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 .
This office action is in response to the reply filed 12/4/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 24 and 26-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/9/2023.
Response to Arguments
All of Applicant’s arguments filed 12/4/2025 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
101 Rejections
Applicant arguments regarding the 101 rejection are not persuasive as the data presented in the specification is not persuasive for reasons presented in the office action mailed 6/5/2025.
112(b) Rejection
Applicant arguments are persuasive, however, the amendment raised a new issues which is discussed below.
103 Rejections Over Morelli
In summary, on page 8-10, Applicant argues that the Examiner reliance on Premachandran is misplaced as Premachandran specifically teaches that the synergistic effect requires the presence of propylene carbonate and Premachandran fails to teach a synergistic effect between component (a) and (b) as claimed.
This is not persuasive as Premachandran [0042] indicated that one or more organic compounds are selected based on their cumulative synergy, thus suggesting that two organic compounds alone would have cumulative synergy. Furthermore, propylene carbonate is taught to increase synergy between organic compounds, as such a synergy between organic compounds must necessarily be present for saif synergy to be increased.
Applicant arues that it is misplaced to posit that it was known from Premachandran that a combination of alkanediols as claimed would have synergy since Premachandran does not demonstrate synhergy for these types of mixtures.
This is not persuasive as claim 1 of Premachandran teaches “one or more organic compounds, and wherein, inclusion of each additional organic compound is capable of demonstrating cumulative synergistic effect,” and indicated that alkanediols such as those claimed are suitable for use, this the inclusion of each additional organic compound (i.e. alkanediol) is expected to result in cumulative synergy.
Applicant arguments over Stewart are not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above.
103 Rejection over Faergemann
Applicant argues that as seen by Ex. 3 of Faergemann not all alkanediol combinations result in a composition with the desired antimicrobial efficacy.
This is not persuasive as the embodiment that did not show an effect was not an embodiment of Faergemann, but was a comparative examples as the ethan-1,2-diol does not fall within the required diol of Faergemann claim 1.
Applicant argues that from the teachings of Faergemann there is no expectation of synergy in these specific combinations.
This is not persuasive, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant arguments over Stewart are not persuasive for the same reasons discussed above.
Double Patenting Rejections
With regards to the ODP rejection(s), as Applicant has not addressed the merits of the rejection(s), the double patenting rejection(s) is/are maintained for the reasons of record.
Maintained 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.
Claim(s) 16-23 and 25-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural composition of matter without significantly more.
The claimed invention is directed to a natural composition of matter without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a composition comprising a mixture of 1,2-octanediol, and/or 2,3-octanediol, which can both be found in nature, thus, the cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition or homecare product claimed is a product of nature (i.e. natural phenomenon).
MPEP § 2106 sets forth the Subject Matter Eligibility Test to determine if a claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter. Step 1 asks if a claim is directed to a statutory category of invention. Applicant’s claims are directed to a natural product; thus, the answer to Step 1 is Yes.
Step 2A, Prong One, asks if a claim recites a product of nature. In this case, applicant’s claims 19 and 22 recite the composition of claim 16 further comprising an insect repellant which can be an essential oil (i.e. a product of nature) and an additive such as oils, perfume oils, fragrances which are also natural products.
Thus, the claims do recite products of nature. MPEP § 2106.04(b) states that “When a claim recites a nature-based product limitation, examiners should use the markedly different characteristics analysis discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(c) to evaluate the nature-based product limitation and determine the answer to Step 2A.”
MPEP § 2106.04(c)(I) states that “if the nature-based product limitation is not naturally occurring, for example due to some human intervention, then the markedly different characteristics analysis must be performed to determine whether the claimed product limitation is a product of nature exception…”. To perform the markedly different characteristic analysis, MPEP § 2106.04(c)(II) states “The markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. Markedly different characteristics can be expressed as the product’s structure, function, and/or other properties…”. MPEP section 2106.04 (c-I-B) states “the analysis turns on whether the nature-based product in the claim has markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart…”.
In this case, there is no indication that mixing of the alkane diols, essential oils and/or fragrance, oil, etc. as commensurate in scope with the stated claims changes the structure, function, or other properties of the alkanediols in any marked way in comparison with the closest naturally occurring counterpart. In addition, there is nothing to show that mixing the ingredients in the particular concentrations produces any sort of marked distinction. Thus, the claimed mixture as a whole does not display markedly different characteristics in comparison with the naturally occurring counterparts.
Therefore, the answer to Step 2A, Prong One, is Yes.
