CTNF 18/543,823 CTNF 74599 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 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. Claim Objections 06-18 AIA Claim 3 is objected to because it depends from a following claim. Note that a series of singular dependent claims is permissible in which a dependent claim refers to a preceding claim which, in turn, refers to another preceding claim. A claim which depends from a dependent claim should not be separated by any claim which does not also depend from said dependent claim. It should be kept in mind that a dependent claim may refer to any preceding independent claim. In general, applicant's sequence will not be changed. See MPEP § 608.01(n). The examiner respectfully suggests that claim 3 should properly depend from claim 1 (not claim 6). 07-29-01 AIA Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: for grammatical reasons, in line 2 of the claim, one of the two present tense verbs (“…comprise has…”) should be deleted. (Note also the related 112(b) rejection of the claim below.) Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Claim 2, for instance, recites the broad recitation “…the composition has two or more of the properties…”, and the claim also recites “… preferably [emphasis added] all three…” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Analysis of the ‘preferably clauses’ in claim 4 is similar. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. 07-34-01 Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. While it is clear that all R1 groups may be stearyl, or that all R1 groups may be behenyl. It is unclear how all R1 groups can be stearyl and behenyl. That is, the use of the conjunction “…and/or…” renders the claim unclear. The examiner respectfully suggests a slight rewording, something along the lines of: …all R1 groups of the at least one lipophilic acrylic polymer comprise stearyl radicals, or all comprise behenyl radicals…. 07-34-01 Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The term “…active agent…” is unclear because it is undefined. Active in what way? (Nor does the specification appear to give adequate guidance as to what exactly the definition of this term might be.) Clarification is in order. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1 and 6-10 are allowed. The subject matter of the remaining claims would be allowable once the objections and 112 rejections outlined above have been overcome. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: US 11,510,860 B2 may be taken as a recent representative example of the closest prior art. The reference teaches a photoprotective composition related to the instant emulsion comprising (a) one or more polymers comprising monomer units of formulas (A) and (B) with their associated limitations, (b) one or more fatty acids of dextrin, and (c) one or more UV-screening agents (column 1, line 63ff; claims beginning at column 19, line 51). Bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine (bemotrizinol) is a UV-screening agent utilized in all the examples (Examples 1-8 beginning at column 16, line 32). Significantly, for instance, the reference does not teach the utilization in the prior art composition of at least one carboxylic or carboxylate anionic surfactant selected from the group consisting of amino acids modified with at least one C 8 -C 30 hydrocarbon-based chain and salts thereof. (A corresponding element in the prior art formulations is isopropyl lauroyl sarcosinate – which is not an anionic surfactant.) Nor would one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, have found it obvious to modify the prior art composition by including such a surfactant. There is no motivation to do so. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN J DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0638. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00 PM EDT. 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, Ali Soroush, can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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. /BRIAN J DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614 3/19/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/543,823 Page 2 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/543,823 Page 3 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/543,823 Page 4 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/543,823 Page 5 Art Unit: 1614 Application/Control Number: 18/543,823 Page 6 Art Unit: 1614