CTNF 18/544,223 CTNF 101952 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 Status Claims 1-20 are pending. Election/Restrictions 08-25-01 AIA Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on May 8, 2026 is acknowledged. Applicant’s species election without traverse of i) the product of linseed oil and poly(isobutyl methacrylate) (hydrophobic polymer) ii) polycitronellol acetate (solvent) iii) rhamnolipid (biosurfactant) iv) acyl taurate (co-surfactant) in the reply filed on May 8, 2026 is acknowledged. 08-06 AIA Claim s 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method , there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 8, 2026 . Claims 1-18 are under consideration to the extent of the elected species, e.g., the hydrophobic polymer is the product of linseed oil and poly(isobutyl methacrylate), the solvent is polycitronellol acetate, the biosurfactant is rhamnolipid, and the co-surfactant is acyl taurate . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on December 18, 2023, September 19, 2024, March 23, 2026, and April 28, 2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Objection Claim 1 is objected to for improperly listing the components of the composition. In particular “water” is listed as component (e), though it should be listed as component (d). Applicant is advised to correct the listing of components in claim 1 for consistency and readability of the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 4 and 7 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. Claims 4 and 7 recite the limitation "the polymer" in claim 1. However, claim 1 recites both “hydrophobic polymer” and “methacrylate or acrylate polymer.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It appears “the polymer” refers to “methacrylate or acrylate polymer” but applicants are advised to replace “the polymer” with “the methacrylate or acrylate polymer” for clarity. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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, 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 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitra (US20220249342A1, published 8/11/2022) in view of Zhu (WO2021185675A1, published 9/23/2021), Gupta (WO2021214209A1, published10/28/2021) and Nehme (Production of oil in water emulsions in microchannels at high throughput: Evaluation of emulsions in view of cosmetic, nutraceutical or pharmaceutical applications, Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 161; 108301, published 2/2/2021) . Mitra teaches a cosmetic cleaning composition that comprises an oil and a viscosity modifier, wherein the viscosity modifier is a synthetic or natural polymer (abstract). Mitra discloses various options for said oil and said polymer (abstract). The oil and viscosity modifier combination are referred to as a whole as the cleansing coagulant system. The coagulant system can congeal and form a viscoelastic fluid to bind and remove sebum, makeup, dirt, pollution, dead skin, and other unwanted materials from skin (paragraph [0013]). When describing the oil in the cleaning composition, Mitra teaches that the oil can be natural based or food derived, and provides linseed oil (i.e., natural or food-derived oil) as an example of an ideal oil (paragraph [0045]). When describing the polymer, Mitra teaches a methacrylate polymer; specifically, poly(isobutyl methacrylate) (paragraph [0045]) (i.e., methacrylate polymer). The oil in the cleansing coagulant system is taught to be present in a range from about 30% to about 45% by weight, and the polymer is present in a range from about 0.1% to about 20% by weight, based on the weight of the cleansing coagulant system (paragraph [0022]). The composition may be any suitable cosmetic cleansing composition, including an oil-in-water emulsion (paragraph [0033]). In some embodiments, the composition may also include one or more surfactants (paragraph [0102]). Finally, Mitra teaches that the composition includes water in an amount from about 1% to about 90% by weight (paragraph [0089]). However, Mitra does not teach the inclusion of a biosurfactant (rhamnolipids as elected by applicant, as in claim 12) in conjunction with an optional additional surfactant (acyl taurates as elected by applicant). Mitra also does not teach the solvent system capable of solubilizing the reaction product as in the instant claims (polycitronellol acetate as elected by applicant, as in claim 10). Finally, Mitra does not teach the average oil-in-water emulsion droplet size of about 10 nm to about 1 micrometer. These deficiencies are made up for by the teachings of Zhu, Gupta, and Nehme. Zhu teaches a personal care composition that comprises a biosurfactant and a hydrophilic cationic or pseudo-cationic active compound, as well as a method for depositing said compound onto keratinous material such as hair or skin (abstract). Zhu teaches that biosurfactant in the claimed invention is of the glycolipid class, and further explains the glycolipid surfactants to be “sophorolipids, rhamnolipids, cellobioselipids, mannosyl erythritol lipids, trehalose lipids and biochemical modification thereof” (page 6 line 5). Zhu teaches that the biosurfactant (sophorolipids) is present in the composition of the invention in an amount of 0.1% to 30 wt%, with a most preferable 0.5 to 10 wt%. Further, Zhu teaches the inclusion of an additional surfactant, or co-surfactant. Examples of such co-surfactants include amphoteric surfactants, such as “coco amido propyl betaine, cocoamido hydroxyl sultaine, cocamphoacetate, sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, and combinations thereof” (page 15 line 6). Sodium methyl cocoyl taurate is a member of the acyl taurate family of surfactants. Zhu continues that this additional surfactant may be present in an amount ranging from 0.1 to 70 wt% relative to the total weight of the composition (page 15 line 19). Gupta teaches an invention that relates to the field of skin decontamination from harmful substances, such as nanoparticles, microplastic particles, and viruses (abstract). A typical embodiment as taught by Gupta comprises at least one water-soluble polymer, at least one phyllosilicate, charcoal and/or graphite, and water. Further, the invention is free of penetration enhancers (page 4 lines 5-12). The composition may also comprise other additional ingredients such as preservatives, gelation or viscosity increasing agents, and, notably, anti-inflammatory agents. These anti-inflammatory agents are beneficial for skin barrier function as taught by Gupta (page 12 line 17). One such agent is polycitronellol acetate, which may be included in a preferable range of 0.05 to 2% by weight (page 12 line 21). Nehme teaches qualities of emulsions in an effort to apply to the cosmetic field, as well as nutraceutical and pharmaceutical, a way to incorporate bioactive ingredients into oil-in-water emulsions (abstract). Nehme teaches that there are three main classifications of oil-in-water emulsions: micro-emulsions, mini or nano-emulsions, and macro-emulsions (introduction par. 1). These emulsions are distinguished by the droplet size of the emulsion. Nehme teaches that micro-emulsion droplet size ranges from 10-100 nm, mini or nano-emulsion droplet size ranges from 200-1000 nm, and macro-emulsion droplet sizes are greater than 1 micrometer in diameter (introduction par. 1). Nehme continues to state that “based on smaller droplets, micro-emulsions are thermodynamically more stable” (introduction par. 1). In other words, the smaller the droplet size, the more stable the emulsion is. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to produce a cosmetic cleansing or personal care composition as taught by Mitra with modifications as taught by Zhu, Gupta, and Nehme. As all references above relate to cosmetic compositions and developments in the field, it would have been prima facie obvious to combine the various teachings into a single embodiment that includes the polymer product as taught by Mitra alongside the surfactant as taught by Zhu, with the addition of polycitronellol acetate as taught by Gupta in the specific O/W emulsion droplet size as taught by Nehme. Regarding claim 1, Mitra teaches a hydrophobic polymer that is the reaction product of a natural or food-derived oil (i.e. linseed oil) and a methacrylate or acrylate polymer (i.e. isobutyl methacrylate). The resulting composition is an oil-in-water emulsion. Mitra also teaches the inclusion of water, as described supra. As Mitra continues that one or more surfactants may be included, and Zhu teaches a biosurfactant along with an additional surfactant, it would have been obvious to include 0.5 to 10 wt% the biosurfactant, including rhamnolipids and a co-surfactant, including sodium methyl cocoyl taurate at 0.1 to 70 wt% as taught by Zhu in the composition as taught by Mitra. Gupta teaches the inclusion of 0.05 to 2% by weight polycitronellol acetate as an anti-inflammatory agent. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to include polycitronellol in a capacity as an anti-inflammatory agent that imparts an ideal property of the composition as taught by Gupta. The composition as a whole would ideally have oil-in-water droplet size in the range of micro-emulsions or mini/nano-emulsions, as these are more stable emulsions as taught by Nehme. Therefore, it would have been obvious to develop the composition to have a droplet size in the range of 10-100 nm (for a micro-emulsion) or 200-1000 nm (for a mini/nano-emulsion) as thermodynamic stability is a desirable property in cosmetic compositions. The combination of the teachings as described supra would impart the benefits of the polymer as described by Mitra, along with the biosurfactant and co-surfactant benefits as taught by Zhu, as well as including the anti-inflammatory component of polycitronellol acetate taught by Gupta, with the stability as taught by Nehme. Regarding claim 1 and the limitation “one or more solvents capable of solubilizing the reaction product of (a)”, the inclusion of polycitronellol acetate (one or more solvents) is included as an anti-inflammatory, which would necessarily also function as a solvent for the reaction product of (a) (e.g., linseed oil and poly(isobutyl methacrylate)) as taught by Mitra. As evidenced by the instant specification polycitronellol acetate is necessarily a solvent that is capable of solubilizing the reaction product of (a) (e.g., see Table 1, pp. 9-11). Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979) Regarding claims 2, 3 and 8, linseed oil is necessarily a natural or food-derived oil (claim 3), and poly(isobutyl methacrylate) is a methacrylate polymer (as in claim 2), as taught by Mitra. The resulting polymer derived from these two ingredients would be a hydrophobic polymer (as in claim 8). Therefore, claims 2 and 8 are rejected. Regarding claims 4 and 7, Applicant has elected isobutyl methacrylate as the monomer (as in claim 4), which then is developed into a polymer (as in claim 7). Mitra teaches isobutyl methacrylate as a monomer to polymerize into poly(isobutyl methacrylate). Therefore, claims 4 and 7 are rejected. Regarding claims 5 and 6, Mitra teaches the oil in the cleansing coagulant system is present in a range from about 30% to about 45% by weight, and the polymer in the range from about 0.1% to about 20% by weight, both based on the weight of the cleansing coagulant system, as described supra. When the linseed oil is 45% and the isobutyl methacrylate is 15%, the linseed oil in the reaction product of the oil and polymer is 45/(45+15)=75%, and the isobutyl methacrylate is 25%. These amounts lie within the ranges as claimed in the instant claims. Therefore, claims 5 and 6 are rejected. Regarding claims 9-10, Gupta teaches polycitronellol acetate as an anti-inflammatory agent in cosmetic compositions from 0.05 to 2% by wt. As evidenced by the specification polycitronellol acetate has a distance (Ra) less than 13.4 MPa 0.5 (see Table 1, pp. 9-11). and would necessarily solubilize the reaction product of the linseed oil and poly(isobutyl methacrylate) (claim 1 component A). Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Regarding claims 11-17, Zhu teaches the inclusion of a biosurfactant (such as rhamnolipids) as well as the inclusion of an additional surfactant, or co-surfactant, alongside the biosurfactant(as in claim 14). In particular, Zhu teaches that this co-surfactant may be sodium methyl cocoyl taurate. Sodium methyl cocoyl taurate is an anionic surfactant (as in claim 15) of the acyl taurate family (as in claims 16 and 17). Regarding claim 18, the amount of oil and polymer in the overall cleansing coagulant has been described supra. When the cleansing coagulant system is 10% of the final cosmetic composition, the amount of reaction product of the oil and polymer is (45%+15%)x10%=6% reaction product in the overall composition. This is within the range as claimed in instant claim 18(a). As polycitronellol acetate would be included as an anti-inflammatory and has solvent properties, it would be obvious to include it in the final composition in the amount described by Gupta (i.e. 0.05-2 wt%), which lies within the range claimed by instant claim 18(b). As Zhu teaches the inclusion of a biosurfactant and co-surfactant, it would be obvious to include these in the composition as taught by Mitra, as described supra. Zhu teaches the inclusion of the biosurfactant (rhamnolipids) in 0.1 to 30 wt%, as described supra. Zhu also teaches the co- surfactant as described supra in 0.1 to 70 wt%, which is inclusive of the instantly claimed amount in instant claim 18(c)(ii). The final component as claimed in the instantly claimed composition is water, which is taught by Mitra to be present in 1 to 90 wt%. This overlaps with the instantly claimed amount of water in claim 18(d). The overall emulsion would also ideally have smaller droplet size diameter, as this is taught by Nehme to impart thermodynamic stability. Further, Nehme teaches the potential droplet sizes for micro-emulsions as described supra (i.e. 10-100 nm) and mini/nano-emulsions (i.e. 200-1000 nm). Therefore, it would be obvious to select a droplet size between 10 and 1000 nm to encourage stability of the product. All of these components in these amounts read on instant claim 18. See MPEP 2144.05: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In reWertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In reWoodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Therefore, claim 18 is rejected. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 14-19 of copending Application No. 18544283 (reference application). Claims 1-18 of the instant application recite a personal care composition comprising hydrophobic polymer that is the product of a natural or food-derived oil and a methacrylate or acrylate polymer, wherein the natural oil is linseed oil and the methacrylate or acrylate polymer is isobutyl methacrylate. The composition will further comprise a biosurfactant and optional co-surfactant, as well as a solvent to solubilize the polymer, wherein the resulting composition is an emulsion with a droplet size between 10 and 1000 nm. Claims 1-10 and 14-19 of copending application ‘283 recite a mineral sunscreen composition comprising a hydrophobic polymer that is the product of a natural or food-derived oil and a methacrylate or acrylate polymer, wherein the natural oil is linseed oil and the methacrylate or acrylate polymer is isobutyl methacrylate. The composition will further comprise a biosurfactant and optional co-surfactant, as well as a solvent to solubilize the polymer. These claims also recite the intended droplet size of 10 to 1000 nm. Instant claims 1-18 are obvious variants of claims 1-10 and 14-19 of the copending ‘283 Application because the reference application recites a cosmetic composition in the form of an oil-in-water emulsion comprising a hydrophobic polymer formed from a reaction of oil-in-water emulsion comprising a hydrophobic polymer formed from a reaction of oil (linseed oil in claim 3) and a methacrylate or acrylate polymer (isobutyl methacrylate in claim 4), a solvent (polycitronellol acetate in claim 10), surfactant (rhamnolipids in claim 14) and water, as well as droplet size and thus recites each limitation of Applicant’s claimed invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-28 AIA 08-28-fti 08-28-aia Claim s 1-18 are directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claim s 1-10 and 14-19 of commonly assigned copending application ‘283 . Specifically, see above . 08-28-01-aia The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The USPTO normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). Commonly assigned copending application 18544283, discussed above, may form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention. In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Alternatively, the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; the application must also be amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. A showing that the inventions were commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based upon the commonly assigned case. Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions. Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 18544195 (reference application). Claims 1-18 of the instant application have been described supra. Claims 1-18 of copending application ‘195 recites a cleansing wipe comprising a hydrophobic polymer formed as a reaction product of linseed oil and isobutyl methacrylate, wherein the surfactant may be a biosurfactant or anionic surfactant, or combination thereof, wherein it further comprises a solvent capable of solubilizing said reaction product, and water. The claims also recite the ideal droplet size for the oil-in-water emulsion. Instant claims 1-18 are obvious variants of claims 1-18 of the copending ‘195 Application because the reference application recites a cosmetic composition in the form of an oil-in-water emulsion comprising a hydrophobic polymer formed from a reaction of oil-in-water emulsion comprising a hydrophobic polymer formed from a reaction of oil (linseed oil in claim 3) and a methacrylate or acrylate polymer (isobutyl methacrylate in claim 4), a solvent (polycitronellol acetate in claim 11), surfactant (rhamnolipids in claim 12) and water, as well as droplet size and thus recites each limitation of Applicant’s claimed invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10,14-19 and 22 of copending Application No. 18544254. Claims 1-18 of the instant application have been described supra. Claim 1-10, 14-19 and 22 of copending application ‘254 recite a cosmetic composition comprising a hydrophobic polymer formed as a reaction product of linseed oil and isobutyl methacrylate, wherein the surfactant may be a biosurfactant or anionic surfactant, or combination thereof, wherein it further comprises a solvent capable of solubilizing said reaction product, and water. The claims also recite the ideal droplet size for the oil-in-water emulsion. Instant claims 1-18 are obvious variants of claims 1-10,14-19 and 22 of the copending ‘254 Application because the reference application recites a cosmetic composition in the form of an oil-in-water emulsion comprising a hydrophobic polymer formed from a reaction of oil-in-water emulsion comprising a hydrophobic polymer formed from a reaction of oil (linseed oil in claim 3) and a methacrylate or acrylate polymer (isobutyl methacrylate in claim 4), a solvent (polycitronellol acetate in claim 10), surfactant (rhamnolipids in claim 14) and water, and thus recites each limitation of Applicant’s claimed invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-28 AIA 08-28-fti 08-28-aia Claim s 1-18 are directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claim s 1-10, 14-19, and 22 of commonly assigned copending application ‘254 . Specifically, see above . The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The USPTO normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411). Commonly assigned copending application 18544254, discussed above, may form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention. In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Alternatively, the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; the application must also be amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement. A showing that the inventions were commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based upon the commonly assigned case. Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions. Claims 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18543636in view of Nehme ( Production of oil in water emulsions in microchannels at high throughput: Evaluation of emulsions in view of cosmetic, nutraceutical or pharmaceutical applications, Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process Intensification 161; 108301, published 2/2/2021). Claims 1-18 of the instant application have been described supra. Claims 1-19 of the copending application ‘636 recite a cosmetic composition comprising a hydrophobic polymer formed as a reaction product of linseed oil and isobutyl methacrylate, wherein the surfactant may be a biosurfactant or anionic surfactant, or combination thereof, wherein it further comprises a solvent capable of solubilizing said reaction product, and water. The claims do not recite the ideal droplet size for the oil-in-water emulsion. This deficiency is made up for by Nehme. Nehme is described supra. Instant claims 1-18 are obvious variants of claims 1-19 of the copending ‘636 Application in view of Nehme because copending ‘636 recites a cosmetic composition in the form of an oil-in-water emulsion comprising a hydrophobic polymer formed from a reaction of oil-in-water emulsion comprising a hydrophobic polymer formed from a reaction of oil (linseed oil in claim 3) and a methacrylate or acrylate polymer (isobutyl methacrylate in claim 4), a solvent (polycitronellol acetate in claim 10), surfactant (rhamnolipids in claim 14) and water. The oil droplet size of 10-100 nm and 200-1000 nm would have been prima facie obvious as it would impart greater product stability as taught by Nehme. This is a desirable quality in a composition comprising the ingredients above, so modification with the teachings of Nehme would be obvious, and thus the combination recites each limitation of Applicant’s claimed invention. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW RYAN BURKE whose telephone number is (571)272-8949. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-5pm. 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, David Blanchard can be reached at 5712720827. 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. /MATTHEW RYAN BURKE/Examiner, Art Unit 1619 /DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 2 Art Unit: 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 3 Art Unit: 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 4 Art Unit: 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 5 Art Unit: 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 6 Art Unit: 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 7 Art Unit: 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 8 Art Unit: 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 9 Art Unit: 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 10 Art Unit: 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 11 Art Unit: 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 12 Art Unit: 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 13 Art Unit: 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 14 Art Unit: 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 15 Art Unit: 1619 Application/Control Number: 18/544,223 Page 16 Art Unit: 1619
Prosecution Insights