Thus, the analysis must move to Step 2A, Prong Two, which asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2) this evaluation is performed by identifying whether there are additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating these additional elements to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. In this case, the claims are directed to composition with no additional ingredients in addition to the natural products. Thus, the answer to Step 2A, Prong Two, is No.
The analysis must then move to Step 2B which asks if claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05 states that this evaluation is performed by “Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” In this case, the additional element in the claims is the combination of alkanediols. However, MPEP § 2106.05(d) states that well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not sufficient to show that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mixing specific compounds does not amount to significantly more than a combination of judicial exception because combining alkanediols and the additionally claimed ingredients is known in the art as demonstrated by Faergemann. Thus, the answer to Step 2B is No. Therefore, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
The placement of these ingredients into a cosmetic, homecare or pharmaceutical composition does not add a meaningful limitation and simply links the product of nature to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, as demonstrated the art cited below, it is well-understood and conventional to combine the claimed ingredients into the claimed formulations. Therefore, the claims are drawn to judicial exceptions.
Regarding the claimed amounts, altering the concentration of the claimed ingredients does not appear to change its structure or function and therefore does not appear to result in a markedly different characteristic for the composition.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 17 is 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.
Claim 17 recites a ratio “…based on the total weight of the composition,” this render the claim indefinite as its unclear how a ratio between 2 individual components can be based on the total weight of the composition. For purpose of examination, the claim will be examined as reciting “wherein a weight ratio of component (a) to component (b) is.. 99.9:0.1.”
New 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.
Claim(s) 16-18 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huizenga (WO 2015/150520). Huizenga is cited on the 2/2/2026 IDS.
Table 1 of Huizenga discloses stream 101 comprising 0.2% 1,2-hexanediol and 218ppm (i.e .0218) 2,3-hexanediol, which reads on the composition of claim 16i.
Regarding claim 17: Component (a) and (b) are present in a weight ratio of 9.14:1 which overlaps with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 18: The stream comprises Component (a) and (b) in a total amount of .2218% which falls within the claimed range.
Regarding claims 21 and 22: The stream comprises 1,3-propylene glycol which is a polyol reading on cosmetically or pharmaceutically acceptable additive.
Regarding claim 23: Huizenga anticipates the structure of the claimed composition and as such can be considered homecare product as this is a recitations of intended use and does not result in a structural difference.
Maintained 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim(s) 16-18, 21-23, 25 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morelli (EP 1238651).
Morelli discloses sunscreen formulations comprising caprylyl glycol or an analog therefore and a combination of preservative agents (Abs). Morelli teaches caprylyl glycol to refer to 1,2-octanediol and teaches suitable analogues to include 2,3-octanediol (selected from a finite number of options). Morelli teaches that “caprylyl glycol or an analog therefore” is meant to comprise a mixture of caprylyl glycol and one or more of its analogues [0023 and 0026]. In view of these teachings it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a combination of caprylyl glycol and 2,3-octanediol with a reasonable expectation of success.
Morelli teaches the capryl glycol or its analogues can be used in amounts ranging from 0.1-20%, the amounts will vary and can be selected such that the combination thereof with the preservatives has an effective preservative activity.
Regarding claims 17-18: While Morelli does not teach the claimed amounts and ratio for components (a) and (b), Morelli discloses about 0.1 -20 % of the capryl glycol or its analogues. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have selected individual amounts of 1,2- octanediol and 2,3-octanediol from the amount range of capryl glycol or its analogues. One of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed ratios from the individual amounts selected. As such, the claimed ratios would have been obvious. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05(A).
Regarding claims 21-22: Morelli teaches the composition to further comprise ingredients or additives such as emulsifiers, anti-oxidants, preservatives, etc. [0040].
Regarding claims 23 and 25: Morelli teaches the composition to be formulated as a cosmetic product and formulated as a creams, shampoos, etc. [0038].
Regarding claims 30-31: Morelli teaches the compositions to be topically applied, which reads on “utility in formulating topical compositions.”
Claim(s) 16-18, 19-20, 21-23, 25, 28-29 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morelli (EP 1238651), as applied to claims 16-18, 21-23 and 25 above, and further in view of Stewart (US 6,284,227).
As discussed above, the prior art makes obvious the limitations of claims 16-18, 21-23, 25 and 30-31, however, they do not teach the composition to further comprises an insect repellant as recited by instant claims 19-20 and 28.
