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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code in paragraphs 36 and 39. 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 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 1-5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dueva-Koganov et al. (US PGPub No. 2008/0247976).
Dueva-Koganov et al. disclose a cosmetic emulsion composition that includes octinoxate at 7.5 wt%, avobenzone at 3 wt%, and bemotrizinol at 1.5 wt% (see example 14; instant claim 5). These amounts and ratios fall within the ranges recited in the instant specification as “effective” for stabilization (see paragraphs 70-75; instant claims 1-2 and 9-10). Additional sunscreen actives (active agent) are present at 3.5 wt% (see instant claims 3-4 and 8). Therefore claims 1-5 and 8-10 are anticipated by Dueva-Koganov et al.
Claims 1-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Berg-Shultz et al. (US PGPub No. 2006/0073106).
Berg-Shultz et al. disclose a cosmetic emulsion composition that includes active agent (tocopherol acetate), pigments/mineral sunscreens (colorant), avobenzone (Parsol® 1789) at 3 wt% and bemotrizinol (Tinosorb® S) at 5 wt% (see example 9 and paragraphs 30, 32, and 42; instant claims 1, 5, 7, and 9). These amounts and ratios fall within the ranges recited in the instant specification as “effective” for stabilization (see paragraphs 70-75; instant claims 1-2 and 9-10). An encapsulated cinnamate is also present. Encapsulated ethylhexyl cinnamate (octinoxate) is the only particular cinnamate employed in the examples characterizing the stabilizing effect of encapsulating cinnamate compounds which is the focus of Berg-Shultz et al. (see abstract). Additional sunscreen actives (active agent) are present at less than 10 wt% (see instant claims 3-4 and 8). Therefore its inclusion as the encapsulated cinnamate of the subsequent is implicit from this discussion as well as its recitation in the claims (see example 1 and claims 1-8). Therefore claims 1-5 and 7-10 are anticipated by Berg-Shultz et al.
Claims 1-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Birrenbach (US Patent No. 6,803,063).
Birrenbach discloses the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify avobenzone as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt% while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt%, where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C; instant claims 1 and 5). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15; instant claims 5-6). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I; instant claims 1-2 and 9-10). Octinoxate can fulfill the role of the instant at least one active agent or the instant optional octinoxate (see instant claim 8). Therefore claims 1-6 and 8-10 are anticipated by Birrenbach.
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, 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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dueva-Koganov et al.
Dueva-Koganov et al. teach a sunscreen composition that includes at least one sunscreening agent (see abstract). They disclose a cosmetic emulsion form that includes octinoxate at 7.5 wt%, avobenzone at 3 wt%, and bemotrizinol at 1.5 wt% (see example 14; instant claim 5). These amounts and ratios fall within the ranges recited in the instant specification as “effective” for stabilization (see paragraphs 70-75; instant claims 1-2 and 9-10). Additional sunscreen actives (active agent) are present at 3.5 wt% (see instant claims 3-4 and 8). In addition to emulsion forms, Dueva-Koganov et al. also teach stick forms (see paragraph 187). They further detail the inclusion of cosmetically acceptable ingredients such as colorants (see paragraph 182). While a full example of each embodiment that follows from the teachings of Dueva-Koganov et al. is not detailed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to formulate the active components of example 14 as a stick because Dueva-Koganov et al. teach emulsions and sticks as alternative forms of their composition. It also would have been obvious to include a colorant in the sunscreen embodiments because Dueva-Koganov et al. suggest to do so. Therefore claims 1-10 are obvious over Dueva-Koganov et al.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. (US Patent No. 4,695,452).
Birrenbach discloses the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify avobenzone as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt%, while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt% where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C; instant claims 1 and 5). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15; instant claims 5-6). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I; instant claims 1-2 and 9-10). Octinoxate can fulfill the role of the instant at least one active agent or the instant optional octinoxate (see instant claim 8). Birrenbach additionally teach the inclusion of anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, all of which can be deemed active agents. They also teach the inclusion of titanium dioxide, a coloring agent and UV filter (see column 5 lines 54-65; Gannis et al. column claim 7). While a full example of each embodiment that follows from the teachings of Birrenbach is not detailed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add anti-oxidants, vitamins, or skin care agents to the exemplified compositions of Birrenbach because they teach to do so. It also would have been obvious to include titanium dioxide because Birrenbach teach to do so. Therefore claims 1-10 are obvious over Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Dueva-Koganov et al.
Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. teaches the limitations of instant claims 1-10, where bemotrizinol and avobenzone, optionally in combination with octinoxate, are present in a sunscreen composition. The presence of a colorant is not exemplified in a composition.
Dueva-Koganov et al. teach a sunscreen composition that includes at least one sunscreening agent (see abstract). They disclose a cosmetic emulsion form that includes octinoxate at 7.5 wt%, avobenzone at 3 wt%, and bemotrizinol at 1.5 wt% (see example 14; instant claim 5). In addition to emulsion forms, Dueva-Koganov et al. also teach stick forms (see paragraph 187). They further detail the inclusion of cosmetically acceptable ingredients such as colorants (see paragraph 182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a colorant to the composition of Birrenbach in light of the teachings of Dueva-Koganov et al. This modification would have been obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are obvious over Birrenbach in view of Dueva-Koganov et al. as evidenced by Gannis et al.
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 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 11,931,439 in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Robinson (US Patent No. 5,968,485).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims a topical composition that can be an emulsion (cream) and comprises UV screening actives. At least one UV screening active is selected from a grouping that includes bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) and avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane), and octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) (see Robinson column 4 lines 49-53). Both a colorant and active agents are also recited components. A particular combination of instantly claimed UV filters is not recited.
Birrenbach teach of the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify 4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane, also known as avobenzone, as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt% while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt% where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I). This grouping of bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate provides long lasting, high sun protection factors (see column 3 lines 16-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate as the UV filters of the patented claims in light of Birrenbach who teach their combination as particularly useful in attaining a high performing and stable UV protective composition. This modification is obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Their inclusion at ratios that stabilize the avobenzone and octinoxate would follow as would formation into a stick or emulsion as contemplated forms for such compositions. Additional UV filters are not required. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 11,931,439 in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Robinson.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,778,313 in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims a topical composition that can be an emulsion and comprises UV screening actives. At least one UV screening active selected from a grouping that includes triazines, cinnamates, and dibenzoylmethanes is recited. A narrower listing recites bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine), avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane), and octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) (see Robinson column 4 lines 49-53). Titanium dioxide is also an envisioned UV filter which also can fulfill the role of a colorant. A particular combination of instantly claimed UV filters is not recited.
Birrenbach teach of the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify 4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane, also known as avobenzone, as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt% while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt% where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I). This grouping of bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate provides long lasting, high sun protection factors (see column 3 lines 16-42). Octinoxate can fulfill the role of the instant at least one active agent or the instant optional octinoxate (see instant claim 8). Birrenbach additionally teach the inclusion of anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, all of which can be deemed active agents. They also teach the inclusion of titanium dioxide, a coloring agent and UV filter (see column 5 lines 54-65; Gannis et al. column claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate as the UV filters of the patented claims in light of Birrenbach who teach their combination as particularly useful in attaining a high performing and stable UV protective composition. This modification is obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Their inclusion at ratios that stabilize the avobenzone and octinoxate would follow as would formation into a stick or emulsion as contemplated forms for such compositions. Additional UV filters are not required. Alternatively, titanium dioxide could be included as recited by the patented claims and by Birrenbach as a contemplated further addition. Similarly it would have been obvious to add anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, in light of Birrenbach to confer their desired properties as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,778,313 in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,778,313 in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Dueva-Koganov et al.
Claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,778,313 in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson render obvious the limitations of instant claims 1-10 where bemotrizinol and avobenzone, optionally in combination with octinoxate, are present in a sunscreen composition. The presence of a colorant is not exemplified in a composition.
Dueva-Koganov et al. teach a sunscreen composition that includes at least one sunscreening agent (see abstract). They disclose a cosmetic emulsion form that includes octinoxate at 7.5 wt%, avobenzone at 3 wt%, and bemotrizinol at 1.5 wt% (see example 14; instant claim 5). In addition to emulsion forms, Dueva-Koganov et al. also teach stick forms (see paragraph 187). They further detail the inclusion of cosmetically acceptable ingredients such as colorants (see paragraph 182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a colorant to the composition of the modified patented claims in light of the teachings of Dueva-Koganov et al. This modification would have been obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 8,778,313 in view of Birrenbach and Dueva-Koganov et al.as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,765,101 or claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,358,192, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims a topical composition that comprises UV screening actives. At least one UV screening active selected from a grouping that includes triazines, cinnamates, and dibenzoylmethanes is recited. A narrower listing recites bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine), avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane), and octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) (see Robinson column 4 lines 49-53). Titanium dioxide is also an envisioned UV filter which also can fulfill the role of a colorant. A particular combination of instantly claimed UV filters is not recited.
Birrenbach teach of the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify 4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane, also known as avobenzone, as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt% while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt% where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I). This grouping of bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate provides long lasting, high sun protection factors (see column 3 lines 16-42). Octinoxate can fulfill the role of the instant at least one active agent or the instant optional octinoxate (see instant claim 8). Birrenbach additionally teach the inclusion of anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, all of which can be deemed active agents. They also teach the inclusion of titanium dioxide, a coloring agent and UV filter (see column 5 lines 54-65; Gannis et al. column claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate as the UV filters of the patented claims in light of Birrenbach who teach their combination as particularly useful in attaining a high performing and stable UV protective composition. This modification is obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Their inclusion at ratios that stabilize the avobenzone and octinoxate would follow as would formation into a stick or emulsion as contemplated forms for such compositions. Additional UV filters are not required. Alternatively, titanium dioxide could be included as recited by the patented claims and by Birrenbach as a contemplated further addition. Similarly it would have been obvious to add anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, in light of Birrenbach to confer their desired properties as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,765,101 or claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,358,192, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,765,101 or claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,358,192, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Dueva-Koganov et al.
Claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,765,101 or claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,358,192, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson render obvious the limitations of instant claims 1-10 where bemotrizinol and avobenzone, optionally in combination with octinoxate, are present in a sunscreen composition. The presence of a colorant is not exemplified in a composition.
Dueva-Koganov et al. teach a sunscreen composition that includes at least one sunscreening agent (see abstract). They disclose a cosmetic emulsion form that includes octinoxate at 7.5 wt%, avobenzone at 3 wt%, and bemotrizinol at 1.5 wt% (see example 14; instant claim 5). In addition to emulsion forms, Dueva-Koganov et al. also teach stick forms (see paragraph 187). They further detail the inclusion of cosmetically acceptable ingredients such as colorants (see paragraph 182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a colorant to the composition of the modified patented claims in light of the teachings of Dueva-Koganov et al. This modification would have been obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 8,765,101 or claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 9,358,192, each separately in view of Birrenbach and Dueva-Koganov et al.as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,402,300, or claims 1-16 U.S. Patent No. 12,102,700, or claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,472,192, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims a topical composition that comprises UV screening actives. At least one UV screening active selected from a grouping that includes triazines, cinnamates, and dibenzoylmethanes is recited. A narrower listing recites bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine), avobenzone (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane), and octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) (see Robinson column 4 lines 49-53). A particular combination of instantly claimed UV filters is not recited.
Birrenbach teach of the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify 4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane, also known as avobenzone, as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt% while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt% where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I). This grouping of bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate provides long lasting, high sun protection factors (see column 3 lines 16-42). Octinoxate can fulfill the role of the instant at least one active agent or the instant optional octinoxate (see instant claim 8). Birrenbach additionally teach the inclusion of anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, all of which can be deemed active agents. They also teach the inclusion of titanium dioxide, a coloring agent and UV filter (see column 5 lines 54-65; Gannis et al. column claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate as the UV filters of the patented claims in light of Birrenbach who teach their combination as particularly useful in attaining a high performing and stable UV protective composition. This modification is obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Their inclusion at ratios that stabilize the avobenzone and octinoxate would follow as would formation into a stick or emulsion as contemplated forms for such compositions. Additional UV filters are not required. Alternatively, titanium dioxide could be included as recited by Birrenbach as a contemplated further addition. Similarly it would have been obvious to add anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, in light of Birrenbach to confer their desired properties as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,402,300, or claims 1-16 U.S. Patent No. 12,102,700, or claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,472,192, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,402,300, or claims 1-16 U.S. Patent No. 12,102,700, or claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,472,192, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Dueva-Koganov et al.
Claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,402,300, or claims 1-16 U.S. Patent No. 12,102,700, or claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,472,192, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson render obvious the limitations of instant claims 1-10 where bemotrizinol and avobenzone, optionally in combination with octinoxate, are present in a sunscreen composition. The presence of a colorant is not exemplified in a composition.
Dueva-Koganov et al. teach a sunscreen composition that includes at least one sunscreening agent (see abstract). They disclose a cosmetic emulsion form that includes octinoxate at 7.5 wt%, avobenzone at 3 wt%, and bemotrizinol at 1.5 wt% (see example 14; instant claim 5). In addition to emulsion forms, Dueva-Koganov et al. also teach stick forms (see paragraph 187). They further detail the inclusion of cosmetically acceptable ingredients such as colorants (see paragraph 182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a colorant to the composition of the modified patented claims in light of the teachings of Dueva-Koganov et al. This modification would have been obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 7,402,300, or claims 1-16 U.S. Patent No. 12,102,700, or claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,472,192, each separately in view of Birrenbach and Dueva-Koganov et al.as evidenced by Gannis et al. and Robinson.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,747,816 or claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,961,941, or claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,025867, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims a stabilized topical composition comprising a dibenzoylmethane that can be an emulsion and comprises one or more other UV screening actives. Avobenzone (4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane) is a recited dibenzoylmethane. At least one UV screening active selected from a grouping that includes bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) and octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) is also recited. Titanium dioxide is an envisioned UV filter which also can fulfill the role of a colorant. A particular combination of instantly claimed UV filters is not recited.
Birrenbach teach of the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify 4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane, also known as avobenzone, as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt% while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt% where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I). This grouping of bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate provides long lasting, high sun protection factors (see column 3 lines 16-42). Octinoxate can fulfill the role of the instant at least one active agent or the instant optional octinoxate (see instant claim 8). Birrenbach additionally teach the inclusion of anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, all of which can be deemed active agents. They also teach the inclusion of titanium dioxide, a coloring agent and UV filter (see column 5 lines 54-65; Gannis et al. column claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate as the UV filters of the patented claims in light of Birrenbach who teach their combination as particularly useful in attaining a high performing and stable UV protective composition. This modification is obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Their inclusion at ratios that stabilize the avobenzone and octinoxate would follow as would formation into a stick or emulsion as contemplated forms for such compositions. Additional UV filters are not required. Alternatively, titanium dioxide could be included as recited by the patented claims and by Birrenbach as a contemplated further addition. Similarly it would have been obvious to add anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, in light of Birrenbach to confer their desired properties as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 11-13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,747,816 or claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,961,941, or claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,025867, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,747,816 or claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,961,941, or claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,025867, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Dueva-Koganov et al.
Claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,747,816 or claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,961,941, or claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,025867, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. render obvious the limitations of instant claims 1-10 where bemotrizinol and avobenzone, optionally in combination with octinoxate, are present in a sunscreen composition. The presence of a colorant is not exemplified in a composition.
Dueva-Koganov et al. teach a sunscreen composition that includes at least one sunscreening agent (see abstract). They disclose a cosmetic emulsion form that includes octinoxate at 7.5 wt%, avobenzone at 3 wt%, and bemotrizinol at 1.5 wt% (see example 14; instant claim 5). In addition to emulsion forms, Dueva-Koganov et al. also teach stick forms (see paragraph 187). They further detail the inclusion of cosmetically acceptable ingredients such as colorants (see paragraph 182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a colorant to the composition of the modified patented claims in light of the teachings of Dueva-Koganov et al. This modification would have been obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,747,816 or claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,961,941, or claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 8,025867, each separately in view of Birrenbach and Dueva-Koganov et al.as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,364,720 in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims a stabilized topical composition comprising a dibenzoylmethane that can be an emulsion or stick and comprises one or more other UV screening actives. Avobenzone (4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane) is a recited dibenzoylmethane. At least one UV screening active selected from a grouping that includes bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) and octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) is also recited. Titanium dioxide is an envisioned UV filter which also can fulfill the role of a colorant. A particular combination of instantly claimed UV filters is not recited.
