CTNF 18/718,966 CTNF 86350 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by CN107822942. CN’942 is cited on the 6/12/2024. The Examiner has provided the machine translation relied upon below . Example 3 of CN’942 discloses a cleansing cream formula comprising: 5.10% cetyl alcohol – reading on fatty alcohol of instant claims 1(a) and 3; 1.15% isopropyl myristate – reading on fatty acid ester oil being a monoester of fatty acids and a monoalcohol of instant claims 1(b)-2 and 4; 1.5% propylene glycol – reading on C2-C4 diol of instant claims 1(c) and 5; 2.4% water – reading on instant claim 1(d) and 6. Regarding claims 1 and 7: Example 3 teaches a total content of oils (i.e. mixture of the liquid paraffin, petrolatum, cetyl alcohol, isopropyl myristate and white oil) in an amounts of 13.65% which anticipates the “less than 15% claimed” and “1.5-14%”. Regarding claim 11: Example 3 comprises ascorbic acid reading on hydrophilic active agent for skin. Regarding claim 12: Instant claim 12 requires the composition to comprise “less than 1%” of N-acylamino acid ester oils, this embraces amounts of 0%. Example 3 comprises 0% N-acylamino acid ester oils. Regarding claim 13: Example 3 comprises 1.5% sodium lauroyl glutamate, reading on surfactant in amounts of 5% or less . 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-8, 11-13 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Maloug (WO 2021/219547). Maloug is cited on the 2/19/2026 IDS . Composition A of Example 1 of Maloug discloses a transparent liquid composition comprising: 2% myristal alcohol - reading on fatty alcohol of instant claims 1(a) and 3; 0.9% of caprylic/capric triglyceride – reading on fatty acid ester oil of instant claims 1(b) and 4; 43.59% propylene glycol - reading on C2-C4 diol of instant claims 1(c); 0% water - reading on “less than 35%” water which embraces 0%. Regarding claims 1 and 7: Composition A comprises a total content of oils of 2.9%. Regarding claim 8: Composition A comprises 50% of a monoalcohol (i.e. ethanol). Regarding claim 11: Composition A comprises citric acid reading on hydrophilic active agent for skin. Regarding claim 12: Instant claim 12 requires the composition to comprise “less than 1%” of N-acylamino acid ester oils, this embraces amounts of 0%. Composition A comprises 0% N-acylamino acid ester oils. Regarding claim 13: Example 3 comprises 3% stearamidopropyldimethyl amine, reading on surfactant in amounts of 5% or less. Regarding claim 14: The originally filed specification defines “homogenous” to be single phase. Maloug teaches the resultant composition to be a transparent liquid which reads on a homogenous solution with a single clear liquid phase. Regarding claim 15: Example 1 teaches the application of composition A to hair, which resulted in hair having a more supple and smooth feel, reading on the claimed cosmetic process . 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) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloug (WO 2021/219547) . Maloug discloses anhydrous compositions comprising polyols, monoalcohols, fatty amines and carboxylic acids (Abs). Regarding claim 1(a) and 3: Maloug teaches the composition to preferably comprise a fatty alcohol in amounts ranging from 1-18% (pg. 8, lines 10-15 and pg. 9, lines 5-10). Regarding claim 1(b), 2 and 4: Maloug teaches that in addition to the fatty alcohols, the composition may comprise one or more fatty substances chosen from esters of fatty acids (selected from a finite number of options. Suitable preferred esters for use include ethyl, isopropyl, myristyl, cetyl or stearyl palmitates (reading on fatty acid ester is a monoester of fatty acids and a monoalcohol). These can be used in amounts ranging from 0.5-10% (pg. 9, lines 10-15 and pg. 10, lines 10-21). Regarding claims 1(c) and 5: Maloug teaches the composition to comprise 10-70% of a polyol, preferably propylene glycol (i.e. C2-C4 diol) (pg. 3, lines 14-18). Regarding claim 1(d) and 6: Maloug teaches that anhydrous formulations embrace those comprising not more than 5% water, thus it’s obvious to formulate the composition to comprise 0% water or 5% or less water. Claim 1 requires the composition to comprise less than 15% total oils and claim 7 recites 1.5-14% oils. As discussed above, Maloug teaches the inclusion of 1-18% fatty alcohols and 0.5-10% other fatty substances, no other oils are required or needed to be present, thus the oils make up 1.5-28% of the composition which overlaps with the claimed ranges. Furthermore, composition A in Examples 1 exemplifies a composition having less than 14% oils. Regarding claim 8: Maloug teaches the compositions to comprise 10-70% of monoalcohols (pg. 4, lines 4-5). Regarding claims 9-10: As discussed above, Maloug teaches the inclusion of propylene glycol as a suitable polyol. Maloug teaches the inclusion of one or more polyols, suggesting that mixtures can be used. Maloug teaches that suitable polyols for use include those having 2-3 hydroxyl OH groups (i.e. diols and triols) and these may comprise 2-8 carbons atoms, such as pentylene glycol (i.e. C5 diol), as such it would have been prima facie obvious to a skilled artisan to use a mixture of polyols as suggested by Maloug, including propylene glycol, pentylene glycol and polyols having 3 hydroxyl OH groups (i.e. triols) with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 11: Maloug teaches the composition to comprise carboxylic acids such as citric acid or salicylic acid (pg. 7, lines 25-40), reading on hydrophilic active agent. Regarding claim 12: Instant claim 12 requires the composition to comprise “less than 1%” of N-acylamino acid ester oils, this embraces amounts of 0%. Maloug does not teach the inclusion of this ingredient thus teaching 0% N-acylamino acid ester oils. Regarding claim 13: Maloug teaches the inclusion of fatty amines preferably stearamidopropyldimethylamine in amounts ranging from 0.1-15% (pg. 6, lines 20-30). Regarding claim 14: The originally filed specification defines “homogenous” to be single phase. Maloug teaches the resultant composition to be a transparent liquid which reads on a homogenous solution with a single clear liquid phase. Regarding claim 15: Maloug teaches cosmetic processes for treating keratin fibers by topical application of the composition (pg. 10, lines 28-30) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-13, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maloug (WO 2021/219547) , as applied to claim s 1-13 and 15 above, and further in view of Suzuki (WO 2011/016139) . As discussed above, Maloug makes obvious the limitations of claims 1-13 and 15 and teaches the resultant composition to be a transparent liquid, however, in the alternative that Maloug does not teach a solution. Suzuki teaches cosmetic compositions in the form of emulsions, suspension, solutions, etc. and teaches that a person of skill in the art can choose the appropriate presentation form on the basis of his/her general knowledge, taking into account the nature of the constituents used, their solubility in the vehicle and the application envisaged (pg. 44-45). As such it would have been prima facie obvious for a skilled artisan to formulate the composition to have any desired presentation form, such as a solution as, its well established that a skilled artisan would have the knowledge necessary to achieve various distinct presentation forms and solutions are well known in the art . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson (US 2018/0338900) . Patterson discloses methods of treating hair comprising application of a hair treatment composition. Regarding claim 1(a) and (b): Patterson teaches the composition to comprise one or more hair fatty compounds, these include fatty alcohols and esters of short chain alcohols and fatty acids. The one or more compounds can be selected from cetyl esters, octyldodecanol, cetearyl alcohol, isostearyl alcohol and mixtures thereof. This the use of cetyl esters and octyldodecanol and/or cetearyl alcohol is prima facie obvious as mixtures are contemplated and these are appear to be preferred [0057 and examples 1-3 and 5). Regarding claim 2: Patterson teaches that a suitable fatty compounds for use include isopropyl myristate [0057]., reading on monoester of fatty acid and a monoalcohol. Regarding claims 3-4: Patterson teaches the one or more fatty compounds to be present in amounts ranging from 1-20%, preferably about 1-10% [0058]., as such it would have been prima facie obvious to use the mixture of fatty compounds discussed above in a total amounts of 1-10% as this is contemplated and provides individual ranges of fatty acid ester oil and fatty alcohols that overlap with the claimed ranges and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious absent evidenced of criticality. Regarding claims 1 and 7: Patterson teaches the one or more fatty compounds o be present in amounts ranging from 1-20%, preferably about 1-10% [0058] and teaches that silicones including silicone oils can be present in amounts of 0.01-5% [0066], this provides a range of oils this falls within the claimed “less than 15%” and “1.5-14%” and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious. Working examples 1-2 exemplify compositions having less than 15% oils. Regarding claims 1(c) and 9-10 :Patterson teaches that composition to comprise one or more water soluble solvents, these include hexylene glycol (C6 diol), caprylyl glycol (C8 diol), propylene glycol (C3 diol) and glycerin (i.e. triol, selected from a finite number of options) and mixtures thereof ([0061] and example 3), as such it would have been prima facie obvious to use a combination of the water soluble solvents listed above with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 5: Patterson teaches that the one or more water soluble solvents can be used in total amount ranging from 0.1-25% [0064] which provide an amounts of propylene glycol that overlaps with the claimed ranges. Regarding claims 1(d) and 6: Patterson teaches the formulation can be in the form of gels, lotions, creams, aerated products (i.e. mousse), etc. and comprise water in amounts ranging from 15-90% [0125 and 0130], which overlaps with the claimed “less than 35%”. Regarding claim 8: Patterson teaches that suitable water soluble solvents for use also include C1-4 alcohols including ethanol, methanol, butanol, propanol and isopropanol (i.e. all monoalcohols). Regarding claim 11: Patterson teaches that preservative such as salicylic acid (i.e. hydrophilic active agent for skin) can be included [0081] and citric acid as a conditioning agent can be also be added [0570]. Regarding claim 12: Instant claim 12 requires the composition to comprise “less than 1%” of N-acylamino acid ester oils, this embraces amounts of 0%. Patterson does not teach the inclusion of this ingredient thus teaching 0% N-acylamino acid ester oils. Regarding claim 13: Patterson teaches that