CTFR 18/543,702 CTFR 92523 DETAILED ACTION Status of Application 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Any rejection or objection not reiterated in this action is withdrawn. Receipt of the Amendments to the Claims and Applicant’s arguments, filed on 2/9/2026, is acknowledged. Claims 1, 5, 7, and 8 are amended. Claims 13-18 are newly added. Claims 1-18 are pending. Response to Amendments/Arguments Claim 1 was amended with the new limitation to require “wherein the composition does not contain terephthalylidene dicamphor sulfonic acid and drometrizole trisiloxane”, which changes the scope of the claims. The previous rejection under Mintel has been overcome by the claim amendment and is hereby withdrawn. However, Examiner now relies on the teachings of Ferreira et al. (WO 2022221930 A1). The new grounds of rejection are necessitated by amendment; therefore, this action is made FINAL . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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. Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ferreira et al. (WO 2022221930 A1). Regarding claims 1-18, Ferreira is drawn to a cosmetic sunscreen composition (abstract and claims 1-10). Ferreira discloses the cosmetic sunscreen composition is in the form of an oil in water (O/W) emulsion (pg. 4). Ferreira discloses the oil-soluble organic sunscreen ingredient will be chosen from bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine (bemotrizinol) (pg. 3). Ferreira discloses the cosmetic sunscreen composition presents a Sun Protection Factor (SPF) ranging preferably about 70 (pg. 3). Ferreira discloses the degree of UV protection afforded by a cosmetic sunscreen composition is directly related to the amount and type of UV filters contained therein. Particularly, cosmetic sunscreen compositions must provide good protection against the sun rays, a measure of which is the Sun Protection Factor (SPF) value, a desirable balance between UVA and UVB protection, particularly a minimum UVA protection factor (pg. 1). Ferreira discloses the oil-soluble organic sunscreen ingredient is preferably present in the composition in an amount of from about 15.0 to about 25.0 (pg. 11). Ferreira discloses suitable polymers include acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer (pg. 13). Ferreira discloses suitable additional actives include disodium EDTA (pg. 13). Ferreira discloses C12-22 alkyl acrylate/hydroxyethylacrylate copolymer (pg. 14). Ferreira discloses polysilicone-15 (pg. 11). Ferreira disclose the pH was from about 5.8 ± 0.3 (pg. 3). Ferreira does not explicitly disclose the system as claimed in a single embodiment. However, 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 teachings of Ferreira, to arrive at the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Ferreira discloses each of the components of the composition and is in the field of cosmetic sunscreen compositions (abstract), and cosmetic sunscreen composition of the present invention can be used as a daily product for the photoprotection of keratinous materials with high SPF, with dry touch oil control and good stability (pg. 4). Further, one having ordinary still in the art would reasonably expect success in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2141. The Supreme Court has acknowledged: When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it, either in the same field or a different one. If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation... 103 likely bars its patentability...if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond that person’s skill. A court must ask whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions......the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results (see KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 U.S. 2007) (emphasis added). 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 was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Conclusion No claims are allowed. 07-39 AIA THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Quanglong Truong whose telephone number is 571-270-0719. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00 am – 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A. Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /QUANGLONG N TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1615 /Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/543,702 Page 2 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/543,702 Page 3 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/543,702 Page 4 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/543,702 Page 5 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/543,702 Page 6 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/543,702 Page 7 Art Unit: 1615
Prosecution Insights