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 .
Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-6 are pending and under consideration in this action.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in France on 3/29/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the FR 2403277 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. For example, the specification includes the hyperlink https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/02/26/2019-03019/sunscreen-drug-products-for-over-the-counter-human-use (p. 8, para. 0039). Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 6 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 6 recites “further comprising an active agent.” Bemotrizinol is an active agent. Thus, it is not clear if there is a second or third active agent. That is “further” should be placed after -at least-. That is, -at least one further active agent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mueller et al. (GB 2453195A, published 1 April 2009).
Mueller e et al, throughout the publication, teach various sunscreen composition containing various UV filters (e.g. Abstract).
With regards to claim 1, Mueller et al. discloses a sunscreen composition suitable for hair containing bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine (bemotrizinol)(e.g. p. 85, ln.15+).
Mueller et al. teaches the composition, a concentrated aqueous polymer dispersion, is suitable as UV filters, i.e. for protecting ultraviolet-sensitive organic materials, particularly the skin and hair humans and animals, from UV radiation (p. 18 ln. 9-11).
Mueller et al. teaches the composition comprising bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine (bemotrizinol) in an amount of 0.5% w/w within the composition (e.g. p. 85).
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays”, the instant specification discloses bemotrizinol is present in the composition in a UV absorbing effective amount of 0.1 to about 10% by weight with respect to the total weight of the composition (instant specification, para. 0062). As stated above, Mueller et al. teaches the composition comprising bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine (bemotrizinol) in an amount of 0.5% w/w within the composition (e.g. p.85). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
With regards to claim 2 and 3, Mueller et al. teaches a composition comprising 0.5% w/w bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine (bemotrizinol), 10% w/w octocrylene, 2.6% w/w butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane, and 1.6% w/w titanium dioxide (and Stearic acid and alumina) (Example B27, p. 85). Bemotrizinol is present in a weight percentage of 10% relative to both additional UV filters and additional organic UV filters within this composition, satisfying the limitations of claims 2 and 3.
With regards to claim 4, Mueller et al. teaches the composition in the form of a conditioner (p. 53 ln. 10).
With regards to claim 5, Mueller et al. teaches the composition in the form of a hair foam (reads on mousse) (p. 53 ln. 14). The instant specification equates mousse and foam, defining both as “a system having two or more phases wherein a gas is dispersed in a condensed phase (liquid, gelled liquid, and/or solid) phase to form a foam structure” (instant specification para. 0197).
With regards to claim 6, Mueller et al. teaches a composition comprising 0.5% w/w bis-ethylhexyloxyphenol methoxyphenyl triazine (bemotrizinol), 10% w/w octocrylene (reads on active agent), 2.6% w/w butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane (reads on active agent), and 1.6% w/w titanium dioxide (and Stearic acid and alumina) (reads on active agent)(e.g. p. 85).
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 1-3, 6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8 of copending Application No. 18/985622 (Copending 622).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol.
Copending 622 claims a composition comprising bemotrizinol, present in a weight percentage of 10% or less by weight relative to both additional UV filters and additional organic UV filters. The specification teaches the compositions effect on keratinous materials (reads on hair)(para. 0149). Therefore, the composition of copending 622 is applicable to hair.
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays”, copending 622 claims bemotrizinol is present in the composition in the same amount as the instant application, but for the purpose of improving the color stability of the at least on coloring agent (claim 1-3). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is also present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
Claim 1 of copending 622 recites at least one coloring agent, whereas instant claim 1 does not
recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is
considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in
the claims of the copending application.
Copending 622 additionally claims the composition further comprising at least one active agent (Claim 8).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 of copending Application No. 18/985642 (Copending 642).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol. The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0058)
Claim 1 of copending 642 recites iron oxide, whereas instant claim 1 does not
recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is
considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in
the claims of the copending application.
Copending 642 additionally claims the composition further comprising at least one active agent (Claim 12).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of copending Application No. 18/985612 (Copending 612).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol.
Copending 612 claims a composition comprising bemotrizinol, present in a weight percentage of 10% or less by weight relative to both additional UV filters and additional organic UV filters. The specification teaches the compositions effect on keratinous materials (reads on hair)(para. 0012). Therefore, the composition of copending 612 is applicable to hair.