Stewart discloses sunscreen and insect repellant compositions (Abs). Stewart teaches that for people who work and play outside it’s essential they protect themselves from insects and from the sun’s rays as these have been shown to cause cancer (Col. 1, lines 50-65). Stewart teaches that a preferred insect repellant for use includes N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (“DEET”), this can be present in amounts ranging from 7-33% (Col. 4, lines 45-55). Suitable sunscreen agents for use include ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate (Col. 5, lines 5-15).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Morelli with those of Stewart and add 7-13% of an insect repellant, such as DEET, the to the sunscreen formulation of Morelli as Stewart discussed the importance of protecting the skin from both the sun and insects. One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as both Morelli and Stewart discussed sunscreen formulations comprising sunscreen agents such as ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate (Morelli – working examples).
Regarding claim 29: As discussed above, Morelli teaches the composition to be formulated as a cosmetic product and formulated as a creams, shampoos, etc. [0038], therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to formula the composition as a cream comprising the insect repellant made obvious above.
Claim(s) 16-18, 21-23, 25 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faergemann (US 2009/0221716).
Regarding claim 16: Faergemann discloses a composition comprising at least 3 different diols including octane-1,2-diol (component (a)), and octane-2,3 -diol (component (b)) [0018], thus their combination and use is prima facie obvious.
Regarding claim 17: Faergemann discloses that the number of diols depends on which microbe is to be inactivated and these can be used in amounts of 0.25-50% v/v and wherein certain combinations of diol are effective against certain microbes. Therefore, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed ratio through routine experimentation depending on the particular microbe to be inactivated.
Regarding claim 18: Faergemann teaches that the exact dose of the pharmaceutical composition is dependent on the activity of the compound, manner of administration, nature and severity of the disorder, age and body weight of the patient, and different doses may be needed. Accordingly, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed amount of diols through routine experimentation depending on these factors. "[W]here 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.” See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 21-23: Faergemann teaches that the composition can be formulated as a cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition and can comprise additives such as zinc oxide, emulsifiers, preservatives [0028 and 0036].
Regarding claim 25: Faergemann teaches that the composition can be formulated as a cream, lotion, shampoo, spray, etc. (Faergemann – claim 21).
Regarding claims 30-31: Faergemann teaches the diol blend to be formulated as a cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition for topical application [0025], such as spray and shampoos, which reads on utility formulating topical compositions.
Claim(s) 16-18, 19-20, 21-23, 25, 28-29 and 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Faergemann (US 2009/0221716), as applied to claims 16-17, 21-23, 25 and 30-31 above, and further in view of Stewart (US 6,284,227).
As discussed above, the prior art makes obvious the limitations of claims 16-18, 21-23, 25 and 30-31, however, they do not teach the composition to further comprises an insect repellant as recited by instant claims 19-20 and 28-29.
Stewart discloses sunscreen and insect repellant compositions (Abs). Stewart teaches that for people who work and play outside it’s essential they protect themselves from insects and from the sun’s rays as these have been shown to cause cancer (Col. 1, lines 50-65).
Regarding claims 19-20 and 28: Stewart teaches that a preferred insect repellant for use includes N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (“DEET”), this can be present in amounts ranging from 7-33% (Col. 4, lines 45-55). Suitable sunscreen agents for use include zinc oxide (Col. 5, lines 25-31).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Faergemann with those of Stewart and add 7-13% of an insect repellant, such as DEET, the to the formulation of Faergemann as Stewart discussed the importance of protecting the skin from both the sun and insects and Faergemann teaches that zinc oxide can be added to the composition which is a well know sunscreen agent. One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as both Morelli and Stewart discussed formulations comprising sunscreen agents such as zinc oxide.
Regarding claim 29: As discussed above, Faergemann teaches the composition to be formulated as a cosmetic product and formulated as a creams, shampoos, etc. [0038], therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to formula the composition as a cream comprising the insect repellant made obvious above.