Birrenbach teach of the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify 4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane, also known as avobenzone, as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt% while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt% where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I). This grouping of bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate provides long lasting, high sun protection factors (see column 3 lines 16-42). Octinoxate can fulfill the role of the instant at least one active agent or the instant optional octinoxate (see instant claim 8). Birrenbach additionally teach the inclusion of anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, all of which can be deemed active agents. They also teach the inclusion of titanium dioxide, a coloring agent and UV filter (see column 5 lines 54-65; Gannis et al. column claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate as the UV filters of the patented claims in light of Birrenbach who teach their combination as particularly useful in attaining a high performing and stable UV protective composition. This modification is obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Their inclusion at ratios that stabilize the avobenzone and octinoxate would follow. Additional UV filters are not required. Alternatively, titanium dioxide could be included as recited by the patented claims and by Birrenbach as a contemplated further addition. Similarly it would have been obvious to add anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, in light of Birrenbach to confer their desired properties as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,364,720 in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,364,720 in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Dueva-Koganov et al.
Claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,364,720 in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. render obvious the limitations of instant claims 1-10 where bemotrizinol and avobenzone, optionally in combination with octinoxate, are present in a sunscreen composition. The presence of a colorant is not exemplified in a composition.
Dueva-Koganov et al. teach a sunscreen composition that includes at least one sunscreening agent (see abstract). They disclose a cosmetic emulsion form that includes octinoxate at 7.5 wt%, avobenzone at 3 wt%, and bemotrizinol at 1.5 wt% (see example 14; instant claim 5). In addition to emulsion forms, Dueva-Koganov et al. also teach stick forms (see paragraph 187). They further detail the inclusion of cosmetically acceptable ingredients such as colorants (see paragraph 182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a colorant to the composition of the modified patented claims in light of the teachings of Dueva-Koganov et al. This modification would have been obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 7,364,720 in view of Birrenbach and Dueva-Koganov et al.as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,075, or claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,526,924, or claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 8,999,299, or claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,510,703, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims a topical composition comprising UV screening actives selected from a listing that includes bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) and octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate). The composition may be in the form of an emulsion. A particular combination of instantly claimed UV filters is not recited.
Birrenbach teach of the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify 4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane, also known as avobenzone, as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt% while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt% where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I). This grouping of bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate provides long lasting, high sun protection factors (see column 3 lines 16-42). Octinoxate can fulfill the role of the instant at least one active agent or the instant optional octinoxate (see instant claim 8). Birrenbach additionally teach the inclusion of anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, all of which can be deemed active agents. They also teach the inclusion of titanium dioxide, a coloring agent and UV filter (see column 5 lines 54-65; Gannis et al. column claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select bemotrizinol and octinoxate in combination with avobenzone as the UV filters of the patented claims in light of Birrenbach who teach their combination as particularly useful in attaining a high performing and stable UV protective composition. This modification is obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Their inclusion at ratios that stabilize the avobenzone and octinoxate would follow as would formation into a stick or emulsion as contemplated forms for such compositions. Additional UV filters are not required. Alternatively, titanium dioxide could be included as recited by Birrenbach as a contemplated further addition. Similarly it would have been obvious to add anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, in light of Birrenbach to confer their desired properties as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,075, or claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,526,924, or claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 8,999,299, or claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,510,703, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Claims 1-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,075, or claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,526,924, or claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 8,999,299, or claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,510,703, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Dueva-Koganov et al.
Claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,075, or claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,526,924, or claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 8,999,299, or claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,510,703, each separately in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. render obvious the limitations of instant claims 1-10 where bemotrizinol and avobenzone, optionally in combination with octinoxate, are present in a sunscreen composition. The presence of a colorant is not exemplified in a composition.
