DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The submitted information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 10/01/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner. Please see signed and attached form 1449.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims recite “use” without significantly more and is not supported by either a word "use" asserted utility or a well-established utility.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-7, 10-15 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 1-7, 10-15 are indefinite for reciting “preferably, more preferably, more preferred, most preferred, or particularly”, which are not clear because the scope of the claim is not clear and if the limitation following the term is the narrower embodiment, which is meant to limit the claim.
For examining purpose, “preferably, more preferably, more preferred, most preferred, or particularly” is not considered in the listed claims.
Claim 15 is indefinite for reciting “use” because the claimed invention is not supported by either a "use" asserted utility or a well-established utility for the reasons set forth above, one skilled in the art clearly would not know how to use the claimed invention.
For examination purpose, the word "use" is removed in this application.
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 non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8-9 and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki et al. (US 20170333301 Al), in view of Swoboda (US 12178894 B2), Sigurani et al. (US 20220142886 Al) and Agnes et al. (FR 2903306 A1).
Claims 1, 4, 9 and 13,
Yamaki et al. teach water-in-oil emulsion sunscreen cosmetic. (Title). Emulsion sunscreen cosmetic comprising
(A) a UV protective agent;
(C) an oil-phase-thickening agent.(Abs). The oil-phase-thickening agent, (C), is a component capable of adjusting the viscosity of the oil phase. The (C) oil-phase thickening agent is preferably a dextrin fatty acid ester, a sucrose fatty acid ester. (0035). It is preferred to use a saturated C8-C22 fatty acid for the fatty acid constituting, such as dextrin fatty acid esters, dextrin palmitate, and fatty acids such as stearic acid. (0025 & 0036). Dextrin palmitate. (Table 1, pg. 6, 7; Table 2, pg. 7.; Table 3, pg. 8; Table 5, pg. 9; Table 6, pg. 10; Table 7, pg. 11; Table 8, pg. 11&12; 0093; 0094; 0095; 0096; 0097).
Yamaki et al. do not teach - a mixture of branched and linear saturated Cl5-Cl9 alkanes. Yamaki et al. teach cellulose, (0067), but do not teach specific C1-6-alkylcellulose or hydroxy-C2-6-alkyl (C1-6-alkyl)cellulose or carboxy C1-6-alkyl (C1-6-alkyl)cellulose.
Swoboda teaches a cosmetic composition comprising intended for topical application on the skin, lips or skin appendages. (Abs). Cosmetic products exist in various different forms. They may be either in the form of emulsions (a mixture of an aqueous phase with a fatty phase stabilized by an emulsifier), or entirely aqueous, or entirely anhydrous (only a fatty phase). In order to texturize or increase the viscosity of the fatty phase, either in an emulsion or in an anhydrous product, a thickener for the fatty phase which may be a gel, that is to say a mixture of a non-polar (or apolar) oil and a gelling agent, is needed, particularly used for the formulation of lip gloss, lip moisturizer, skin cream or sunscreen products. (Col. 1, lines 29-36; Claim 10, Col. 34). A sunscreen composition for topical application, said sunscreen composition comprising (i) at least one sunscreen filter, and (ii) at least one thickening composition according to claim 1. (Claim 14). The thickening agents comprise at least one fatty substance selected from among plant oils, hydrocarbon oils, plant butters, fatty ethers and fatty alcohols, oily esters; alkanes where appropriate and/or at least one additive. (Claim 11, Col. 34). Emogreen L19: C15-19 alkane (Table 9, Col. 27; Table 13, Col. 30). Emogreen L19 (C15-19 Alkane) is a mixture of both linear and branched saturated hydrocarbons. (https://www.seppic.com/en-US/product/emogreen-L19 ).
Sigurani et al. teach and Emogreen L19 has over 80-92% branched saturated alkanes 3.8% linear alkanes comprising 15-19 carbon atoms, (0047).
Swoboda does not teach cellulose.