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays”, copending 612 claims bemotrizinol is present in the composition in the same amount as the instant application. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
Claim 1 of copending 612 recites at least one coloring agent, whereas instant claim 1 does not
recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is
considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in
the claims of the copending application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6-7, 11 of copending Application No. 18/543130 (Copending 130).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol.
Copending 130 claims a composition comprising bemotrizinol, present in a weight percentage of 10% or less by weight relative to both additional UV filters and additional organic UV filters. The specification teaches the compositions effect on keratinous materials (reads on hair)(para. 0013). Therefore, the composition of copending 130 is applicable to hair.
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays”, copending 130 claims bemotrizinol is present in the composition in the same amount as the instant application (Claims 6-7). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
Claim 1 of copending 130 recites titanium dioxide, whereas instant claim 1 does not
recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is
considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in
the claims of the copending application.
Copending 130 claims the composition further comprising at least one active agent (Claim 11).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8-10 of copending Application No. 18/543482 (Copending 482).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol.
Copending 482 claims a composition comprising bemotrizinol, present in a weight percentage of 10% or less by weight relative to both additional UV filters and additional organic UV filters (Claim 8-9). The specification teaches the compositions effect on keratinous materials (reads on hair)(para. 0009). Therefore, the composition of copending 482 is applicable to hair.
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays”, copending 482 claims bemotrizinol is present in the composition in the same amount as the instant application. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
Claim 1 of copending 482 recites at least one sugar fatty acid ester gelling agent, and at least one solvent, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 482 additionally claims the composition further comprising at least one active agent (Claim 10).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 of copending Application No. 18/543375 (Copending 375).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol. The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0055).
Claim 1 of copending 375 recites titanium dioxide, whereas instant claim 1 does not
recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is
considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in
the claims of the copending application.
Copending 375 additionally claims the composition further comprising at least one active agent (Claim 13).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 10 of copending Application No. 18/543443 (Copending 443).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol. The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0055).
Copending 443 claims a composition comprising bemotrizinol, present in a weight percentage of 10% or less by weight relative to both additional UV filters and additional organic UV filters (Claims 2-3). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays”, copending 443 claims bemotrizinol is present in the composition in the same amount as the instant application. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
Claim 1 of copending 443 recites at least one additional UV filter, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 443 additionally claims the composition further comprising at least one active agent (Claim 10).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 of copending Application No. 18/543618 (Copending 618).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol. The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0055).
Claim 1 of copending 618 recites at least one additional UV filter and an ecofriendly carrier, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 618 additionally claims the composition further comprising at least one active agent (Claim 13).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 9 of copending Application No. 18/543721 (Copending 721).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol.
Copending 721 claims a composition comprising bemotrizinol, present in a weight percentage of 10% or less by weight relative to both additional UV filters and additional organic UV filters (Claims 2-3). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0057).
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays”, copending 721 claims bemotrizinol is present in the composition in the same amount as the instant application. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
Claim 1 of copending 721 recites octinoxate, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 721 additionally claims the composition further comprising at least one mineral UV filter (reads on active agent) (Claim 9).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-2, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 11 of copending Application No. 18/543921 (Copending 921).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol.
Copending 921 claims a composition comprising bemotrizinol, present in a weight percentage of 10% or less by weight relative to additional UV filters (Claim 2). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0064).
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays”, copending 921 claims bemotrizinol is present in the composition in the same amount as the instant application. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
Claim 1 of copending 921 recites an antioxidant system, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 921 additionally claims the composition further comprising at one active agent (Claim 11).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 of copending Application No. 18/543309 (Copending 309).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol. The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0051).
Claim 1 of copending 309 recites at least one additional organic UV filter, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 309 additionally claims the composition further comprising at least one active agent (Claim 13).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1,2, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7, 13 of copending Application No. 18/543157 (Copending 157).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol. The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0052).
Claim 1 of copending 157 recites at least one additional organic UV filter, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 157 claims a composition comprising bemotrizinol, present in a weight percentage of 5% or less by weight relative to additional mineral UV filters (Claim 7). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
Copending 157 additionally claims the composition further comprising at least one active agent (Claim 13).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 2, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9-10 of copending Application No. 18/543489 (Copending 489).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol.