Dueva-Koganov et al. teach a sunscreen composition that includes at least one sunscreening agent (see abstract). They disclose a cosmetic emulsion form that includes octinoxate at 7.5 wt%, avobenzone at 3 wt%, and bemotrizinol at 1.5 wt% (see example 14; instant claim 5). In addition to emulsion forms, Dueva-Koganov et al. also teach stick forms (see paragraph 187). They further detail the inclusion of cosmetically acceptable ingredients such as colorants (see paragraph 182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a colorant to the composition of the modified patented claims in light of the teachings of Dueva-Koganov et al. This modification would have been obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,583,075, or claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,526,924, or claims 1-31 of U.S. Patent No. 8,999,299, or claims 1-25 of U.S. Patent No. 7,510,703, each separately in view of Birrenbach and Dueva-Koganov et al.as evidenced by Gannis et al.
The following are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/543343 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite a compositions comprising bemotrizinol and avobenzone where one or more other UV screening actives is also present. The recited ratios fall within the ranges recited in the instant specification as “effective” for stabilization (see paragraphs 70-75). A colorant and active agent are also recited ingredients. The composition is recited in emulsion form. Additional UV filters are not required. Therefore claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 are un patentable over claims 1-8 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/543343 (reference application).
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/543343 (reference application) as applied to claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 above, and further in view of Birrenbach
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/543343 (reference application) teach the limitations of instant claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9. The presence of octinoxate is not detailed.
Birrenbach teach of the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify 4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane, also known as avobenzone, as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt% while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt% where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I). This grouping of bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate provides long lasting, high sun protection factors that has a broader spectrum of coverage than any single active in the grouping (see column 3 lines 16-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select include octinoxate as an added UV filter in the composition of the copending claims in light of Birrenbach who teach its combination with avobenzone and bemotrizinol as particularly useful in attaining a broad spectrum, high performing, and stable UV protective composition. This modification is obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Their inclusion at ratios that stabilize the avobenzone and octinoxate would follow as would formation into a stick or emulsion as contemplated forms for such compositions. Additional UV filters are not required. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/543343 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 9-13 of copending Application No. 18/543157 (reference application), claims 1-8 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/543309 (reference application), claims 1-9 and 11-15 of copending Application No. 18543287 (reference application), each separately in view of Birrenbach.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite a compositions comprising bemotrizinol where one or more other UV screening actives selected from a short listing that includes avobenzone is also present. A colorant and active agent are also recited ingredients. The composition is recited in emulsion form. A particular combination of instantly claimed UV filters is not recited.
Birrenbach teach of the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify 4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane, also known as avobenzone, as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt% while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt% where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I). This grouping of bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate provides long lasting, high sun protection factors that has a broader spectrum of coverage than any single active in the grouping (see column 3 lines 16-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate as added UV filters to include in the composition of the copending claims in light of Birrenbach who teach their combination as particularly useful in attaining a broad spectrum, high performing, and stable UV protective composition. This modification is obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Their inclusion at ratios that stabilize the avobenzone and octinoxate would follow as would formation into a stick or emulsion as contemplated forms for such compositions. Additional UV filters are not required. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 9-13 of copending Application No. 18/543157 (reference application), claims 1-8 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/543309 (reference application), claims 1-9 and 11-15 of copending Application No. 18543287 (reference application), each separately in view of Birrenbach
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/543375 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite a compositions comprising bemotrizinol where one or more other UV screening actives selected from a short listing that includes avobenzone is also present. An active agent and mineral filter are also recited ingredients. The composition is recited in emulsion or stick form. A particular combination of instantly claimed UV filters is not recited.
Birrenbach teach of the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify 4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane, also known as avobenzone, as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt% while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt% where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I). This grouping of bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate provides long lasting, high sun protection factors that has a broader spectrum of coverage than any single active in the grouping (see column 3 lines 16-42). They also teach the inclusion of titanium dioxide, a coloring agent and UV filter (see column 5 lines 54-65; Gannis et al. column claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate as added UV filters to include in the composition of the copending claims in light of Birrenbach who teach their combination as particularly useful in attaining a broad spectrum, high performing, and stable UV protective composition. This modification is obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Their inclusion at ratios that stabilize the avobenzone and octinoxate would follow as would formation into a stick or emulsion as contemplated forms for such compositions. Additional UV filters are not required. Alternatively, titanium dioxide could be included as recited by the copending claims and by Birrenbach as a contemplated further addition. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/543375 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/543375 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Dueva-Koganov et al.
Claims 1-9 and 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/543375 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. render obvious the limitations of instant claims 1-10 where bemotrizinol and avobenzone, optionally in combination with octinoxate, are present in a sunscreen composition. The presence of a colorant is not exemplified in a composition.
Dueva-Koganov et al. teach a sunscreen composition that includes at least one sunscreening agent (see abstract). They disclose a cosmetic emulsion form that includes octinoxate at 7.5 wt%, avobenzone at 3 wt%, and bemotrizinol at 1.5 wt% (see example 14; instant claim 5). In addition to emulsion forms, Dueva-Koganov et al. also teach stick forms (see paragraph 187). They further detail the inclusion of cosmetically acceptable ingredients such as colorants (see paragraph 182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a colorant to the composition of the modified copending claims in light of the teachings of Dueva-Koganov et al. This modification would have been obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/543375 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach and Dueva-Koganov et al.as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/985642 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims recite a compositions comprising bemotrizinol where one or more other UV screening actives selected from a short listing that includes avobenzone is also present. Titanium dioxide is an envisioned UV filter which also can fulfill the role of a colorant. A particular combination of instantly claimed UV filters is not recited.
Birrenbach teach of the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify 4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane, also known as avobenzone, as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt% while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt% where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I). This grouping of bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate provides long lasting, high sun protection factors that has a broader spectrum of coverage than any single active in the grouping (see column 3 lines 16-42). Octinoxate can fulfill the role of the instant at least one active agent or the instant optional octinoxate (see instant claim 8). Birrenbach additionally teach the inclusion of anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, all of which can be deemed active agents. They also teach the inclusion of titanium dioxide, a coloring agent and UV filter (see column 5 lines 54-65; Gannis et al. column claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate as added UV filters to include in the composition of the copending claims in light of Birrenbach who teach their combination as particularly useful in attaining a broad spectrum, high performing, and stable UV protective composition. This modification is obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Their inclusion at ratios that stabilize the avobenzone and octinoxate would follow as would formation into a stick or emulsion as contemplated forms for such compositions. Additional UV filters are not required. Alternatively, titanium dioxide could be included as recited by the copending claims and by Birrenbach as a contemplated further addition. Similarly it would have been obvious to add anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, in light of Birrenbach to confer their desired properties as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/985642 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/985642 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Dueva-Koganov et al.
Claims 1-8 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/985642 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. render obvious the limitations of instant claims 1-10 where bemotrizinol and avobenzone, optionally in combination with octinoxate, are present in a sunscreen composition. The presence of a colorant is not exemplified in a composition.
Dueva-Koganov et al. teach a sunscreen composition that includes at least one sunscreening agent (see abstract). They disclose a cosmetic emulsion form that includes octinoxate at 7.5 wt%, avobenzone at 3 wt%, and bemotrizinol at 1.5 wt% (see example 14; instant claim 5). In addition to emulsion forms, Dueva-Koganov et al. also teach stick forms (see paragraph 187). They further detail the inclusion of cosmetically acceptable ingredients such as colorants (see paragraph 182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a colorant to the composition of the modified copending claims in light of the teachings of Dueva-Koganov et al. This modification would have been obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-13 of copending Application No. 18/985642 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach and Dueva-Koganov et al.as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 14-20 of copending Application No. 18/257179 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims a topical composition that comprises UV screening actives. At least one UV screening active selected from a grouping that includes bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) and butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane is recited. A particular combination of instantly claimed UV filters is not recited.
Birrenbach teach of the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify 4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane, also known as avobenzone, as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt% while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt% where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I). This grouping of bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate provides long lasting, high sun protection factors (see column 3 lines 16-42). Octinoxate can fulfill the role of the instant at least one active agent or the instant optional octinoxate (see instant claim 8). Birrenbach additionally teach the inclusion of anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, all of which can be deemed active agents. They also teach the inclusion of titanium dioxide, a coloring agent and UV filter (see column 5 lines 54-65; Gannis et al. column claim 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate as the UV filters of the copending claims in light of Birrenbach who teach their combination as particularly useful in attaining a high performing and stable UV protective composition. These particular compounds or similar compounds of the same class, as in the case of avobenzone, are recited by the copending claims. This modification is obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Their inclusion at ratios that stabilize the avobenzone and octinoxate would follow as would formation into a stick or emulsion as contemplated forms for such compositions. Additional UV filters are not required. Alternatively, titanium dioxide could be included as recited by Birrenbach as a contemplated further addition. Similarly it would have been obvious to add anti-oxidants, vitamins, and skin care agents, in light of Birrenbach to confer their desired properties as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over 1-12 and 14-20 of copending Application No. 18/257179 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 14-20 of copending Application No. 18/257179 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. as applied to claims 1-10 above, and further in view of Dueva-Koganov et al.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 of copending Application No. 18/257179 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach as evidenced by Gannis et al. render obvious the limitations of instant claims 1-10 where bemotrizinol and avobenzone, optionally in combination with octinoxate, are present in a sunscreen composition. The presence of a colorant is not exemplified in a composition.
Dueva-Koganov et al. teach a sunscreen composition that includes at least one sunscreening agent (see abstract). They disclose a cosmetic emulsion form that includes octinoxate at 7.5 wt%, avobenzone at 3 wt%, and bemotrizinol at 1.5 wt% (see example 14; instant claim 5). In addition to emulsion forms, Dueva-Koganov et al. also teach stick forms (see paragraph 187). They further detail the inclusion of cosmetically acceptable ingredients such as colorants (see paragraph 182).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a colorant to the composition of the modified copending claims in light of the teachings of Dueva-Koganov et al. This modification would have been obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-12 and 14-20 of copending Application No. 18/257179 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach and Dueva-Koganov et al.as evidenced by Gannis et al.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/543721 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims a topical composition comprising bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) and octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate). The composition may be in the form of an emulsion or stick. A colorant and active agent are also recited ingredients. A particular combination of instantly claimed UV filters is not recited.
Birrenbach teach of the photostabilization of dibenzoylmethane derivatives via the inclusion of bemotrizinol (bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine) (see abstract, column 2 lines 5-15, 47-58, 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6). They detail and exemplify 4-tert-butyl-4’-methoxydibenzoylmethane, also known as avobenzone, as a dibenzoylmethane derivative stabilized by the presence of bemotrizinol in sunscreen compositions (see column 2 line 67-column 3 line 11 and column 7 line 3-6 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Examples 1A-1C are emulsions devoid of other UV filters (see instant claims 3-4). The bemotrizinol is provided at 0.5 to 10 wt% while the dibenzoylmethane derivative is provided at 0.1 to 10 wt% where examples have the bemotrizinol and avobenzone at a ratio of 2:1 and 1:1, respectively (see column 2 lines 47-58 and column 3 line 11-15 and tables 1-2 formulations 1A-1C). Birrenbach exemplify emulsions and detail other contemplated forms that include sticks (see column 3 lines 66-column 4 line 15). In addition to stabilizing dibenzoylmethane derivatives, the bemotrizinol also stabilizes cinnamic acid esters (see column 2 lines 34-46). Examples provide the trio of octinoxate (ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate) as the cinnamic acid ester along with bemotrizinol and avobenzone at 2:2:1 and 1:2:1 (see column 7 lines 7-10, tables 1-2, and formulation examples 1g-1I). This grouping of bemotrizinol and avobenzone alone or in further combination with octinoxate provides long lasting, high sun protection factors that has a broader spectrum of coverage than any single active in the grouping (see column 3 lines 16-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add avobenzone to the combination of bemotrizinol and octinoxate in the composition of the copending claims in light of Birrenbach who teach their combination as particularly useful in attaining a high performing and stable UV protective composition. This modification is obvious as the application of the same technique to a similar product in order to yield the same improvement. Their inclusion at ratios that stabilize the avobenzone and octinoxate would follow as would formation into a stick or emulsion as contemplated forms for such compositions. Additional UV filters are not required. Therefore claims 1-10 are unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/543721 (reference application) in view of Birrenbach.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARALYNNE E HELM whose telephone number is (571)270-3506. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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 Wax can be reached at (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 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.
/CARALYNNE E HELM/ Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights