. Thus, the Examiner asserts that the teachings of GB2,351,979 in view of WO2017/106276, further in view of WO2006/085907 or Shimada et al (US2016/0067155), are sufficient to render the claimed invention obvious under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on February 17, 2026, prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571) 272-2817. 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/February 23, 2026