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 .
Claims 1-33 are cancelled.
Claims 34-53 are pending.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amended claims and remarks filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive in overcoming the previous rejections under 35 USC 103 over Albisetti which is now withdrawn.
However, in an updated search, Examiner now relies on the teachings of Albisetti et al. (US 20150374098 A1) hereinafter Albisetti in view of Huerta et al. (US20040247543A1) hereinafter Huerta.
Examiner additional notes that while claim 1 has been amended to require “quick break emulsion system”, the claim lists several options of emulsifiers, whereas the instant specifications discloses, “[0109] The results in Table 2 above show that the combination of Aristoflex HMB (an exemplary polyacrylate emulsifier) and Montanov 202 (an exemplary glucoside/alcohol emulsifier) provided both the desired quick break effect and physical stability.”, which is only one example of a specific polyacrylate emulsifier and a specific glucoside/alcohol emulsifier that is commensurate in scope with the quick break emulsion system. Further clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 35 recites the limitation of “wherein the composition is an oil-in-water quick break emulsion system”, and claim 34 requires “composition is an oil-in-water quick break emulsion system”. It is unclear to the examiner how the limitation of claim 35 is further limiting the limitations of claim 34. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 34-53 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albisetti et al. (US 20150374098 A1) hereinafter Albisetti in view of Huerta et al. (US20040247543A1) hereinafter Huerta.
Regarding claims 34-53, Albisetti discloses the aqueous compositions of the invention may be in an O/W emulsion [0273]. Albisetti discloses a cosmetic process for treating and/or caring for human keratin materials, characterized in that it consists in applying to the surface of the keratin material (abstract).
Albisetti discloses the cosmetic compositions according to the invention may comprise cosmetic sunscreens [0361].
Alibisetti discloses among the alkylpolyglycosides that may be used according to the invention, mention may be made of arachidylpolyglucoside such as that present in the commercial product Montanov 202® from the company SEPPIC [0329]. Albisetti discloses the mixture of nonionic surfactant and of fatty alcohol in accordance with the invention, mention may be made of: a mixture of arachidyl alcohol, behenyl alcohol and arachidylglucoside, such as the commercial product Montanov 202® from the company SEPPIC [0354-0355]. Alibisetti discloses use will be made more particularly of a mixture of arachidyl alcohol, behenyl alcohol and arachidylglucoside, such as the commercial product Montanov 202® from the company SEPPIC [0357].
Alibisetti discloses a crosslinked copolymer of 2-acrylamidomethyl propanesulfonic acid and of behenyl methacrylate polyethoxylated with 25 mol of ethylene oxide, crosslinked with trimethylolpropane triacrylate (INCI name: Ammonium acryloyldimethyltaurate/beheneth-25 methacrylate crosspolymer) sold under the name Aristoflex HMB by the company Clariant, and mixtures thereof [0090].
Alibisetti does not explicitly disclose wherein the emulsion is a quick break emulsion.
However, Huerta is drawn to a sunscreen composition that has at least one sunscreen agent and at least one glucoside emulsifier. The composition also has water. Preferably, the sunscreen composition also has at least one of the following additional components: an emulsifier other than glucoside, emollient, skin-feel additive, moisturizing agent, film former/waterproofing agent, pH adjuster/chelating agent, preservative, or any combinations thereof. The composition is a stable oil-in-water emulsion (abstract and claims 1-38).
Huerta discloses the emulsion of Composition A, having lauryl glucoside, breaks easier into its oil phase and aqueous phase when applied to the skin. Composition A has a very quick absorbing, elegant feel when applied to the skin [0057] (quick break properties).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Alibisetti which comprises a glucoside component, wherein the emulsion is a quick break emulsion, as taught by Huerta, and arrive at the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Alibisetti and Huerta are drawn to sunscreen emulsion compositions that comprise glucoside components, and Huerta discloses that the emulsion of Composition A, having lauryl glucoside, breaks easier into its oil phase and aqueous phase when applied to the skin. Composition A has a very quick absorbing, elegant feel when applied to the skin [0057]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in making the dosage form as disclosed by the combined teachings of Alibisetti and Huerta, by applying a known technique to a known product ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANGLONG N TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0719. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 on 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 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.
/QUANGLONG N TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