Agnes et al. teach aqueous cosmetic composition for a make-up or skincare, for keratin surfaces such as the skin, the eyelids, the lips, and especially the skin. (pg. 1, Description). Composition comprises a conventional cosmetic ingredient which may be chosen in particular from hydrophilic or lipophilic thickeners, antioxidants, filters sunscreens, vitamins, moisturizers, emollients, hydrophilic or lipophilic active agents. (Claim 24, pg. 16). The volatile hydrocarbon oils may be chosen from hydrocarbon-based oils containing from 8 to 16 carbon atoms, and especially branched C8-C16 alkanes such as C8-C16 isoalkanes of petroleum origin (also known as isoparaffins), such as isododecane (also called 2,2,4,4,6-pentamethylheptane), isohexadecane, and for example the oils sold under the trade names of Isopars or Permethyls. (pg. 5). Isolalkanes Isopars or Permethyls are branched alkanes. Water-soluble gelling polymers, mention
may be made of cellulose polymers such as hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, and quaternized cellulose derivatives. (pg. 3).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a composition comprising a UV-filter taught by Yamaki et al., Swoboda and Agnes et al., a dextrin fatty acid ester with a saturated C8-C22 fatty acid, and Dextrin palmitate, taught by Yamaki et al., alkanes specifically Emogreen L19 taught by Swoboda,, Emogreen L19 has over 80-92% branched saturated alkanes 3.8% linear alkanes comprising 15-19 carbon atoms, taught by Sigurani, or branched C8-C16 alkanes such as C8-C16 isoalkanes of petroleum origin (also known as isoparaffins), such as isododecane (also called 2,2,4,4,6-pentamethylheptane), isohexadecane, and for example the oils sold under the trade names of Isopars or Permethyls, cellulose polymers such as hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, and quaternized cellulose derivatives taught by Agnes et al. since one with ordinary skill in the art can learn from and select specific parts of several prior arts’ teachings before the effective filing date of the invention to prepare the composition, even though some prior arts may teach more and may teach different things.
With regard to claim 2,
Swoboda teaches Emogreen L19 C15-19 alkane, Ex 7.1, 7.2, 7.3 8% by weight. (Table 9, Col. 27).
Agnes et al. teach the volatile oil may be present in the composition according to the invention in a content ranging from 0.1% to 10% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition, preferably ranging from 0.5% to 7% by weight. weight, preferably ranging from 1% to 6% by weight. (pg. 5).
With regard to claim 3,
Swoboda teaches the hydrocarbon oil used in the examples C18 iso 79.69% w/w. (Table 1, Col. 20).
With regard to claim 5,
Yamaki et al. teach dextrin or reduced dextrin having an average degree of saccharide polymerization of 3 to 100. (0036).
With regard to claim 8,
Yamaki et al. teach The UV absorbing agent used in the present invention is not specifically limited, and examples thereof include organic UV absorbing agents such as ethylhexyl methoxycinnamate, octocrylene, ethylhexyl triazone, bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine, ethylhexyl salicylate and phenylbenzimidazolesulfonic acid. (0023).
With regard to claim 11,
Swoboda teaches Emogreen L19 (C15-19) 8 % wt. in Ex 7.1-7.3, (Table 9, Col. 27); C15-19 alkane 2 % wt. in Ex. 9.1-9.2, and 7% in Ex. 9.3 (Table 13, Col. 30).
With regard to claim 12,
Yamaki et al. teach dextrin palmitate 0.5-2% (Table 1, pg. 6), 1-10% (Table 1, pg. 7).
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki et al. (US 20170333301 Al), in view of Swoboda (US 12178894 B2), Sigurani et al. (US 20220142886Al) and Agnes et al. (FR 2903306 A1) further in view of Hattori (JP 2017160176 A).
The teachings of Yamaki et al., Swoboda, Sigurani et al. and Agnes et al. are described in claim 1 above.