The specification teaches the compositions effect on keratinous materials (reads on hair)(para. 0009). Therefore, the composition of copending 489 is applicable to hair.
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays”, copending 489 claims bemotrizinol is present in the composition in the same amount as the instant application. Copending 489 claims a composition comprising bemotrizinol, present in a weight percentage of 10% or less by weight relative to additional UV filters. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
Claim 1 of copending 489 recites a solvent system and a lipophilic gelling agent, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 489 additionally claims the composition further comprising at least one active agent (Claim 10).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 13 of copending Application No. 18/543343 (Copending 343).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol. The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0055).
Claim 1 of copending 343 recites avobenzone, an oil, and at least one additional UV filter, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 343 additionally claims the composition further comprising at least one active agent (Claim 13).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 of copending Application No. 18/543657 (Copending 657).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol.
The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0052).
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays”, copending 657 claims bemotrizinol is present in the composition in the same amount as the instant application, but for the purpose of protecting the active agent against UV rays (claim 1). Copending 657 claims a composition comprising bemotrizinol, present in a weight percentage of 10% or less by weight relative to additional organic UV filters. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
Claim 1 of copending 657 recites at least one active agent, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 657 additionally claims the composition comprising at least one active agent in addition to bemotrizinol (Claim 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 11 of copending Application No. 18/543702 (Copending 702).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol.
The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0050).
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays”, copending 702 claims bemotrizinol is present in the composition in the same amount as the instant application. Copending 702 claims a composition comprising bemotrizinol, present in a weight percentage of 10% or less by weight relative to additional organic UV filters (Claim 9). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
Claim 1 of copending 702 recites a salt chelating agent and a semi-crystalline polymer, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 702 additionally claims the composition comprising at least one active agent in addition to bemotrizinol (Claim 11).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 of copending Application No. 18/543141 (Copending 141).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol.
The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0058).
Claim 1 of copending 141 recites zinc oxide, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 141 additionally claims the composition further comprising at least one active agent (Claim 9).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 15 of copending Application No. 18/543287 (Copending 287).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol.
The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0053).
Claim 1 of copending 287 recites a fatty phase and a booster, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 298 additionally claims the composition further comprises at least one active agent (Claim 15).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6 of copending Application No. 18/543597 (Copending 597).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol.
The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0060).
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays”, copending 597 claims bemotrizinol is present in the composition in the same amount as the instant application, but for the purpose of improving the photostability stability of the at least one active agent (claim 1). Copending 597 claims a composition comprising bemotrizinol, present in a weight percentage of 10% or less by weight relative to additional UV filters. Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
Claim 1 of copending 597 recites at least one active agent, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 597 additionally claims the composition further comprising at least one active agent (Claim 1).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-3, 6 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8 of copending Application No. 18/543756 (Copending 756).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both sets of claims claim substantially similar and overlapping compositions comprising bemotrizinol.
The specification teaches that a suitable form of this composition is leave-in hair products, satisfying the claim limitation “hair composition” of instant claim 1 (para. 0062).
Regarding the claim limitation “wherein the bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays”, copending 756 claims bemotrizinol is present in the composition in the same amount as the instant application. Copending 756 claims a composition comprising bemotrizinol, present in a weight percentage of 10% or less by weight relative to both additional UV filters and additional organic UV filters (Claim 3-4). Therefore, absent evidence to the contrary, bemotrizinol is present in the composition in an amount effective to protect the hair against UV rays.
Claim 1 of copending 756 a wax and avobenzone, whereas instant claim 1 does not recite this limitation. However, instant claims recite the transitional phrase “comprising” which is considered open language and allows the inclusion of additional components, including those recited in the claims of the copending application.
Copending 756 additionally claims the composition further comprising at least one active agent (Claim 8).
Conclusion
Claims 1-6 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Olivia A. MacMillan whose telephone number is (571)272-0692. The examiner can
normally be reached Monday-Friday (9:00AM-5:00PM EST).
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, Sue X
Liu can be reached at 571-272-5539. 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.
/Olivia Anne MacMillan/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights