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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of 18/686,007
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 11 are currently pending.
Priority
Instant application 18/686,007, filed 2/23/2024, claims priority as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
90
388
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The priority document submitted in the file wrapper is not translated to English and as a result, priority cannot be established. Thus, the instant claims are granted an effective filing date of 9/9/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
All references from the IDS’s submitted on 2/23/2024 and 4/11/2024 have been considered unless marked with a strikethrough. The Examiner notes the cite No. A5. struck through on the IDS of 2/23/2024 did not contain a translated abstract and was thus not formally considered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
The amendment filed 7/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 8 are currently amended and claims 2-3, 6, and 9-10 have been cancelled. Claim 11 has been added, but is not considered new matter.
In the Non-Final dated 5/1/2026, the abstract was objected to for insufficient length. In response, Applicant has submitted a new, adequate abstract, which overcomes the objection. Thus, the objection is withdrawn.
Claim 8 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) in the Non-Final dated 5/1/2026. In response, Applicant has struck through the term “derivative”, and has amended claim 8 to recite specific compounds, which overcomes the rejection. The rejection is withdrawn.
In the Non-Final dated 5/1/2026, claims 1-10 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). In response, Applicant has cancelled claims 2-3, 6, and 9-10, and has amended claim 1 to recite a mass % limitation for ingredient C and include a nonionic surfactant limitation. Further, Applicant argues that the reference Pola does not teach or suggest at least one element of the claimed subject matter. Specifically, Applicant argues that Pola does not teach or suggest that ingredient C, identified as octyldodecyl myristate in Pola, has a mass % of 0.1 to 20 mass % with respect to the total amount of oil-in-water emulsion cosmetic. However, the Examiner disagrees, as Pola discloses that octyldodecyl myristate is present in the formulation at a concentration of 1 mass% (page 30, row 47, original document). The Examiner also notes that instant claim 1 recites, “an oil”, which is currently being interpreted as a single ingredient, not the sum of all compounds able to be interpreted as oils in the formulation. Additionally, Applicant argues that Pola does not teach or suggest element (G) recited in claim 1, which is a nonionic surfactant in an amount of 0.1 to 1.0 mass % with respect to the total amount of oil-in-water emulsion cosmetic because the sum of all nonionic surfactants in Pola’s Example 20 is at least 2.0% mass. Similar to above, the Examiner disagrees because Example 20 of Pola contains PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil (page 32, row 15, original document), which is a nonionic surfactant, at a concentration of 0.1 mass%. Instant claim 1 also recites, “a nonionic surfactant”, which is currently being interpreted as a single ingredient and not the sum of all compounds able to be interpreted as nonionic surfactants in the formulation. Applicants arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive as per the arguments above. Thus, the rejection is maintained. The claims have been updated to reflect Applicant’s claim changes.
Claims 7 and 8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the Non-Final dated 5/1/2026. In response, Applicant argues that Pola does not teach or suggest either ingredient (C) in an amount of 0.1 to 20 mass% with respect to the total amount of the oil-in-water emulsion cosmetic or ingredient (G) in an amount of 0.1 to 1.0 mass% with respect to the total amount of the oil-in-water emulsion cosmetic. Applicant arguments have been considered, but are not persuasive for the same reasons described in the response to the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection above. Additionally, Applicant presents surprising and unexpected results disclosed in the specification. However, the comparative examples disclosed in instant Table 1 are not able to be compared head to head with the cosmetic recited in the instant claims because comparative example 1 and comparative example 2 do not contain 1-(2-Hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone and acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer at the same time, which is required by the elected species of instant claim 1. In fact, comparative example 1 and comparative example 2 do not contain both 1-(2-Hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone and an alkyl-modified carboxyvinyl polymer, which is required by claim 1. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claims 1-10 were rejected in the Non-Final dated 5/1/2026 on the ground(s) of nonstatutory double patenting. Applicant requested that the double patenting rejection be held in abeyance until the conflicting applications issue as a patents or the present application is indicated to be otherwise in condition for allowance. This request is acknowledged. However, Applicant is reminded that the Office cannot hold a rejection in abeyance and “[i]n order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner's action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action.” Because Applicant has failed to present an amendment or argument that overcomes the present rejection, the provisional rejection is maintained. Any future submissions that fail to address the merits of the non-statutory double patenting rejection might be deemed to be non-responsive.
However, Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground(s) of objection presented in this Office Action.
Election/Restriction
Applicant’s telephonic election of 1-(2-Hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone as the species of instant Formula (1), acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer as the species of alkyl-modified carboxyvinyl polymer, and ester oil as the species of oil, by Attorney Benny
Berkowitz on 4/21/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Examination will begin with the elected species. In accordance with MPEP § 803.02, if upon examination of the elected species, no prior art is found that would anticipate or render obvious the instant invention based on the elected species, the search of the Markush-type claim will be extended. If prior art is then found that anticipates or renders obvious the non- elected species, the Markush-type claim will be rejected. It should be noted that the prior art search will not be extended unnecessarily to cover all non-elected species. Should Applicant overcome the rejection by amending the claim, the amended claim will be examined again. The prior art search will be extended to the extent necessary to determine patentability of the Markush-type claim. In the event prior art is found during further examination that renders obvious or anticipates the amended Markush-type claim, the claim will be rejected and the action made final.
