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
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1: glycerin as in claims 1-15 and 18-20; 2. Species 2: avobenzone as in claims 1-6, 8-15, and 18-20; 3. Species 3: propylene glycol as in claims 1-12 and 18-20; and 4. Species 5: sodium polyacrylate as in claims 1-15 and 18-20, in the reply filed on 08/05/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 7 and13-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/05/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, indefiniteness
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 15 and 18-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites a limitation “primary emulsifier” which is a relative term and makes the claim indefinite. The term “primary” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “primary” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant suggests reciting claim 4 in a Markush format as “selected from the group consisting of”.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Mintel GNPD Record ID 9025652 "Anti Stains Caring Roll-On SPF 50+", Sep 2021, XP93008357, presented in IDS).
Mintel shows a composition comprising a sunscreen filter (homosalate, butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane, ethylhexylsalicylate, bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine, ethylhexyl triazone), water as major component, and glycerin as the component present in the third highest amount, in a roll-on applicator. Mintel teaches propylene glycol in ingredients. Thus, the art teaches use of a sunscreen composition/formulations comprising a sunscreen filter, water, glycerin. This combination is not in a single embodiment. However, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results of making a sunscreen composition in a personal care product, see MPEP 2143 part (I)(A). Amount of the component is a result effective variable and one of ordinary skill would have manipulated the amounts in order to obtain optimum sunscreen filter composition.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delaune et al. (WO 2019/121442A1, presented in IDS)
Delaune et al. discloses in Table 1 an O/W emulsion comprising sunscreen filter (octocrylene, BMDM, ethylhexyl salicylate, MBBT), 40-90% water (ca.59%), a dispensing agent including a polyol (glycerin), and a co- emulsifier (cetyl alcohol). No primary emulsifier is used. Propylene glycol is taught on pages 10 and 13. Thus, the art teaches use of a sunscreen composition/formulations comprising a sunscreen filter, water, glycerin. This combination is not in a single embodiment. However, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results of making a sunscreen composition in a personal care product, see MPEP 2143 part (I)(A). Amount of the component is a result effective variable and one of ordinary skill would have manipulated the amounts in order to obtain optimum sunscreen filter composition.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, 15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Siefken et al. (US PG 2021/145722 A1).
Siefken et al. discloses in formulations 5 to 7 sunscreen compositions which do not comprise the "primary emulsifiers", which comprise "co-emulsifiers", as well as polyol. For example, formulation 6 comprises sunscreen filter (octocrylene, titanium dioxide), 40-90% water (ca.69%), a dispensing agent including a polyol (glycerin), and a co-emulsifier (2.0% cetyl alcohol, 0.4% sodium polyacrylate). No primary emulsifier is used. Propylene glycol is listed in Table 17. Thus, the art teaches use of a sunscreen composition/formulations comprising a sunscreen filter, water, glycerin. This combination is not in a single embodiment. However, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results of making a sunscreen composition in a personal care product, see MPEP 2143 part (I)(A). Amount of the component is a result effective variable and one of ordinary skill would have manipulated the amounts in order to obtain optimum sunscreen filter composition.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA MAEWALL whose telephone number is (571)272-6197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached on 571-272-6897. 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.
/SNIGDHA MAEWALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights