CTNF 17/731,863 CTNF 86804 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. DETAILED ACTION Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 07-42-04 AIA A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/30/2026 has been entered. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 AIA The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the final rejection on 01/30/2026 . The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of claims The amendment filed on 04/30/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 2 has been canceled, claims 11 and 12 have been withdrawn, and new claims 15 and 16 have been added. Claims 1, 3-10, and 13-16 are under examination in the instant office action. Rejections withdrawn Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 04/30/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, and 13 over Spooner-Hart et al. (US 2008/0234386 A1) from the previous Office Action. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application. Rejections maintained The following rejections of the claims are maintained for reasons of record and the following. New claims are hereby included in the rejections and the rejections are modified based on the amendments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02 AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). 07-23 AIA 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(a) 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. 07-21 AIA Claim s 1, 3-10, and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakajima et al. (US 6,348,200 B1) . Nakajima et al. teach a moisturizing essence (watery and thus sprayable ) to be applied to skin (the claimed keratin material ) in example 4 comprising 0.3% by weight of polyoxyethylene isocetyl ether (20 EO) (isoceteth-20, the claimed Y , MW 285.6 g/mol, the instant claims 1 and 3 ), 0.02% by weight of tannic acid (the claimed X in the instant claims 1 and 4 ), urea (a moisturizer and a dermatological active in the instant claims 13 and14 ), 6.40% by weight of ethanol (the instant claim 5 and the claimed effective amount to inhibit formation of a precipitate of X and Y in the composition prior to application to a keratin material according to the instant specification paragraph 118, and thus, inhibiting formation of a precipitate of X and Y prior to application onto any material whether that material having a color cosmetic composition previously applied onto or not, the new limitation in component (3) in the instant claims 1 ), and water as a carrier (the claimed non-toxic physiological acceptable medium in the instant claim 1) . No colorant is recited (the instant claim 10 ). With the same tannic acid and the same isoceteth-20 in the same ethanol, the same tannic acid and the same isoceteth-20 would have the same property of forming a coating agent after application to the keratin material (the instant claim 1 ). With the couple acids being acidic, tannic acid being acidic and 5% by weight of ethanol in water having pH<7, the composition would have pH<7 (the instant claim 8 ). Nakajima et al. also teach the cosmetic compositions comprising trimethylsiloxy silicic acid surface-treated silicic acid anhydride (silicic acid anhydride being silica, the claimed silica silylated in the instant claim 6 ) (the paragraph bridges column 23 and 24) and ascorbic acid (the instant claims 7 and 9 ) (column 16, line 40). Nakajima et al. do not teach the same surfactant (the claimed Y) in example 4 (isoceteth-20 vs (poly)glycerolated nonionic compound with ≥ 1 glycerol unit in the instant claim 1 and (poly)glycerolated alkyl ethers with ≥ 1 glycerol unit in the instant claims 15 and 16, and the molecular weight (MW) of it in the instant claim 3). This deficiency is cured by Nakajima et al.’s teaching of nonionic surfactants including polyoxyethylene alkyl ethers and glyceryl ethers of formula 18 PNG media_image1.png 200 400 media_image1.png Greyscale with R 13 being formula 19 PNG media_image2.png 200 400 media_image2.png Greyscale with p+q being 11-17 (column 22, line 14-49) → MW 288-372 (R 13 from 197 (p+q=11) to 281 (p+q=17)). It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in example 4 and column 22, line 14-49 in Nakajima et al. to replace isoceteth-20 (a polyoxyethylene alkyl ether) in example 4 with glyceryl ether in formula 18 and 19 (the claimed compound Y in the instant claims 1, 3, 15, and 16. Both polyoxyethylene alkyl ethers (isoceteth-20) and glyceryl ethers (formula 18 and 19) was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for replacing isoceteth-20 (a polyoxyethylene alkyl ether) in example 4 with glyceryl ether in formula 18 and 19 flows from both having been used in the prior art, and from both being recognized in the prior art as useful for the same purpose. Nakajima et al. do not specify the same weight percentage of tannic acid (the claimed X) in example 4 (0.02% vs about 0.5-30% by weight in the instant claim 1 ). This deficiency is cured by Nakajima et al.’s teaching of 0.01-1% by weight of oxygen scavengers or antioxidants of the component (F) including tannic acid (column 16, line 35 and 43-48) and the rationale that a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the range of a claimed composition overlaps with the range disclosed in the prior art, such as in the instant rejection. It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in example 4 and column 16, line 35 and 43-48 in Nakajima et al. to adjust the amount of tannic acid in example 4 to be 0.01-1% by weight. Incorporating 0.01-1% by weight of oxygen scavengers or antioxidants of the component (F) such as tannic acid in compositions taught by Nakajima et al. was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for adjusting the amount of tannic acid in example 4 flows from its having been used in the prior art, and from its being recognized in the prior art as useful for the same purpose. The claimed range of tannic acid is about 0.5-30% by weight and the range of tannic acid taught in the prior art is 0.01-1% by weight and therefor, overlaps with the claimed range. Nakajima et al. do not specify the same weight percentage of isoceteth-20 (the claimed Y) in example 4 (0.3% vs about 0.5-30% by weight in the instant claim 1 ). This deficiency is cured by Nakajima et al.’s teaching of 0.1-5% by weight of nonionic surfactants including polyoxyethylene alkyl ethers (such as isoceteth-20) (column 22, line 19-20 and the paragraph bridges column 22 and 23) and the rationale that a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the range of a claimed composition overlaps with the range disclosed in the prior art, such as in the instant rejection. It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in example 4 and column 22, line 19-20 and the paragraph bridges column 22 and 23 in Nakajima et al. to adjust the amount of isoceteth-20 in example 4 to be 0.1-5% by weight. Incorporating 0.1-5% by weight of nonionic surfactants such as isoceteth-20 in compositions taught by Nakajima et al. was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for adjusting the amount of isoceteth-20 in example 4 flows from its having been used in the prior art, and from its being recognized in the prior art as useful for the same purpose. The claimed range of isoceteth-20 is about 0.5-30% by weight and the range of about 0.5-30% taught in the prior art is 0.1-5% by weight and therefor, overlaps with the claimed range. Nakajima et al. do not specify the same weight percentage of ethanol (6.5% vs about 10-65% by weight in the instant claim 1 ). This deficiency is cured by the rationale that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. In the instant case, the claimed range of C 2-5 monoalcohol solvent is about 10-65% by weight and the range of ethanol solvent taught in the prior art is 6.4% by weight, i.e., both as solvents while about 5-75% by weight of solvent is disclosed as suitable in the instant specification paragraph 118; thus, the criticality of the now claimed about 10-65% over the 6.5% taught by Nakajima et al. is not established. Response to Applicants’ arguments: Applicant’s arguments based on the amendments and new claims are addressed in the modified rejection above ( newly underlined ) . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1, 3-10, and 13-16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-42of copending Application No. 18/256,765. Although the patent and instant claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Response to Applicants’ arguments: Applicant’s argument is basically the same as the previous argument, thus the response discussed previously (office action dated 01/30/2026 page 9) applies here as well and is not persuasive for reason discussed. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG YU whose telephone number is (571)270-1328. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am - 5:30 pm. 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, Ali Soroush can be reached on 571-272-9925. 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. /HONG YU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614 Application/Control Number: 17/731,863 Page 2 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 17/731,863 Page 3 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 17/731,863 Page 4 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 17/731,863 Page 5 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 17/731,863 Page 6 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 17/731,863 Page 7 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 17/731,863 Page 8 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 17/731,863 Page 9 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 17/731,863 Page 10 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 17/731,863 Page 11 Art Unit: 1614
Prosecution Insights