In the Non-Final dated 5/1/2026, the elected species was searched and prior art was identified. The rejections were not overcome in the response filed 7/24/2026. See the 102 and 103 rejections below. The search was not expanded and the full scope of the claims has not yet been searched in accordance with Markush search practice. However, in the interest of compact prosecution, claim 11 is added to the claims under examination. Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 11 are thus the subject of this Office Action.
MAINTAINTED REJECTIONS
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pola Chem Ind Inc (JP2020180103 (A), cited in the IDS of 2/23/2024, herein after “Pola”). This rejection applies to the elected species.
The reference Pola discloses wrinkle improving compositions (title and abstract), and specifically discloses Example 20 (para [0083], translated document and Table 9, original document), which is an oil-in-water emulsion with excellent stability and usability. Example 20 contains 1-(2-Hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone (page 32, row 53, original document), which is a cyclic carboxamide derivative, acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross polymer (page 31, row 13, original document), which is an alkyl-modified carboxyvinyl polymer, octyldodecyl myristate at a concentration of 1.0 mass% (page 30, row 47, original document), which is an ester oil, water (page 32, last row, original document), and PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil (page 32, row 15, original document), which is a nonionic surfactant, at a concentration of 0.1 mass%, which anticipates instant claim 1.
With respect to claim 4, 1-(2-Hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone is present in the formulation at a concentration of 0.1 mass% (page 32, row 53, original document).
With respect to claim 7, Pola discloses formulations may contain POE/POP alkyl ethers (page 12, para [0059], translated document), which satisfies instant Formula 2 with multiple interpretations. The instant specification gives examples of the alkylene oxide derivative on (page 8, para [0026]). Though POE/POP alkyl ethers thereof are not explicitly defined in Example 20, a skilled artisan could at once envisage the addition of a POE/POP alkyl ether to the formulation given the small number of examples provided.
With respect to claims 8 and 11, Pola discloses the formulations may contain nicotinic acid or a derivative thereof, and further go on to describe the preferred examples of nicotinic acid derivatives as nicotinic acid amide, nicotinic acid ester, tocopherol nicotinate, benzyl nicotinate, methyl nicotinate, and ethyl nicotinate (page 8, para [0045]). Though nicotinic acid or derivatives thereof are not explicitly defined in Example 20, a skilled artisan could at once envisage the addition of nicotinic acid or a derivative thereof to the formulation given the small number of compounds provided.
Thus, Pola anticipates claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 11.
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 7-8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pola Chem Ind Inc (JP2020180103 (A), cited in the IDS of 2/23/2024, herein after “Pola”).
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art
Pola teaches as disclosed above, and at least those teachings are incorporated herein.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Pola fails to teach a working example of the elected composition comprising an alkylene oxide derivative of instant Formula (2) and nicotinic acid amide or another compound similar to nicotinic acid.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art
The level of ordinary skill in the art is represented by an artisan who has sufficient background in the development of oil-in-water emulsion cosmetics. An artisan possesses the technical knowledge necessary to make the adjustments to the emulsion cosmetics to enhance their effectiveness. Said artisan has also reviewed the problems in the art as regards to oil-in-water emulsion cosmetics and understands the solutions that are widely known in the art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness
Above, the Examiner took the position that a skilled artisan could at once envisage the combination given the small number of examples found in Pola. In the alternative, applying KSR prong (A), it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone, acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate cross polymer, octyldodecyl myristate, water, and a PEG-60 hydrogenated castor oil with an alkylene oxide Formula (2), such as POE/POP alkyl ether, and/or nicotinic acid or a derivative thereof because Pola teaches a small number of examples, and one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the combination to be successful in generating an oil-in-water emulsion cosmetic. The artisan would be motivated before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to test combinations of compounds for the same purpose to improve the overall oil-in-water emulsion cosmetics and would have readily predicted success in light of the teachings of Pola.
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, 4-5, 7-8, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 and 9-10 of copending Application No. 18/036,755 (herein after the ‘755 App) in view of Pola Chem Ind Inc (JP2020180103 (A), cited in the IDS of 2/23/2024, herein after “Pola”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘755 App teach a composition comprising 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone and nicotinamide. Though the ‘755 App fails to teach all limitations of the instant claims, the insufficiencies are satisfied by the teachings of Pola. Pola teaches as disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated herein. Applying KSR prong (A), it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the ‘755 App and Pola to arrive at the limitations of the instant claims because they are both used for oil-in-water emulsion cosmetics. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated before the effective filing date to combine the teachings in order to identify additional cosmetics, and would readily predict the success of the combination.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 9 of copending Application No. 18/705,975 (herein after the ‘975 App) in view of Pola Chem Ind Inc (JP2020180103 (A), cited in the IDS of 2/23/2024, herein after “Pola”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘975 App teach a composition comprising 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone, an oil, and water. Though the ‘975 App fails to teach all limitations of the instant claims, the insufficiencies are satisfied by the teachings of Pola. Pola teaches as disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated herein. Applying KSR prong (A), it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the ‘975 App and Pola to arrive at the limitations of the instant claims because they are both used for oil-in-water emulsion cosmetics. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated before the effective filing date to combine the teachings in order to identify additional cosmetics, and would readily predict the success of the combination.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/711,955 (herein after the ‘955 App) in view of Pola Chem Ind Inc (JP2020180103 (A), cited in the IDS of 2/23/2024, herein after “Pola”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘955 App teach a composition comprising 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone, an oil, and water. Though the ‘955 App fails to teach all limitations of the instant claims, the insufficiencies are satisfied by the teachings of Pola. Pola teaches as disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated herein. Applying KSR prong (A), it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the ‘955 App and Pola to arrive at the limitations of the instant claims because they are both used for oil-in-water emulsion cosmetics. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated before the effective filing date to combine the teachings in order to identify additional cosmetics, and would readily predict the success of the combination.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of copending Application No. 18/726,502 (herein after the ‘502 App) in view of Pola Chem Ind Inc (JP2020180103 (A), cited in the IDS of 2/23/2024, herein after “Pola”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘502 App teach a composition comprising 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone and vitamin B6. Though the ‘502 App fails to teach all limitations of the instant claims, the insufficiencies are satisfied by the teachings of Pola. Pola teaches as disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated herein. Applying KSR prong (A), it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the ‘502 App and Pola to arrive at the limitations of the instant claims because they are both used for oil-in-water emulsion cosmetics. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated before the effective filing date to combine the teachings in order to identify additional cosmetics, and would readily predict the success of the combination.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 8-10 of copending Application No. 18/726,524 (herein after the ‘524 App) in view of Pola Chem Ind Inc (JP2020180103 (A), cited in the IDS of 2/23/2024, herein after “Pola”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘524 App teach a composition comprising 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone and adenosine. Though the ‘524 App fails to teach all limitations of the instant claims, the insufficiencies are satisfied by the teachings of Pola. Pola teaches as disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated herein. Applying KSR prong (A), it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the ‘524 App and Pola to arrive at the limitations of the instant claims because they are both used for oil-in-water emulsion cosmetics. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated before the effective filing date to combine the teachings in order to identify additional cosmetics, and would readily predict the success of the combination.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 7-8 of copending Application No. 18/726,477 (herein after the ‘477 App) in view of Pola Chem Ind Inc (JP2020180103 (A), cited in the IDS of 2/23/2024, herein after “Pola”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘477 App teach a composition comprising 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone and an organic acid. Though the ‘477 App fails to teach all limitations of the instant claims, the insufficiencies are satisfied by the teachings of Pola. Pola teaches as disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated herein. Applying KSR prong (A), it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the ‘477 App and Pola to arrive at the limitations of the instant claims because they are both used for oil-in-water emulsion cosmetics. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated before the effective filing date to combine the teachings in order to identify additional cosmetics, and would readily predict the success of the combination.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No. 18/695,084 (herein after the ‘084 App) in view of Pola Chem Ind Inc (JP2020180103 (A), cited in the IDS of 2/23/2024, herein after “Pola”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘084 App teach a composition comprising 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone. Though the ‘084 App fails to teach all limitations of the instant claims, the insufficiencies are satisfied by the teachings of Pola. Pola teaches as disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated herein. Applying KSR prong (A), it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the ‘084 App and Pola to arrive at the limitations of the instant claims because they are both used for oil-in-water emulsion cosmetics. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated before the effective filing date to combine the teachings in order to identify additional cosmetics, and would readily predict the success of the combination.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, of copending Application No. 18/719,582 (herein after the ‘582 App) in view of Pola Chem Ind Inc (JP2020180103 (A), cited in the IDS of 2/23/2024, herein after “Pola”).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘582 App teach a composition comprising 1-(2-hydroxyethyl)-2-imidazolidinone and a surfactant. Though the ‘582 App fails to teach all limitations of the instant claims, the insufficiencies are satisfied by the teachings of Pola. Pola teaches as disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated herein. Applying KSR prong (A), it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the ‘582 App and Pola to arrive at the limitations of the instant claims because they are both used for oil-in-water emulsion cosmetics. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated before the effective filing date to combine the teachings in order to identify additional cosmetics, and would readily predict the success of the combination.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
NEW CLAIM OBJECTIONS
Claim 1 is objected to for minor grammatical informalities. Claim 1 recites, “an oil, an amount of the component (C)”, and “a nonionic surfactant, an amount of the component (G)”, but should recite “an oil, wherein an amount of the component (C)”, and “a nonionic surfactant, wherein an amount of the component (G)”, respectively. This is similar to the drafting of claim 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 11 are rejected. Claim 1 is also objected to.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kendall Heitmeier whose telephone number is (703)756-1555. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-5:00PM ET.
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, Clinton Brooks can be reached at 571-270-7682. 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.
/K.N.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1621
/CLINTON A BROOKS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1621
Prosecution Insights