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 1-15 as filed June 6, 2023 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on June 6, 2023 was considered.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code (e.g., page 21, lines 12, 13). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: a coordinating conjunction, e.g., and, should presumably be inserted after the recitation of the alkanes.
Claims 4-13: a comma should be inserted after the preamble consistent with claims 2 and 3, or vice versa.
Claim 13: “of” should presumably be inserted before “50” consistent with the formatting of the claim.
Claim 14: there is an extraneous space before the first comma.
Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ). See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 20212803.9, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The prior-filed application does not disclose ester of the formula R6COOR7 as recited in claim 1, and does not disclose the ratios of claim 8.
The earliest date available to claims 1-13 is December 8, 2021.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are drawn to “uses” of a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 alkanes for reducing stickiness. "Use" claims that do not purport to claim a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter fail to comply with 35 U.S.C. 101. In re Moreton, 288 F.2d 708, 709, 129 USPQ 227, 228 (CCPA 1961)("one cannot claim a new use per se, because it is not among the categories of patentable inventions specified in 35 U.S.C. § 101 "). See MPEP 2173.05(q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites various Ri groups, and particular Ri groups, and even more particular Ri groups. “Particular” appears to be used in the claims as a place holder for “preferably” or for the phrase "for example" and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Additionally, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-13 are included in this rejection because they depend from claim 1 and thus they also encompass the embodiment under rejection.
Claim 1 in the final wherein clause and claims 14 and 15 recite more than 80 wt%, preferably more than 90 wt%, most preferred more than 92 wt%. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claims 2-13 are included in this rejection because they depend from claim 1 and thus they also encompass the embodiment under rejection.
Claim 2 recites less than 10 wt%, preferably less than 8 wt%, most preferred more than 5 wt%. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 3 recites more than 50 wt%, preferably more than 60 wt%, even more preferably more than 70 wt%. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 4 and 5 independently recite the emollient. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the emollient because claim 1 recites at least one emollient and it is unclear whether the emollient references one, more than one, or all of the at least one emollients of the antecedent.
Claim 6 recites at least two emollients. It is unclear whether these at least two emollients are related to the at least one emollient of claim 1 (e.g., the at least one emollient comprises at least two emollients) or whether these at least two emollients differ from those of the circumscribed group of claim 1.
Claim 6 recites at least two emollients, particularly at least dicaprylyl ether and diisopropyl sebacate. “Particularly” appears to be used in the claims as a place holder for “preferably” or for the phrase "for example" and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites at least one further UV-filter, particularly so that the weight ratio. “Particularly” appears to be used in the claims as a place holder for “preferably” or for the phrase "for example" and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 8 recites the weight ratio … to the further UV filter. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the further UV filter because the antecedent recites at least one further UV-filter and it is unclear whether the UV filter references one, more than one or all of the at least one further UV-filters.
Claim 8 recites weight ratios of 1:15 to 5:1, preferably 1:10 to 4:1 and more preferably 1:8 to 3:1. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 10 recites a C14-C18 fatty acid, particularly a linear C14-C18 fatty acid, most preferably palmitic acid. “Particularly” appears to be used in the claims as a place holder for “preferably” or for the phrase "for example" and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 13 recites an SPF of 10 or higher, preferably of 20 or higher, more preferred of 30 or higher, even more preferred 50 or higher. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 14 and 15 are drawn to “uses” of a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 alkanes for reducing stickiness. To the extent that these claims attempt to claim a process, because these claims do not set forth any active method steps, these claims are indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(q). For purposes of applying prior art, claims 14 and 15 are interpreted as being drawn to compositions comprising said mixture, bisoctrizole and a C8-C16 alkyl poly-glucoside, wherein the amount of branched saturated C15-C19 alkane is more than 80 wt% of said mixture.
Claims 14 and 15 recite the UV-Filter Bisoctrizole. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in these claims.
Claim 15 recites a use for reducing stickiness …, particularly reducing the sand adherence. “Particularly” appears to be used in the claims as a place holder for “preferably” or for the phrase "for example" and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cambos et al. (US 2020/0093713, published March 26, 2020) as evidenced by the Safety Data Sheet for Montanov 82 issued in 2014.
Regarding claims 1, 2, 11
Cambos teaches methods for improving the sensorial properties of oil-in-water emulsions comprising including a mixture of saturated cyclic or acyclic, linear or branched hydrocarbons of which at least 95 wt% have between 15 and 19 carbon atoms and exemplifies sun-cream emulsions comprising (title; abstract; claims; page 12, 1st full Table; paragraph [0175]):
Montanov™ 82 (cetearyl alcohol & cocoglucoside (product of glucose and C12/18 even numbered alcohols as evidenced by the safety data sheet)),
C12-C15 alkyl benzoate (ester of formula R6COOR7 as evidenced by page 12, lines 15-19 of the instant specification),
Emogreen™ L15 comprising 3.7% of linear C15-C19 alkanes and 96% of C15-C19 isoalkanes (paragraphs [0044]-[0047]), and
methylene bis-benzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol (UV filter of formula I, bisoctrizole as evidenced by page 5, lines 1-5 of the instant specification).
Regarding claim 8
The exemplified sun-cream emulsion comprises 10% of the methylene bis-benzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol and further comprises (page 12, 1st full Table):
6% octocrylene,
6% ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate,
3% 2-ethylhexyl dimethoxybenzylidene dioxoimidazolidine propionate.
The weight ratio is 10 / (6+6+3) = 10 / 15 = 1 / 1.5.
Regarding claim 12
The exemplified sun-cream emulsion further comprises Sepimax™ Zen which is a thickening (gelling) agent (page 12, 1st full Table; paragraph [0172]).
Regarding claims 14, 15
Cambos teaches methods for improving the sensorial properties of oil-in-water emulsions comprising including a mixture of saturated cyclic or acyclic, linear or branched hydrocarbons of which at least 95 wt% have between 15 and 19 carbon atoms and exemplifies sun-cream emulsions comprising (title; abstract; claims; page 12, 1st full Table; paragraph [0175]):
Montanov™ 82 (cetearyl alcohol & cocoglucoside (product of glucose and C12/18 even numbered alcohols as evidenced by the safety data sheet)),
Emogreen™ L15 comprising 3.7% of linear C15-C19 alkanes and 96% of C15-C19 isoalkanes (paragraphs [0044]-[0047]), and
methylene bis-benzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol (UV filter of formula I, bisoctrizole as evidenced by page 5, lines 1-5 of the instant specification).
Regarding the claimed uses for reducing stickiness, because Cambos anticipates compositions as instantly claimed and anticipates the addition of alkane mixtures as instantly claimed, it necessarily follows that reduction of stickiness is inherent to Cambos. See MPEP 2112.
The above teachings therefore anticipate the claims.
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 of this title, 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 1-4, 6-8 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zickerman (WO 2019/157181, published August 15, 2019) in view of Swoboda (US 2019/0060192, published February 28, 2019).
Zickerman teaches sunscreen compositions comprising non-nano zinc oxide, a carrier, and a component inclusive of emulsifiers inclusive of decyl glucoside and emollients inclusive of dicaprylyl ether (ether of formula R1OR1 as evidenced by page 10, lines 18-22 of the instant specification) and C15-C19 alkanes; the compositions comply with the natural product standard (title; abstract; claims, in particular 1, 3), as required by instant claims 4, 6, 7, 8, 11. The compositions may comprise a first emollient inclusive of dicaprylyl ether and a second emollient (paragraph [0059]), as required by instant claim 6. The sunscreen has an SPF of about 30 (claim 4), as required by instant claim 13.
The compositions may be inter alia gels or creams (emulsion) (paragraph [0096]), as required by instant claims 11, 12.
The compositions may further comprise UV blocking agents inclusive of bisoctrizole (paragraph [0097]).
Zickerman does not specifically teach a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 alkanes, wherein the amount of branched saturated C15-C19 alkane is more than 80 wt% of said mixture as required by claims 1, 14, 15.
Zickerman does not teach the amount of linear saturated C15-C19 alkane is less than 10 wt% of said mixture as required by claim 2.
Zickerman does not teach the amount of branched saturated C18 alkane is more than 50 wt% of said mixture as required by claim 3.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Swoboda.
Swoboda teaches biosourced emollient compositions comprising 90 to 100 wt% isoparaffins and 0 to 10 wt% normal (linear) paraffin content and exemplifies an embodiment comprising 79.69% C18 isoparaffin (title; abstract; claims; Table 1, C), as required by instant claims 2, 3. The isoparaffins are chosen from non-cyclical isoparaffins comprising 14 to 18 carbon atoms (claim 27). The emollient compositions are suitable for sunscreen products (claim 39).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the biosourced emollient compositions of Swoboda comprising 90 to 100 wt% isoparaffins and 0 to 10 wt% normal paraffin content inclusive of those exemplified comprising 79.69% C18 isoparaffin for the C15-C19 alkane emollient of the compositions of Zickerman because simple substitution of functionally equivalent elements yields predictable results, absent evidence to the contrary. One would have been motivated to do so because the compositions of Zickerman, as a whole, comply with natural product standards.
Regarding the claimed uses for reducing stickiness of claims 14 and 15, because the combined teachings of the prior art render obvious compositions as instantly claimed, it necessarily follows that reduced stickiness is latent to the combination. See MPEP 2112 and 2145 II.
Claims 5, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zickerman (WO 2019/157181, published August 15, 2019) in view of Swoboda (US 2019/0060192, published February 28, 2019) as applied to claims 1-4, 6-8 and 11-15 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (WO 2014/181473 A1, published November 13, 2014, as evidenced by the Google translation).
The teachings of Zickerman and Swoboda have been described supra.
Zickerman further teaches all components of the composition are dissolved or suspended in a solvent or carrier comprising water or an oil (paragraph [0049]).
They do not teach diisopropyl sebacate as required by claim 5.
They do not teach an ester of a fatty acid and dextrin as required by claim 9.
They do not teach an ester of a C14-C18 fatty acid and dextrin as required by claim 10.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Takahashi.
Takahashi teaches an oil-in-water sunscreen comprising an oil-soluble UV absorber inclusive of methylenebisbenzotriazolyltetramethylbutylphenol (UV filter of formula I, bisoctrizole), a dextrin fatty acid ester having 8 to 24 carbons, preferably 14 to 18 carbons inclusive of dextrin palmitate, and an acrylic acid polymer (title; abstract; claims; page 2, lower half; page 3, top half), as required by instant claims 9, 10. The dextrin fatty acid ester suppresses stickiness and secondary adhesion of the oil-soluble UV absorber (page 3, top half). The composition may further comprise a liquid ester oil for dissolving the UV absorber; suitable esters include diisopropyl sebacate (claim 4; page 2, lower half; page 4, top half), as required by instant claim 5.
Regarding claim 5, 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 sunscreen compositions of Zickerman in view of Swoboda comprising UV blocking agents inclusive of bisoctrizole to further comprise a liquid ester oil inclusive of diisopropyl sebacate as taught by Takahashi in order to dissolve the UV blocking agent. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because Zickerman embraces the presence of oils for dissolution of the components of the composition.
Regarding claims 9, 10, 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 sunscreen compositions of Zickerman in view of Swoboda comprising UV blocking agents inclusive of bisoctrizole to further comprise a C8-C24, preferably C14-C18 dextrin fatty acid ester as taught by Takahashi in order to suppress stickiness and secondary adhesion of the UV blocking agent.
Double Patenting: Statutory
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-3, 5 and 7-13 are provisionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-8 and 12-14 of copending Application No. 18/256,310 (reference application).
This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented.
Double Patenting: Non-Statutory
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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable (1) over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/256,149; (2) over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/256,159; (3) over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/256,310; (4) over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/256,328;
(5) over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/256,336; (6) over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/256,338; (7) over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/717,188; and (8) over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/853,279
in view of Zickerman (WO 2019/157181, published August 15, 2019) and Takahashi et al. (WO 2014/181473 A1, published November 13, 2014, as evidenced by the Google translation).
The instant claims are drawn to compositions comprising bisoctrizole, a C8-C16 alkyl polyglucoside inclusive of decyl glucoside, a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 alkanes, and at least one emollient selected from the group inclusive of dicaprylyl ether and diisopropyl sebacate, wherein the amount of the branched alkane is more than 80 wt% of said mixture. The amount of the linear alkane may be less than 10 wt% of said mixture. The amount of branched C18 alkane may be more than 50 wt% of said mixture. The compositions may further comprise at least one further UV filter or a C14-C18 dextrin fatty acid ester. The compositions may be an emulsion or a gel. The compositions may have an SPF greater than 10. The instant claims are also drawn to uses of a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 alkanes in compositions comprising bisoctrizole and a C8-C16 alkyl polyglucoside.
The copending ‘149 claims (1) are drawn to compositions comprising iscotrizinol, a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 fatty alkanes, and an ester of a fatty acid and dextrin inclusive of a C14-C18 dextrin fatty acid ester, wherein the amount of the branched alkane is more than 80 wt% of said mixture. The amount of the linear alkane may be less than 10 wt% of said mixture. The amount of branched C18 alkane may be more than 50 wt% of said mixture. The compositions may an emulsion or a gel. The compositions may have an SPF greater than 10. The copending ‘149 claims are also drawn to use and a method of solubilizing solid UV filters inclusive of iscotrizinol in liquid saturated C8-C30 alkanes.
The copending ‘159 claims (2) are drawn to compositions comprising octocrylene, a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 alkanes, and at least one emollient selected from the group inclusive of dicaprylyl ether and diisopropyl sebacate, wherein the amount of the branched alkane is more than 80 wt% of said mixture. The amount of the linear alkane may be less than 10 wt% of said mixture. The amount of branched C18 alkane may be more than 50 wt% of said mixture. The compositions may further comprise at least one further UV filter or a C14-C18 dextrin fatty acid ester. The compositions may be an emulsion or a gel. The compositions may have an SPF greater than 10. The copending ‘159 claims are also drawn to uses of a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 alkanes in compositions comprising octocrylene.
The copending ‘310 claims (3) are drawn to compositions comprising bisoctrizole, a C8-C16 alkyl polyglucoside inclusive of decyl glucoside, a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 alkanes, and at least one emollient selected from the group inclusive diisopropyl sebacate, wherein the amount of the branched alkane is more than 80 wt% of said mixture. The amount of the linear alkane may be less than 10 wt% of said mixture. The amount of branched C18 alkane may be more than 50 wt% of said mixture. The compositions may further comprise at least one further UV filter or a C14-C18 dextrin fatty acid ester. The compositions may be an emulsion or a gel. The compositions may have an SPF greater than 10. The copending ‘310 claims are also drawn to a use of a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 alkanes in compositions comprising bisoctrizole and a C8-C16 alkyl polyglucoside.
The copending ‘328 claims (4) are drawn to compositions comprising bemotrizinol, a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 fatty alkanes, and an ester of a fatty acid and dextrin inclusive of a C14-C18 dextrin fatty acid ester, wherein the amount of the branched alkane is more than 80 wt% of said mixture. The amount of the linear alkane may be less than 10 wt% of said mixture. The amount of branched C18 alkane may be more than 50 wt% of said mixture. The compositions may an emulsion or a gel. The compositions may have an SPF greater than 10. The copending ‘328 claims are also drawn to use and a method of solubilizing solid UV filters inclusive of bemotrizinol in liquid saturated C8-C30 alkanes.
The copending ‘336 claims (5) are drawn to compositions comprising diethylamino hydroxybenzoyl hexyl benzoate, a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 fatty alkanes, and an ester of a fatty acid and dextrin inclusive of a C14-C18 dextrin fatty acid ester, wherein the amount of the branched alkane is more than 80 wt% of said mixture. The amount of the linear alkane may be less than 10 wt% of said mixture. The amount of branched C18 alkane may be more than 50 wt% of said mixture. The compositions may an emulsion or a gel. The compositions may have an SPF greater than 10. The copending ‘336 claims are also drawn to use and a method of solubilizing solid UV filters inclusive of diethylamino hydroxybenzoyl hexyl benzoate in liquid saturated C8-C30 alkanes.
The copending ‘338 claims (6) are drawn to compositions comprising ethylhexyl triazone, a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 fatty alkanes, and an ester of a fatty acid and dextrin inclusive of a C14-C18 dextrin fatty acid ester, wherein the amount of the branched alkane is more than 80 wt% of said mixture. The amount of the linear alkane may be less than 10 wt% of said mixture. The amount of branched C18 alkane may be more than 50 wt% of said mixture. The compositions may an emulsion or a gel. The compositions may have an SPF greater than 10. The copending ‘338 claims are also drawn to use and a method of solubilizing solid UV filters inclusive of ethylhexyl triazone in liquid saturated C8-C30 alkanes.
The copending ‘188 claims (7) are drawn to compositions comprising ensulizole, a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 fatty alkanes, and an ester of a fatty acid and dextrin inclusive of a C14-C18 dextrin fatty acid ester, wherein the amount of the branched alkane is more than 80 wt% of said mixture. The amount of the linear alkane may be less than 10 wt% of said mixture. The amount of branched C18 alkane may be more than 50 wt% of said mixture. The compositions may further comprise at least one emollient inclusive of diisopropyl sebacate or at least one further UV-filter inclusive of bisoctrizole. The compositions may an emulsion. The compositions may have an SPF greater than 10. The copending ‘188 claims are also drawn to use.
The copending ‘279 claims (8) are drawn to compositions comprising a UV filter inclusive of methylene bis-benzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol (bisoctrizole), a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 alkanes, an ester of a fatty acid and dextrin inclusive of a C14-C18 dextrin fatty acid ester, wherein the amount of the branched alkane is more than 80 wt% of said mixture. The amount of the linear alkane may be less than 10 wt% of said mixture. The amount of branched C18 alkane may be more than 50 wt% of said mixture. The compositions may be an emulsion. The compositions may have an SPF greater than 10. The copending ‘279 claims are also drawn to a use.
The copending claims generally differ from the instant claims with respect to the requisite UV filter and with respect to the C8-C16 alkyl polyglucoside that is decyl glucoside, however, these copending claims all embrace the optional form of an emulsion and it is known in view of Zickerman as elaborated supra to include emulsifiers inclusive of decyl glucoside within compositions comprising UV filters inclusive of bisoctrizole and it would have been obvious to do so. The copending claims also differ with respect to the form of a gel, however, it is known in view of Zickerman that gels are obvious variants of creams (emulsions) and it would have been obvious to formulate any of the compositions of the copending claims as gels because this is a suitable form for compositions comprising UV filters. The copending claims also differ with respect to the requisite emollients, however, it is known in view of Zickerman to include emollients inclusive of dicaprylyl ether within compositions comprising UV filters inclusive of bisoctrizole and it would have been obvious to do so and it is known in view of Takahashi to include ester oils inclusive of diisopropyl sebacate in order to solubilize UV filters inclusive of bisoctrizole. The instantly claimed compositions are therefore an obvious variant of the compositions of the conflicting, copending claims in view of the prior art.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mendrok-Edinger et al. (WO 2023/194289 A1) is the closest prior art as identified by USPTO artificial intelligence.
Mendrok-Edinger et al. (WO 2012/062755 A2) teaches compositions comprising butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane solubilized in a hydrocarbon oil inclusive of dicarboxylic acid esters inclusive of diisopropyl sebacate and optionally further comprising further UV-filter substances inclusive of 2,2’-methylene-bis-(6-(2H-benzotriazole-2-yl)-4-(1,1,3,3,-tetramethylbutyl)-phenol (UV filter of formula I, bisoctrizole); the compositions may further comprise dialkyl ethers such as dicaprylyl ether (title; abstract; claims; page 6, lines 33-35; page 7, lines 5, 6; page 13, lines 15, 16; page 14, lines 8-13).
Thorel (EP 3,714,865 A1, as evidenced by the Google translation) teaches compositions comprising triazine derivative solar filters and solubilizers inclusive of diisopropyl sebacate and dicaprylyl ether (title; abstract; claims; page 4, middle).
Zhao et al. (CN 112137912 A, as evidenced by the Google translation) teaches dextrin palmitate as a sun-screening synergist of sunscreens inclusive of MBBT (methylene bis-benzotriazolyl tetramethylbutylphenol (UV filter of formula I, bisoctrizole)) (title; abstract; claims; page 2, lower half).
Nakamura et al. (JP S60-193911 A, as evidenced by the Google translation) teaches compositions comprising a UV light absorber and an oil with a dextrin fatty acid ester (title; abstract; claims).
Satonaka et al. (US 2011/0117034) teaches a composition comprising a benzotriazole-type UV absorber inclusive of 2,2’-methylenebis[6-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl)phenol) (UV filter of formula I, bisoctrizole) and a polyglycerol monoalkyl ester and optionally further comprising octyl methoxycinnamate as a synergist (title; abstract; claims; paragraphs [0022], [0035]).
Koeniger et al. (US 5,882,662) teaches C12 to C18 isoparaffins do not form a long-lasting greasy film on the skin and are mild emollients (title; abstract; claims; column 1, lines 42-58; column 3, lines 1-13).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALISSA PROSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-5164. The examiner can normally be reached M - Th, 10 am - 6 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID BLANCHARD can be reached on (571)272-0827. 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.
/ALISSA PROSSER/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/MARIANNE C SEIDEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600