CTNF 18/136,456 CTNF 99471 DETAILED ACTION 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. Priority The present application is a regular US patent application without claimed priority. Status of the Application Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s claimed invention, filed 04/19/2023, in the matter of Application N° 18136456. Said documents have been entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following: Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 1-11 are presented for examination and rejected as set forth below. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 1 and 7-11 recite the term “about” to describe numerical values, which is indefinite because it is an imprecise definition of a value, which is not further defined in the Application (e.g., the Specification). The Examiner suggests “about” should be removed and considers the claim instant values as if the term “about” was not present. See MPEP 2173.05(b)(i). Claims 2-6 are further rejected, as they depend from claim 1. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US20110150792A1), and in further view of Friedman (US20150202145A1), Kobo Products (2019), Fares (US2014/0030198A1), Dueva (US20040028709A1), and Rigano (Cosmetics & Toiletries, 2014) . Applicant’s claims are directed to an anhydrous sunscreen composition comprising: (a) at least about 15% by weight based on the total weight of the sunscreen composition of a combination of titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, wherein the weight ratio of zinc oxide to titanium dioxide in the composition is about 0.5 to about 1.5; (b) at least about 50 % by weight based on the total weight of the sunscreen composition of a carrier oil, wherein the carrier oil comprises at least 50% by weight Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil; (c) about 10% to about 20% by weight based on the total weight of the sunscreen composition a combination of isododecane and diisopropyl adipate; and (d) about 2% to about 6% by weight based on the total weight of the sunscreen composition of a film former comprising triacontanyl PVP. Shao teaches non-aqueous (i.e., anhydrous) zinc oxide dispersions (abstract) for use as a sunscreen [0008] in the form of liquids, creams, gels, sprays, etc. [0019]. Regarding claims 1-2, 7, and 9: Shao teaches a composition that can include 5-80 wt% zinc oxide (Shao – claim 2) (‘component (a)’). Shao teaches a volatile and/or non-volatile non-aqueous carrier [0031-0038] that may include sunflower seed oil [0035] (Shao – claim 15) (‘component (b)’), isododecane (Example 8, [0031, 0058]) (‘component(c)’), and ester oils (Shao – claim 15, [0034]) (‘component(c)’), whereby the non-aqueous carrier is in a combined amount of 0.5-80 wt% [0031, 0038]. Note that "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (see 2144.05(I)). Thus, the Prior Art ranges encompass the instant ranges. Regarding claim 3: Shao teaches incorporation of caprylic/capric triglyceride [0035]. Regarding claim 5: Shao teaches incorporation polyhydroxystearic acid (Shao – claim 10). Regarding claim 6: Shao does not require polyester-7 (whole document). In summary, Shao teaches many elements of the anhydrous composition. However, Shao does not teach the titanium dioxide and/or the ratio of zinc oxide to titanium dioxide (instant claims 1(a) and 8), the specific sunflower seed oil from Helianthus Annuus (instant claim 1(b)), the diisopropyl adipate (instant claims 1(c) and 9), the triacontanyl PVP and amount (instant claims 1(d) and 10), and the VP/hexadecene copolymer and amount (instant claims 4 and 10). Friedman teaches 3-25 wt% [0010] of a 1:1 ratio of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide [0013] in sunscreen compositions. Friedman teaches that titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are common inorganic sunscreen agents that are good options for individuals with sensitive skin [0006-0011], where the combination of inorganic agents is preferred [0010]. Kobo Products teaches ZnO sunscreen dispersions that incorporation sunflower seed oil from Helianthus Annuus (pg 2). Fares teaches diisopropyl adipate as a suitable ester vehicle (in at least about 10 wt% [0058]) for use in anhydrous sunscreen sprays (abstract, [0048-0050]), incorporating zinc oxide, etc. (Fares – claim 6), in which all provided examples are anhydrous (Examples 1-19). Fares also teaches PVP/hexadecene (reads on VP/hexadecene) copolymer [0057] and triacontanyl PVP [0057], which are known as suitable polymers for cosmetic non-aqueous vehicles [0057] (that are also known as waterproofing film-forming agents, as taught by Dueva below). Furthermore, Fares teaches sun care products, including dispersions (Fares – claim 12), that impart water fastness, water proofness, and/or water repellency, and/or enable film permeability [0046], as desirable characteristics for skin application, for example, to prevent washoff during swimming, rainfall, or even perspiration [0005]. Dueva, furthermore, teaches cosmetic compositions incorporating PVP/hexadecane (reads on VP/hexadecane) copolymer and triacontanyl PVP as waterproofing film-forming agents (Dueva – claim 34) in 0.1 wt% to 5 wt% [0048] for sunscreens incorporating zinc oxide, etc. (Dueva – claim 15). Thus, range for the polymers encompass the instant polymeric ranges (instant claims 1, 4, and 10). With regard to the numerical range, note that "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (see 2144.05(I)). Rigano, additionally, describes the benefits of film-forming polymers in anhydrous, water-resistant sunscreens (pg 2-3), where specifically, PVP derivatives (e.g., triacontanyl PVP) are hydrophobic (i.e., imparting water-resistance) when dry (i.e., the solvent has evaporated) and are efficient dispersant ingredients (pg 3, paragraph 5, in ‘film-forming polymers’). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add a second UV absorber (titanium dioxide) in a 1:1 ratio to zinc oxide, because titanium dioxide functionally behaves as the other UV absorber (zinc oxide), as a non-irritating UV absorber, as taught by Friedman, and a 1:1 ratio is taught as typical of the Art. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. , 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Thus, the primary reference Shao teaches the general use of UV absorbers as useful to sunscreens [0002, 0008]. Furthermore, Friedman teaches that titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are common inorganic sunscreen agents that are good options for individuals with sensitive skin [0006-0011], where the combination of inorganic agents is preferred [0010]. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select the sunflower seed oil taught by Shao from Helianthus Annuus as taught by Kobo Products, because Kobo Products shows this species of sunflower seed oil is typically used in sunscreen formulations. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. , 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to select diisopropyl adipate as an ester vehicle, as taught by Fares as suitable for sunscreen compositions, where Shao teaches ester vehicles generally in sunscreens. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. , 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945). Thus, the primary reference Shao teaches the general use of ester vehicles (Shao – claim 15) [0034], and Fares teaches diisopropyl adipate is a suitable ester vehicle in sunscreen compositions (in at least about 10 wt% [0058]). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the waterproofing film-forming polymers of PVP/hexadecene copolymer and triacontanyl PVP of Fares and Dueva (in 0.1 wt% to 5 wt%) into the anhydrous sunscreens of Shao, because Rigano teaches that PVP derivatives are hydrophobic (i.e., imparting water-resistance) once dry (i.e., once the solvent evaporates, where water-resistant sunscreens provide longer-lasting protection, as discussed on pg 2, paragraph 2) and are also efficient pigment dispersant ingredients (pg 3, paragraph 5, in ‘film-forming polymers’). Thus, these waterproofing film-forming polymers of Fares and Dueva (that are also pigment dispersant agents per Rigano) would benefit the compositions of Shao, because Shao teaches non-aqueous zinc oxide dispersion sunscreens (abstract, [0008]) that use dispersing agents to prevent aggregation [0005], in combination with volatile non-aqueous carriers [0031-0033], in the form of liquids, creams, gels, sprays, etc. [0019] that has good application to the skin [0008] and UV protection [0005]. In further regard to Shao’s teachings, Fares teaches sun care products containing zinc oxide (Fares – claim 6), including dispersions (Fares – claim 12), that impart water fastness, water proofness, and/or water repellency, and/or enable film permeability [0046], as desirable characteristics for skin application, for example, to prevent washoff during swimming, rainfall, or even perspiration [0005], which incorporate PVP/hexadecene (reads on VP/hexadecene) copolymer [0057] and triacontanyl PVP [0057], which are waterproofing film-forming agents . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shao (US20110150792A1), Friedman (US20150202145A1), Kobo Products (2019), Fares (US2014/0030198A1), Dueva (US20040028709A1), and Rigano (Cosmetics & Toiletries, 2014), as applied to claims 1-10 above, and in further view of Hougaz (US20090061001A1) . As discussed above, the Prior Art teaches the anhydrous sunscreen composition. Shao discusses that dispersion stability is a function of dispersion particle size and viscosity [0007]. However, the Art does not teach the instant shear viscosity range of the composition (instant claim 11). Hougaz teaches a viscosity of 10-500000 cps as suitable for a sprayable sunscreen, that can be gelatinous to extremely thin [0022-0023] (abstract). With regard to the instant numerical range of 75 to 200 cP of instant claim 11 (where 1 cP = 1 cps), note that "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (see 2144.05(I)). Furthermore, the state of the composition can be almost gelatinous and extremely thin [0022-0023], and a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize the viscosity in order to obtained the desired consistency for appropriate delivery form (where Hougaz teaches sunscreen formulation viscosity issues [0006-0007]). See In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (indicating that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation). It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of the prior art with a specific viscosity value between the range of 10-500000 cps because it would align the viscosity (i.e., thin or thick) of the composition with the preferred delivery method of the sunscreen composition (in the case of the instant viscosity of 75 to 200 cP, a thin, fluid formulation viscosity appears preferred). With regard to the numerical range, note that "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (see 2144.05(I)). With regard to the specified shear rate of 1000 s -1 , the U.S. Patent Office is not equipped with analytical instruments to test prior art compositions for the infinite number of ways that a subsequent applicant may present previously unmeasured characteristics. When as here, the prior art appears to contain the exact same ingredients and applicant's own disclosure supports the suitability of the prior art composition as the inventive composition component, the burden is properly shifted to applicant to show otherwise. “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada , 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In this case, Hougaz describes the obviousness of both high viscosity (i.e., thick as in a lotion, cream, paste) and low viscosity formulations (i.e., thin) [0007, 0022], whereas the Prior Art teaches similar formations (e.g., Shao teaches liquids, creams, gels, sprays, etc. [0019]). Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJAN PRAGANI whose telephone number is (703)756-5319. The examiner can normally be reached 7a-5p EST (M-Th). 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 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. /R.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1614 3/23/2026 /SEAN M BASQUILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/136,456 Page 2 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/136,456 Page 3 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/136,456 Page 4 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/136,456 Page 5 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/136,456 Page 6 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/136,456 Page 7 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/136,456 Page 8 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/136,456 Page 9 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/136,456 Page 10 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/136,456 Page 11 Art Unit: 1614