emulsifiers and/or surfactants [0055] can be added in amounts ranging from 0.01-10% [0056]. Regarding claim 15: Patterson teaches method of treating hair by applying to the hair a hair treatment composition (Abs) to provide a variety of benefits such as manageability, softness, smoothness, frizz control (i.e. caring for) [0001]. Patterson does not teach a specific embodiment having all the claimed elements. That being said, however, it must be remembered that “[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. AG. Pro , 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious,” the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR at 1741. The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is... a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been prima facie obvious to have selected various combinations of various disclosed ingredients including fatty alcohols, fatty acid esters, water, water-soluble solvents, monoalcohols, surfactants, polyols, etc. as discussed above for topical application to the hair from within a prior art disclosure, to arrive at compositions “yielding no more than one would expect from such an arrangement.” 07-22-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-13, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patterson (US 2018/0338900) , as applied to claim s 1-13 and 15 above, and further in view of Suzuki (WO 2011/016139) . As discussed above, Patterson makes obvious the limitations of claims 1-13 and 15 but does not teach the composition to be a homogenous solution. Patteron does teach formulating compositions which are homogenized to allow for uniform gelling [0565]. Patterson also teaches that the composition can be formulated as anhydrous compositions, W/O or O/W emulsions [0083], gels, lotions, mousse, etc. [0125]. Suzuki teaches cosmetic compositions in the form of emulsions, suspension, solutions, etc. and teaches that a person of skill in the art can choose the appropriate presentation form on the basis of his/her general knowledge, taking into account the nature of the constituents used, their solubility in the vehicle and the application envisaged (pg. 44-45). As such it would have been prima facie obvious for a skilled artisan to formulate the composition to have any desired presentation form, such as a homogenous solution as, its well established that a skilled artisan would have the knowledge necessary to achieve various distinct presentation forms and solutions are well known in the art and Patterson teaches that various compositional forms are suitable for use and teaches homogenization to ensure uniformity . 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. 08-35 Claim s 1-7, 9-10, 11-13 and 15 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 11, 17-18, 24-29, 33, 35-39 of copending Application No. 17/187819 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both discloses compositions comprising fatty alcohols (cetearyl alcohol), fatty acid ester oils (isopropyl palmitate), C2-C4 diol (i.e. propylene glycol) and pentylene glycol; glycerin (i.e. triol) in overlapping amounts. US’819 teaches amounts of water and oil that overlap with those claimed, reading on claims 1-7 and 9-10. US’819 teaches polyquaternium-37 (i.e. hydrophilic active), does not comprise N-acylamino acids and comprises surfactants in overlapping amounts, reading on claims 11-13. US’819 teaches methods of treating hair by applying the composition to hair, reading on claim 15 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-35 Claim s 1-12 and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 4-10, 12-13 and 15-16 of copending Application No. 18/570450 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach compositions comprising monoalcohols, fatty alcohols, fatty acid ester oils (isopropyl palmitate), C2-C4 diol (i.e. propylene glycol) and pentylene glycol; glycerin (i.e. triol) in overlapping amounts. US’450 teaches amounts of water and oil that overlap with those claimed, reading on claims 1-7 and 9-10. US’450 teaches a hydrophilic active and it does not comprise N-acylamino acids, reading on claims 11-12. US’450 teaches methods of treating keratin materials by applying the composition to keratin materials, reading on claim 15 . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion No claims are allowable. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Berrios whose telephone number is (571)270-7679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 9am-4pm and Friday 9am-3:30pm. 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, Brian Kwon can be reached at (571) 272-0581. 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. /JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/718,966 Page 2 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/718,966 Page 3 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/718,966 Page 4 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/718,966 Page 5 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/718,966 Page 6 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/718,966 Page 7 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/718,966 Page 8 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/718,966 Page 9 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/718,966 Page 10 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/718,966 Page 11 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/718,966 Page 12 Art Unit: 1613
Prosecution Insights