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 .
Status of Application
Claims 1-11 are included in the prosecution.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains embedded hyperlinks and/or other form of browser-executable codes. Please see [0031] and [0034] of the instant specification. 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.
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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.
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 1-4, 6-7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gers-Barlag et al. (US 6,423,302 B1 – “Gers-Barlag”).
Instant claim 1 is drawn to a spray composition comprising bemotrizinol, wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the skin against UV rays.
Gers-Barlag discloses cosmetic or dermatological light protection formulations (Abstract, claims 16-20). An advantageous UV filter is 2,4-bis-{[4-(2-ethylhexyloxy)-2-hydroxy]phenyl}-6-(4-methoxyphenyl)-1,3,5-triazine (bemotrizinol), which is characterized by the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
654
1286
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This UV filter substance is marketed by Ciba Specialty Chemicals Holding Inc. under the trade name Tinosorb® S and is characterized by good UV absorption properties (Col. 2, line 64 to Col. 3, line 24). The organic UV filter octocrylene is used to solubilize the Tinosorb® S (Title, Abstract, claims 16 and 19-20). Examples 8 and 9 are cosmetic and/or dermatological light protection spray formulations which contain 3.00% and 4.00% by weight, respectively, of Tinosorb® S and 6.00% and 8.00% by weight, respectively, of octocrylene (Col. 15, lines 1-35). Examples 1-5 and 7 are cosmetic and/or dermatological light protection emulsion formulations which contain Tinosorb® S and octocrylene (Col. 12, line 30 to Col. 14, line 20 and Col. 14, lines 49 to 65). The aqueous phase of the preparations comprise alcohols such as ethanol and isopropanol (Col. 8, lines 1-4). The preparations contain active agents such as antioxidants including vitamins such as vitamin C, folic acid, vitamin A and derivatives, tocopherols and derivatives, etc. (Col. 5, line 62 to Col. 6, line 57). Examples 1-2 (Col. 12, line 31 to Col. 13, line 12) and Example 4 (Col. 13, lines 35-55) contain Vitamin E acetate. Examples 2, 4, 8, and 9 do not contain any mineral UV filters (Col. 12, line 51 to Col. 13, line 12; Col. 13, lines 35-55; and Col. 15, lines 1-35).
Regarding instant claim 1, the limitation of a spray composition comprising bemotrizinol, wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the skin against UV rays is anticipated by Examples 8 and 9 which are cosmetic and/or dermatological light protection spray formulations which contain 3.00% and 4.00% by weight, respectively, of Tinosorb® S (which is bemotrizinol) (Col. 15, lines 1-35), as taught by Gers-Barlag.
Regarding instant claims 2 and 3, the limitations of the composition comprising 10% or less of additional UV filters and additional organic UV filters, respectively, are anticipated by Examples 8 and 9 which are cosmetic and/or dermatological light protection spray formulations which contain 6.00% and 8.00% by weight, respectively, of octocrylene (Examples 8 and 9 are Col. 15, lines 1-35), as taught by Gers-Barlag.
Regarding instant claim 4, the limitation of the composition being devoid of mineral UV filter is anticipated by Examples 2, 4, 8, and 9 which do not contain any mineral UV filters (Col. 12, line 51 to Col. 13, line 12; Col. 13, lines 35-55; and Col. 15, lines 1-35), as taught by Gers-Barlag.
Regarding instant claims 6 and 7, the limitations of the composition being a fluid and an emulsion, respectively, are anticipated by Examples 1-5 and 7 which are cosmetic and/or dermatological light protection emulsion formulations which contain Tinosorb® S and octocrylene (Col. 12, line 30 to Col. 14, line 20 and Col. 14, lines 49 to 65), as taught by Gers-Barlag.
Regarding instant claim 9, the limitation of at least one C1-C5 monoalcohol is anticipated by the alcohols such as ethanol and isopropanol (Col. 8, lines 1-4), as taught by Gers-Barlag.
Regarding instant claim 10, the limitation of at least one active agent is anticipated by the active agents such as antioxidants including vitamins such as vitamin C, folic acid, vitamin A and derivatives, tocopherols and derivatives, etc. (Col. 5, line 62 to Col. 6, line 57), and Examples 1-2 (Col. 12, line 31 to Col. 13, line 12) and Example 4 (Col. 13, lines 35-55) which contain Vitamin E acetate, as taught by Gers-Barlag.
Regarding instant claim 11, the limitation of the composition which is non-greasy upon application to skin is anticipated by the compositions comprising Tinosorb® S and octocrylene (Examples 1-5 and 7-9 - Col. 12, line 30 to Col. 14, line 20 and Col. 14, line 49 to Col. 15, line 35), as taught by Gers-Barlag since this is a property associated with the composition and inseparable from it. Please see MPEP 2112.01. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the composition, then the properties are also taught by the prior art. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990.) See MPEP 2112.01. The burden is shifted to Applicant to show that the prior art product does not possess or render obvious the same properties as the instantly claimed product.
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 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gers-Barlag et al. (US 6,423,302 B1 – “Gers-Barlag”), as applied to claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9-11 above, in view of Sioss et al. (US 2012/0237577 A1 – “Sioss”).
Instant claim 5 is drawn to the composition of claim 1, further comprising propellant.
The teaching of Gers-Barlag is discussed above.
Gers-Barlag does not expressly teach a propellant.
Sioss teaches cosmetic applications comprising a black effect pigment (Abstract) including an Elegant Sun Protection formulation containing Tinosorb® S (Bemotrizinol) (Page 12). The cosmetic composition comprises cosmetically acceptable auxiliary agents such as propellants ([0102]). The composition includes a dry preparation (Abstract, [0010], [0017], [0100], and [0103]-[0104], claims 1 and 14).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to prepare a spray formulation for UV/light/sun protection which contains Tinosorb® S (bemotrizinol), as taught by Gers-Barlag, in view of the sun protection formulation which contains Tinosorb® S (bemotrizinol), wherein the formulation contains propellant, as taught by Sioss, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the propellant taught by Sioss in the light protection formulation of Gers-Barlag in order to effectively spray the formulation on the skin. Moreover, according to MPEP 2141(III)(A) it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding instant claim 5, the limitation of propellant would have been obvious over the propellants ([0102]), as taught by Sioss.
Regarding instant claim 8, the limitation of the composition being anhydrous would have been obvious over the dry preparation (Abstract, [0010], [0017], [0100], and [0103]-[0104], claims 1 and 14), as taught by Sioss.
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 1-3 and 6-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8-9, and 11 of copending Application No. 18/543,130 (“the ‘130 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘130 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘130 Application recites titanium dioxide whereas instant claims don’t recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including the titanium dioxide of the ‘130 Application.
The limitations regarding the properties of the composition in claims 2-4 of the ‘130 Application are inseparable from the composition and rendered obvious over the same composition recited in the instant claims.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘130 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-7 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/543,141 (“the ‘141 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘141 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘141 Application recites zinc oxide, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the ‘141 Application.
The limitations regarding the properties of the composition in claims 1-3 of the ‘141 Application are inseparable from the composition and rendered obvious over the same composition recited in the instant claims.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘141 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 9-11, and 13 of copending Application No. 18/543,157 (“the ‘157 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘157 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘157 Application recites at least one additional organic UV filter, whereas instant claims don’t recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the ‘157 Application. Furthermore, instant claims 2 and 3 recite the inclusion of additional UV filters and additional organic UV filters, respectively, thereby rendering this limitation obvious.
The limitations regarding the properties of the composition in claims 1-3 of the ‘157 Application are inseparable from the composition and rendered obvious over the same composition recited in the instant claims.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘157 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-9, 13, and 15 of copending Application No. 18/543,287 (“the ‘287 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘287 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘287 Application recites at least one booster, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the ‘287 Application.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘287 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10-11, and 13 of copending Application No. 18/543,309 (“the ‘309 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘309 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘309 Application recites at least one additional organic UV filter selected from a Markush group, whereas instant claims don’t recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the ‘309 Application. Furthermore, instant claims 2 and 3 recite the inclusion of additional UV filters and additional organic UV filters, respectively, thereby rendering this limitation obvious.
The limitations regarding the properties of the composition in claims 1-3 of the ‘309 Application are inseparable from the composition and rendered obvious over the same composition recited in the instant claims.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘309 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8, 10-11, and 13 of copending Application No. 18/543,343 (“the ‘343 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘343 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘343 Application recites avobenzone, and at least one additional UV filter, whereas instant claims don’t recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the ‘343 Application. Furthermore, instant claims 2 and 3 recite the inclusion of additional UV filters and additional organic UV filters, respectively, thereby rendering this limitation obvious.
The limitations regarding the properties of the composition in claims 1-3 of the ‘343 Application are inseparable from the composition and rendered obvious over the same composition recited in the instant claims.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘343 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 12, and 13 of copending Application No. 18/543,375 (“the ‘375 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘375 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘375 Application recites titanium dioxide whereas instant claims don’t recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including the titanium dioxide of the ‘375 Application.
The limitations regarding the properties of the composition in claims 2-4 of the ‘375 Application are inseparable from the composition and rendered obvious over the same composition recited in the instant claims.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘375 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 6-8 of copending Application No. 18/543,597 (“the ‘597 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘597 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘597 Application recites at least one active agent, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the ‘597 Application. Furthermore, instant claim 10 recites at least one active agent, thereby rendering this limitation obvious.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘597 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 8, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 11, and 13 of copending Application No. 18/543,618 (“the ‘618 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘618 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘618 Application recites an ecofriendly carrier, whereas instant claims don’t recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including the ecofriendly carrier of the ‘618 Application.
The limitations regarding the properties of the composition in claims 2-4 of the ‘618 Application are inseparable from the composition and rendered obvious over the same composition recited in the instant claims.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘618 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 7-8 of copending Application No. 18/543,657 (“the ‘657 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘657 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘657 Application recites at least one active agent, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claim 10 recites at least one active agent, thereby rendering this limitation obvious.
The limitations regarding the properties of the composition in claims 1-3 of the ‘657 Application are inseparable from the composition and rendered obvious over the same composition recited in the instant claims.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘657 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 9, and 11 of copending Application No. 18/543,702 (“the ‘702 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘702 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘702 Application recites at least one salt chelating agent and at least one semi-crystalline polymer comprising at least one alkyl acrylate chain, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the ‘702 Application.
The limitations regarding the properties of the composition in claims 4-6 of the ‘702 Application are inseparable from the composition and rendered obvious over the same composition recited in the instant claims.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘702 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3 and 7-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 of copending Application No. 18/543,721 (“the ‘721 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘721 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘721 Application recites octinoxate, whereas instant claims don’t recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including the octinoxate of the ‘721 Application.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘721 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 7, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-5, and 8 of copending Application No. 18/543,756 (“the ‘756 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘756 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘756 Application recites avobenzone, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the ‘756 Application. Furthermore, instant claim 3 recites additional organic UV filters, thereby rendering the limitation of avobenzone obvious.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘756 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 8, 11, and 13 of copending Application No. 18/543,860 (“the ‘860 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘860 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘860 Application recites at least one semi-crystalline polymer comprising at least one alkyl acrylate chain and at least one scleroglucan gum, whereas instant claims don’t recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the ‘860 Application.
The limitations regarding the properties of the composition in claims 6 and 8 of the ‘860 Application are inseparable from the composition and rendered obvious over the same composition recited in the instant claims.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘860 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 6-8, and 11 of copending Application No. 18/543,921 (“the ‘921 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘921 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘921 Application recites an antioxidant system, whereas instant claims don’t recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including the antioxidant system of the ‘921 Application.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘921 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 10, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/985,622 (“the ‘622 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘622 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘622 Application recites at least one coloring agent whereas instant claims don’t recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including the coloring agent of the ‘622 Application.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘622 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4, 10, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6 of copending Application No. 18/985,628 (“the ‘628 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘628 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘628 Application recites a hair composition whereas instant claims don’t recite this limitation. However, the spray composition of instant claims is not limited to its uses, and any use which protects against UV rays, including hair or skin applications, are included.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘628 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3 and 6-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5 and 10-12 of copending Application No. 18/985,642 (“the ‘642 Application”).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are drawn to a composition comprising bemotrizinol, and therefore, encompass overlapping or coextensive subject matter.
One difference is that instant claims recite a spray composition whereas claims of the ‘642 Application do not recite a spray composition. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to prepare the composition comprising bemotrizinol in various forms, including a spray composition, in order to apply it for optimal UV filtration or protection.
Another difference is that claim 1 of the ‘642 Application recites iron oxide whereas instant claims don’t recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including the iron oxide of the ‘642 Application.
The limitations regarding the properties of the composition in claims of the ‘642 Application are inseparable from the composition and rendered obvious over the same composition recited in the instant claims.
Therefore, instant claims are obvious over claims of the ‘642 Application, and they are not patentably distinct over each other.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARADHANA SASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 6:30 am to 3:00 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, Robert A. Wax can be reached on 571-272-6023. 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.
/ARADHANA SASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615