Yamaki et al., Swoboda, Sigurani et al. and Agnes et al. do not teach ester of a fatty acid and dextrin has an average number of esterified hydroxyl groups of more than 2.5.
Hattori teaches an oily solid cleansing composition which has good spreadability on the skin or lip during application while being an oily solid and good compatibility with a makeup cosmetic, can easily remove makeup stains and can be easily washed off with water and is stable even at high temperatures. (Abs). The polysaccharide fatty acid ester of component (C) used in the present invention is an ester of a polysaccharide and a fatty acid. Preferable examples of the polysaccharide constituting component (C) include dextrin. Moreover, although it does not limit as a fatty acid, a C8-C22 fatty acid is preferable and a C8-C18 linear or branched saturated fatty acid is more preferable. Specific examples of such fatty acids include palmitic acid, stearic acid, and isostearic acid. As the component (C), one or a combination of two or more of these fatty acids and an esterified product with the above-mentioned polysaccharide can be used, and in particular, at least part of the constituent fatty acids contains myristic acid, palmitic acid, stearic acid, Those containing a fatty acid having 14 or more carbon atoms such as isostearic acid are preferred. Although the substitution degree of esterification of polysaccharide is not specifically limited, 1-3 are preferable. Here, the substitution degree of esterification of a polysaccharide indicates the average number of moles of the esterified ester in the hydroxyl group per saccharide unit constituting the polysaccharide, that is, per glucose unit in the case of dextrin and per fructose unit in the case of inulin. Any of them can be used, but dextrin fatty acid esters are particularly preferable because they exhibit particularly excellent effects in the spread of the oil-based solid cleansing material on the skin. (pg. 3, 3rd par.).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a composition taught by Yamaki et al., Swoboda, Sigurani et al. and Agnes et al. in claim 1 above, and to have the substitution degree of esterification of dextrin in the range 1-3, taught by Hattori since the higher esterification the higher hydrophobicity may have higher effects in the spread of the oil-based material on the skin.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki et al. (US 20170333301 Al), in view of Swoboda (US 12178894 B2), Sigurani et al. (US 20220142886Al) and Agnes et al. (FR 2903306 A1) further in view of Demarcq et al. (US 20180360702 A1).
The teachings of Yamaki et al., Swoboda, Sigurani et al. and Agnes et al. are described in claim 1 above.
Yamaki et al., Swoboda, Sigurani et al. and Agnes et al. do not teach ester of a fatty acid and dextrin has a molecular weight Mn of between 8,000 and 16,000 Da.
Demarcq et al. teach a composition, especially for caring for and/or making up keratin materials. (Abs). The weight-average molecular weight of the fatty acid ester of dextrin whose degree of substitution is greater than 2 on the basis of one glucose unit is preferably between 10 000 and 30 000. The weight-average molecular weight is determined by gas chromatography, with polystyrene calibration.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a composition taught by Yamaki et al., Swoboda, Sigurani et al. and Agnes et al. in claim 1 above, and to have the molecular weight of ester of dextrin and fatty acid, between 10 000 and 30 000 taught by Demarcq et al. since they have proven it would provide a good cosmetic composition.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki et al. (US 20170333301 Al), in view of Swoboda (US 12178894 B2), Sigurani et al. (US 20220142886Al) and Agnes et al. (FR 2903306 A1) further in view of Brossard et al. (US 20190167541 A1).
The teachings of Yamaki et al., Swoboda, Sigurani et al. and Agnes et al. are described in claim 1 above.
Yamaki et al., Swoboda, Sigurani et al. and Agnes et al. do not teach the amount of cellulose is in the range of between 0.01 and 4.0 % by weight.