Maintained Double Patenting
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 16-18, 21-23, 25 and 30-31 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11,911,347 (also Application No. 18/301072). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose cosmetic compositions comprising a 1st linear alkanediol (1,2-octanediol) and a 2nd linear alkanediol (2,3-octanediol), reading on instant claims 16 and 23. The 1st and 2nd alkanediols are used in a ratio of 50:50 to 99.9:0.1; and are each present in amounts ranging from 0.001-15%, reading on instant claims 17-18. The composition further comprises additives such as emulsifiers, preservatives, etc. and can be formulated as creams, reading on instant claim 22, 25 and 30-31.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 16-18, 21-23, 25 and 30-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 27-29, 31-32, 36 and 39 of copending Application No. 18/301004 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose cosmetic compositions comprising a 1st linear alkanediol (1,2-octanediol) and a 2nd linear alkanediol (2,3-octanediol), reading on instant claims 16 and 23. The 1st and 2nd alkanediols are used in a ratio of 50:50 to 99.9:0.1; and are each present in amounts ranging from 0.001-15%, reading on instant claims 17-18. The composition further comprises additives such as emulsifiers, preservatives, etc. and can be formulated as creams, reading on instant claim 22, 25 and 30-31.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 16-18, 21-23, 25 and 30-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 and 17-19 of copending Application No. 18/009288 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose cosmetic compositions comprising a 1st linear alkanediol (1,2-octanediol) and a 2nd linear alkanediol (2,3-octanediol), reading on instant claims 16 and 23. The 1st and 2nd alkanediols are used in a ratio of 50:50 to 99.9:0.1; and are each present in amounts ranging from 0.001-15%, reading on instant claims 17-18. The composition further comprises additives such as emulsifiers, preservatives, etc. and can be formulated as creams, reading on instant claim 22, 25 and 30-31.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 16-18, 21-23, 25 and 30-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 5-8, 10 and 12-21 of copending Application No. 18/009289 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose cosmetic compositions comprising a 1st linear alkanediol (1,2-octanediol) and a 2nd linear alkanediol (2,3-octanediol), reading on instant claims 16 and 23. The 1st and 2nd alkanediols are used in a ratio of 50:50 to 99.9:0.1; and are each present in amounts ranging from 0.001-15%, reading on instant claims 17-18. The composition further comprises additives such as emulsifiers, preservatives, etc. and can be formulated as creams, reading on instant claim 22, 25 and 30-31.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 16-18, 21-23, 25 and 30-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 5-8 and 12-22 of copending Application No. 18/009291 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose cosmetic compositions comprising a 1st linear alkanediol (1,2-octanediol) and a 2nd linear alkanediol (2,3-octanediol), reading on instant claims 16 and 23. The 1st and 2nd alkanediols are used in a ratio of 50:50 to 99.9:0.1; and are each present in amounts ranging from 0.001-15%, reading on instant claims 17-18. The composition further comprises additives such as emulsifiers, preservatives, etc. and can be formulated as creams, reading on instant claim 22, 25 and 30-31.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 16-18, 21-23, 25 and 30-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 5-8, 12-15 and 17-23 of copending Application No. 18/009295 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose cosmetic compositions comprising a 1st linear alkanediol (1,2-octanediol) and a 2nd linear alkanediol (2,3-octanediol), reading on instant claims 16 and 23. The 1st and 2nd alkanediols are used in a ratio of 50:50 to 99.9:0.1; and are each present in amounts ranging from 0.001-15%, reading on instant claims 17-18. The composition further comprises additives such as emulsifiers, preservatives, etc. and can be formulated as creams, reading on instant claim 22, 25 and 30-31.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 16-18, 21-23, 25 and 30-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-2 and 13-21 of copending Application No. 18/009312 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose cosmetic compositions comprising a 1st linear alkanediol (1,2-octanediol) and a 2nd linear alkanediol (2,3-octanediol), reading on instant claims 16 and 23. The 1st and 2nd alkanediols are used in a ratio of 50:50 to 99.9:0.1; and are each present in amounts ranging from 0.001-15%, reading on instant claims 17-18. The composition further comprises additives such as emulsifiers, preservatives, etc. and can be formulated as creams, reading on instant claim 22, 25 and 30-31.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 16-18, 21-23, 25 and 30-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3, 5-8 and 12-22 of copending Application No. 18/009324 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose cosmetic compositions comprising a 1st linear alkanediol (1,2-octanediol) and a 2nd linear alkanediol (2,3-octanediol), reading on instant claims 16 and 23. The 1st and 2nd alkanediols are used in a ratio of 50:50 to 99.9:0.1; and are each present in amounts ranging from 0.001-15%, reading on instant claims 17-18. The composition further comprises additives such as emulsifiers, preservatives, etc. and can be formulated as creams, reading on instant claim 22, 25 and 30-31.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 16-18, 21-23, 25, 28 and 30-31 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/009314 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose cosmetic compositions comprising a 1st linear alkanediol (1,2-octanediol) and a 2nd linear alkanediol (2,3-octanediol), reading on instant claims 16 and 23. The 1st and 2nd alkanediols are used in a ratio of 50:50 to 99.9:0.1; and are each present in amounts ranging from 0.001-15%, reading on instant claims 17-18. The composition further comprises additives such as emulsifiers, preservatives, etc. and can be formulated as creams, reading on instant claim 22, 25 and 30-31. The composition further comprise an insect repellant in amounts of 0.1-50%, such as N,N-diethyl-meta-toluamide, reading on instant claims 19-20 and 28.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Berrios whose telephone number is (571)270-7679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 9am-4pm and Friday 9am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Kwon can be reached on (571) 272-0581. 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.
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613