DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-19 are currently pending and under examination.
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
Applicant’s Informational Disclosure Statement, filed on 08/10/2026 has been considered. Please refer to Applicant's copy of the 1449 submitted herein.
Withdrawn Rejections
The prior objection of claims 10 and 14 is withdrawn based on Applicant correcting typographical errors.
The prior rejection of claim 14 under 112(b) is withdrawn based on Applicant amending the claim language to remove “again”.
The prior rejection of claims 1, 4-5 and 13 under 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mintel is withdrawn based on Applicant specifying the ratio of a) to b).
Examiner’s Note
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 08/10/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. In the Applicant’s response, filed 08/10/2026, it is noted that claims 1-14 has been amended and claims 15-19 are newly added. No new matter or claims have been added.
Modified and New Rejection:
The following rejection has been modified based on Applicant’s claim amendments and newly added claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 8-10 and 16 are objected to as using the language “any mixture thereof”, wherein the use of “mixtures thereof” has better readability. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 8 is 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.
Claim 8: A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad limitation of fruit extracts of black pepper and additionally recites (also known as Piper Nigrum Fruit Extract), wherein the inclusion in the parenthesis is more narrow than the broadly recited fruit extracts of black pepper. Claim 8 recites the broad limitation of bark extracts of mimosa plants and additionally recites the more narrow limitation of (also known as Piper Nigrum Fruit Extract). Claim 8 recites the broad limitation of extracts from cinnamon bark and recites the more narrow limitation of (also known as Cinnamonomu Cassia Bark Extract). Claim 8 recites the broad limitation of tangerine peel extracts and also recites the more narrow limitation of (also known as citrus Reticulara Peel extract). Claim 8 recites lemon fruit oil and additionally recites (also known as Citrus Limon Flower/Leaf/Stem oil). Claim 8 recites the broad limitation of extracts from mint and additionally recites the more narrow limitation of (also known as Mentha Arvensis Extract).
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Additionally, claim 8 contains multiple limitations in parenthesis, wherein the parenthesis makes it unclear if the limitations inside the parenthesis are required or not. The use of parenthesis to define a chemical of the same scope but different name does not result in issue in the claim scope, however the use of broader limitations with more narrow limitations defined in parenthesis results in the claim scope being unclear, e.g. fruit extracts of black pepper (also known as Piper Nigrum Fruit extract).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-13, 15-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 944 852 (Applicant provided) as evidenced by Toxic Free (previously applied).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5 and 15, the limitation of a hair treatment agent, comprising a) at least one compound of formula I and b) at least one active anti-dandruff ingredient different from the at least one compound of formula I a) is met by the ‘852 publication teaching antidandruff cosmetic composition comprising piroctone olamine (abstract) and diols including ethylhexylglycerin [0017]. Toxic Free evidences the structure of ethylhexylglycerin reads on Formula I, wherein R1 is C8 branched alkyl group and n is 1.
The limitation of wherein at least one compound of formula I a) and b) are present in the agent in a weight ratio ranging from 5:1 to 1:1, ratio of 4:1 to 2:1 is met by the ‘852 publication teaching ratio of piroctone olamine to the booster is from 0.01 to 2.4, more preferably from 0.1 to 1.2 [0035]. As MPEP 2144.05 recites “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization”.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation of wherein the total compound of the at least one formula (I) is 0.1-3 wt% is met by the ‘852 publication teaches 0.1 wt%-1.0 wt% of the booster [0161].
Regarding claim 7, the limitation of wherein the total amount of that at least one active anti-dandruff ingredient b) different form a) is 0.05 to 1 wt% relative to the total weight of the hair treatment agent is met by the ‘852 publication teaching shampoo comprising 0.05-5 wt% piroctone olamine [0161].
Regarding claims 8-9 and 16, the limitation of wherein the at least one active anti-dandruff agent is piroctone olamine is met by the ‘852 publication teaching piroctone olamine (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, the limitation of further comprising 0.5 to 20 wt% of at least one surfactant c) selected from the group consisting of anionic surfactants, amphoteric surfactants, zwitterionic surfactants, non-ionic surfactants, cationic surfactants and mixtures thereof is met by the ‘852 publication teaching at least 0.5 % by weight of surfactants, preferably anionic surfactants [0163].
Regarding claim 11, the limitation of further comprising 0.01-3 wt% of at least one cationic polymer d) wherein the quantities specified relate to the total weight of the hair treatment agent is met by the ‘852 publication teaching at least 0.5 wt% of further components including polymers [0161] wherein cationic fixative polymers are taught [0167].
Regarding claim 12, the limitation of further comprising 0.01-5 wt% of at least one hair care substance e) different from d) wherein the quantities specified relate to total weight of the hair treatment agent is met by the ‘852 publication teaching at least 0.5 wt% of further components including polymers and lubricants [0161].
Regarding claim 13, the limitation of wherein the hair treatment agent is an anti-dandruff shampoo is met by the ‘852 publication teaching an anti-dandruff composition in the form of a shampoo (abstract, [0161]).
Regarding claim 18, the limitation of wherein the at least one cationic polymer is guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is met by the ‘852 publication teaching cationic derivative being guar hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride [0122].
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. A.G. 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 v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). 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 obvious to have selected various combinations of disclosed ingredients (for example, ethylhexylglycerin, piroctone and additional agents of surfactant, cationic polymer and lubricants) from within the prior art disclosure of the ‘852 patent, to arrive at the instantly claimed hair treatment composition “yielding no more than one would have expected from such an arrangement”.
That being said and in lieu of objective evidence of unexpected results, the anti-dandruff agent, booster agent and additive components can be viewed as a variable which achieves the recognized result of successfully treating a specific patient as an antidandruff composition. The optimum or workable range of dosing can be accordingly characterized as routine optimization and experimentation (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)B). “[Discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art.” In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980). Appellants provide no evidence of any secondary consideration such as unexpected results that would render the optimized amounts of ingredients nonobvious.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 944 852 (Applicant provided) as evidenced by Toxic Free as applied to claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-16 and 18 above, and further in view of US 2016/0100574 (previously applied) and WO 2020/007571 (previously applied).
As mentioned in the above 103 rejection, all of the limitations of claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-16 and 18 are taught by the ‘852 publication.
The ‘852 publication does not specifically teach methylheptylglycerin (claim 6).
The ‘574 publication teaches personal care compositions [0001] to be used in the field of cosmetics [0020]. Structures of glycerylethers include:
PNG
media_image1.png
86
350
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R2 stands for linear or branched alkyl radical having 2 to 12 carbon atoms [0022]. Ethylhexylglycerin is taught [0033].
The ’571 publication teaches antimicrobial compositions comprising glycerol derivatives used in cosmetic formulations (abstract) wherein glycerin derivatives include 2-ethylhexyoxypropediol and 3-[(2-octyl)oxy]-1,2-propanediol (claim 1), which are ethylhexylglycerin and methylheptyglycerin as evidenced by page 107.
A prima facie case of obviousness may be made when chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. “An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties.” In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). See In re Papesch, 315 F.2d 381, 137 USPQ 43 (CCPA 1963) (discussed in more detail below) and In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1991) as is stated in MPEP 2144.09.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use methylheptylglycerin in the compositions of the ’852 publication because methyheptyglycerin and ethylhexylglycerin are structural isomers. "Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties." This is supported by the ‘574 publication teaching glycerylethers with branched carbon chain lengths of 2-12 carbons being used in personal care compositions and the ‘571 publication teaching glycerin derivatives used in cosmetic care compositions to include ethylhexylglycerin and methyheptylglycerin, thus providing an expectation of success in using methylheptylglycerin in place of the ethyhexylglycerin. Regarding claim 17, the limitation of wherein the formula is biobased obtained from a plant-based raw material, the ‘574 publication teaches methylheptyglycerin thus teaches the chemical structure. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 944 852 (Applicant provided) as evidenced by Toxic Free as applied to claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-16 and 18 above, and further in view of US 6,528,070.
As mentioned in the above 103 rejection, all of the limitations of claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-16 and 18 are taught by the ‘852 publication.
The combination of references does not specifically teach the hair care substance is glycerol monooleate (claim 19).
The ‘070 patent teaches shampoos comprising surfactants (abstract). Auxiliary Co-Emulsifiers are taught to include glycerol esters including glycerol monostearate (GMA) and glycerol monooleate (GMO) (column 27, lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a first co-emulsifiers [0063] as taught by the ‘852 publication with a second co-emulsifier, glycerol monooleate, as taught by the ‘070 patent with a reasonable expectation of success because the simple substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. M.P.E.P. §2144.07 states "The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).” When substituting equivalents known in the prior art for the same purpose, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). M.P.E.P. §2144.06. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘852 publication teaches the use of co-emulsifiers and include glycerol stearate and the ‘070 patent teaches glycerol esters include glycerol monostearate and glycerol monooleate, thus teaching the interchangeability of glycerol esters in shampoo formulations.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP 3 944 852 (Applicant provided) as evidenced by Toxic Free as applied to claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-16 and 18 above, and further in view of US 2015/0231045.
As mentioned in the above 103 rejection, all of the limitations of claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-16 and 18 are taught by the ‘852 publication.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation of a cosmetic method for controlling scalp dandruff, comprising applying the hair treatment agent of claim 1 to hair or scalp is met by the ‘852 publication teaching use of the composition to be used on human hair and/or scalp wherein the product may be rinse off [0092] wherein the composition is taught to be an anti-dandruff composition, thus teaching the step of applying the composition of claim addressed above.
The combination of references does not specifically teach contact time from 5 seconds to 5 minutes (claim 14).
The ‘045 publication teaches shampoo instructions comprise application of the shampoo to wet hair then rinse and reapply a second time. The second time the product should be massaged into the scalp for two minutes before thoroughly rising. Shampoo is taught to be dandruff hair [0320].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use known shampoo application steps as taught by the ‘045 publication and the ‘852 patent teaches application of a shampoo and rinsing steps and the ‘045 publication teaches the exact timing and steps for use of a shampoo. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘045 publication and the ‘852 patent teaches use of a dandruff shampoo including application and rinsing.
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 1-13, 15 and 17-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/906,773 (reference application) in view of EP 3 944 852. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘773 publication teaches an antidandruff shampoo comprising methylheptylglycerin, an anionic surfactant, cationic polymer and additional agent in overlapping amounts applied to hair. The ‘852 publication teaches anti-dandruff shampoo comprising piroctone olamine and a booster comprising ethylhexylglycerin (abstract, [0017], [0161]) the ‘852 publication teaching ratio of piroctone olamine to the booster is from 0.01 to 2.4, more preferably from 0.1 to 1.2 [0035]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a specific antidandruff agent, piroctone olamine, in the antidandruff shampoo taught by the ‘773 application as the ‘773 application and the ‘852 publication are directed to antidandruff shampoos which comprise glycerylethers.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-9 and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/906,654 (reference application) in view of EP 3 944 852. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘654 application teaches an antidandruff shampoo comprising methylheptylglycerin applied to hair. The ‘852 publication teaches anti-dandruff shampoo comprising piroctone olamine and a booster comprising ethylhexylglycerin (abstract, [0017], [0161]). The ‘852 publication teaching ratio of piroctone olamine to the booster is from 0.01 to 2.4, more preferably from 0.1 to 1.2 [0035]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use a specific antidandruff agent, piroctone olamine, in the antidandruff shampoo taught by the ‘654 application as the ‘654 application and the ‘852 publication are directed to antidandruff shampoos which comprise glycerylethers.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant has been fully considered and not deemed to be persuasive.
103:
Applicant argues the ‘852 patent provides examples teaching piroctone olamine is the principle anti-dandruff active agent, wherein the glycerol-derived components serving as a secondary booster to improve efficacy. Conversely, the present application emphasizes formulations in which the Formula I glycerol ether is present at levels equal to or greater than the additional anti-dandruff active. The ‘852 patent does not direct the skilled artisan toward glycerol ether-dominated systems and instead consistently exemplified piroctone-dominant systems.
In response, a reference is not only as good as its exemplified compositions, but rather the teaching as a whole. The ‘852 publication teaching ratio of piroctone olamine to the booster is from 0.01 to 2.4, more preferably from 0.1 to 1.2 [0035]. As MPEP 2144.05 recites “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization”.
Applicant argues the proposed ratios of piroctone olamine:booster disclosed in the ‘852 patent are broad. One of skill in the art would not expect a composition the booster is present in an amount 50 times higher than the piroctone olamine to exhibit the same characteristics as composition where the piroctone olamine is present in an amount 2.4 times higher than the booster. Applicant points to the instant specification as having at least equivalent antidandruff action, a lower potential for skin irritation, an improved environment compatibly and at least equivalent car properties.
In response, it appears Applicant is presenting unexpected results. The ‘852 patent teaches overlapping ratio with the instant claims, wherein it teaches a range and thus optimizable parameter. Applicant provides compositions and states the instant specification as having at least equivalent antidandruff action, a lower potential for skin irritation, an improved environment compatibly and at least equivalent car properties, however has presented no comparative data. Attorneys argument cannot take the place of factual evidence wherein factual evidence is required.
Applicant argues the ‘574 publication teaches ratios of 1:99 to about 99:1. One of skill in the art would not be able to produce the properties of composition with such dramatically different makeups.
In response, the ‘574 publication teaches person care compositions with specific glycerylether structures and is not used to teach ratios of antimicrobial agents.
Applicant argues the ‘852 publication identifies ethylhexylglycerin as a preferred booster and presents efficacy data generated using ethylhexylglycerin-containing formulation. Specifically preferred ethylhexylglycerin and toward methylheptylglycerin while maintaining the present claimed component ratios.
In response, Applciant’s arguments regarding ratios are addressed above. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use methylheptylglycerin in the compositions of the ’852 publication because methyheptyglycerin and ethylhexylglycerin are structural isomers. "Compounds which are position isomers (compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus) or homologs (compounds differing regularly by the successive addition of the same chemical group, e.g., by -CH2- groups) are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties." This is supported by the ‘574 publication teaching glycerylethers with branched carbon chain lengths of 2-12 carbons being used in personal care compositions and the ‘571 publication teaching glycerin derivatives used in cosmetic care compositions to include ethylhexylglycerin and methyheptylglycerin, thus providing an expectation of success in using methylheptylglycerin in place of the ethyhexylglycerin.
Double Patenting:
Applicant argues the double patenting rejections are premature.
In response, Applicant has presented no substantive arguments and thus the rejection is maintained for reasons of record.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Examiner Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDSEY MARIE BECKHARDT whose telephone number is (571)270-7676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 4pm and Friday 9am to 2pm.
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-Yong 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.
/LYNDSEY M BECKHARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/BRIAN-YONG S KWON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1613