Brossard et al. teach a water-in-oil emulsion for making up the lips that is very fluid while remaining stable. For example, the emulsion contains 2% to 4% by weight of ethylcellulose. (Abs).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a composition taught by Yamaki et al., Swoboda, Sigurani et al. and Agnes et al. in claim 1 above, and to have 2-4% ethyl cellulose in the composition since they have proven it would provide a good cosmetic composition.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamaki et al. (US 20170333301 Al), in view of Swoboda (US 12178894 B2), Sigurani et al. (US 20220142886Al) and Agnes et al. (FR 2903306 A1) further in view of Chiou et al. (US 20160367470 A1).
The teachings of Yamaki et al., Swoboda, Sigurani et al. and Agnes et al. are described in claim 1 above.
Yamaki et al., Swoboda, Sigurani et al. and Agnes et al. do not teach the composition has a Sun Protection Factor (SPF) of 10 or higher.
Chiou et al. teach sunscreen compositions in the form of a water-in-oil inverse emulsion with alkyl chain branches swelled in a non-polar, volatile swelling agent, at least one organic UV filter. (0001). The composition comprises volatile hydrocarbon-based oils containing from 8 to 16 carbon atoms, mention may be made especially of branched C.sub.8-C.sub.16 alkanes, for instance, C.sub.8-C.sub.16 isoalkanes (also known as isoparaffins), isododecane, isodecane, isohexadecane and, for example, the oils sold under the tradenames Isopar™ or Permethyl. (0032); additional additives that are smoother ad softer on the skin such as hydroxyethyl cellulose and sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, (0100); and dextrin palmitate, (Table 7, 8, pg. 9). The present sunscreen composition, includes a sun protection factor (SPF) of greater than or equal to 15 or SPF of at least about 15 to about 50 or SPF at least about 15 to about 30. (0088).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a composition taught by Yamaki et al., Swoboda, Sigurani et al. and Agnes et al. in claim 1 above, and to have a sun protection factor (SPF) of greater than or equal to 15 or SPF of at least about 15 to about 50 or SPF at least about 15 to about 30, taught by Chiou et al., since they have proven it would be feasible to do so.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swoboda (US 12178894 B2), Sigurani et al. (US 20220142886Al) and Agnes et al. (FR 2903306 A1) in view of Annerman et al. (US 4492729 A).
Swoboda teaches a cosmetic composition comprising intended for topical application on the skin, lips or skin appendages. (Abs). Cosmetic products exist in various different forms. They may be either in the form of emulsions (a mixture of an aqueous phase with a fatty phase stabilized by an emulsifier), or entirely aqueous, or entirely anhydrous (only a fatty phase). In order to texturize or increase the viscosity of the fatty phase, either in an emulsion or in an anhydrous product, a thickener for the fatty phase which may be a gel, that is to say a mixture of a non-polar (or apolar) oil and a gelling agent, is needed, particularly used for the formulation of lip gloss, lip moisturizer, skin cream or sunscreen products. (Col. 1, lines 29-36; Claim 10, Col. 34). A sunscreen composition for topical application, said sunscreen composition comprising (i) at least one sunscreen filter, and (ii) at least one thickening composition according to claim 1. (Claim 14). The thickening agents comprise at least one fatty substance selected from among plant oils, hydrocarbon oils, plant butters, fatty ethers and fatty alcohols, oily esters; alkanes where appropriate and/or at least one additive. (Claim 11, Col. 34). Emogreen L19: C15-19 alkane (Table 9, Col. 27; Table 13, Col. 30). Emogreen L19 (C15-19 Alkane) is a mixture of both linear and branched saturated hydrocarbons. (https://www.seppic.com/en-US/product/emogreen-L19 ) and Emogreen L19 has over 80-92% branched saturated alkanes 3.8% linear alkanes cromprising 15-19 carbon atoms, (0047) US 20220142886Al).
Swoboda does not teach cellulose.
Agnes et al. teach aqueous cosmetic composition for a make-up or skincare, for keratin surfaces such as the skin, the eyelids, the lips, and especially the skin. (pg. 1, Description). Composition comprises a conventional cosmetic ingredient which may be chosen in particular from hydrophilic or lipophilic thickeners, antioxidants, filters sunscreens, vitamins, moisturizers, emollients, hydrophilic or lipophilic active agents. (Claim 24, pg. 16). The volatile hydrocarbon oils may be chosen from hydrocarbon-based oils containing from 8 to 16 carbon atoms, and especially branched C8-C16 alkanes such as C8-C16 isoalkanes of petroleum origin (also known as isoparaffins), such as isododecane (also called 2,2,4,4,6-pentamethylheptane), isohexadecane, and for example the oils sold under the trade names of Isopars or Permethyls. (pg. 5). Isolalkanes Isopars or Permethyls are branched alkanes. Water-soluble gelling polymers, mention
may be made of cellulose polymers such as hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, and quaternized cellulose derivatives. (pg. 3).
Bannerman et al. teach in addition to the cellulosic fibrous material and gelatinized starch, other additives may be included in the binder to form a cohesive fibrous mat. If it is desired to increase water resistance, for example, long chain, water soluble polymers, such as hydroxyethylcellulose, carboxymethylcellulose, methylcellulose may be added. (26).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have a composition comprising a UV-filter taught by Swoboda and Agnes et al., alkanes specifically Emogreen L19 has over 80-92% branched saturated alkanes 3.8% linear alkanes comprising 15-19 carbon atoms, taught by Swoboda, or branched C8-C16 alkanes such as C8-C16 isoalkanes of petroleum origin (also known as isoparaffins), such as isododecane (also called 2,2,4,4,6-pentamethylheptane), isohexadecane, and for example the oils sold under the trade names of Isopars or Permethyls, cellulose polymers such as hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, carboxymethyl cellulose, and quaternized cellulose derivatives taught by Agnes et al. and long chain, water soluble polymers, such as hydroxyethylcellulose, carboxymethylcellulose, methylcellulose can be added to increase water resistance, taught by Bannerman et al. since one with ordinary skill in the art can learn from and select specific parts of several prior arts’ teachings before the effective filing date of the invention to achieve better outcome results even though some prior arts may teach more and may teach different things.
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 1-7 and 11-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/256328 (reference application).
Claims 1-7 and 11-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/256401 (reference application).
Claims 2-7 and 11-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3, 9-14 of copending Application No. 18/256161 (reference application).
Claims 2-7 and 11-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-15 of copending Application No. 18/256310 (reference application).
Claims 1-7 and 11-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 9-15 of copending Application No. 18/717188 (reference application).
Claims 1-7 and 11-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 11 of copending Application No. 18/853234 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by or would have been obvious over the reference claim(s).
These are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-17 of U.S. Patent No. US 12636242 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by or would have been obvious over the reference claim(s) by adding cellulose in claim 1. The claims share the same ingredients an ester of a fatty acid and dextrin, a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 Alkanes, wherein the amount of branched saturated C15-C19 alkane in the mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 alkanes is more than 80% by weight and a UV-filter. Alkylcellulose, hydroxyalkyl alkyl alkycellulose, and carboxyalkyl alkylcellulose have been added to cosmetic compositions to act as thickeners, stabilizers, and film-formers and water resistance that improve texture, consistency, and shelf-life.
Claims 1-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-18 of U.S. Patent No. US 12636243 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claims are anticipated by or would have been obvious over the reference claim(s) by adding cellulose especially in claim 1. The claims share the same ingredients an ester of a fatty acid and dextrin, a mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 Alkanes, wherein the amount of branched saturated C15-C19 alkane in the mixture of branched and linear saturated C15-C19 alkanes is more than 80% by weight and a UV-filter. Alkylcellulose, hydroxyalkyl alkyl alkycellulose, and carboxyalkyl alkylcellulose have been added to cosmetic compositions to act as thickeners, stabilizers, and film-formers and water resistance that improve texture, consistency, and shelf-life.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGOC-ANH THI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0867. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am.
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, Robert A Wax can be reached at 571-272-0623. 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.
/NGOC-ANH THI NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights