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 .
Applicants' arguments in the Request for Continued Examination, filed January 16, 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (New Rejections)
New Matter
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims recite the ratio 1:4. However there appears to be no support for this ratio. Therefore 1:4 is considered “New Matter”.
Indefiniteness
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.
Claim 1-4 and 6-8 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. Claim 1 recites at least 0.3% betaine and at least 0.5% sodium lauryl sulfate. However these amounts do not fall within the ratio range. Therefore the claims are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Obviousness (New Rejection)
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 2002/0031481) in view of Gorlin et al. (US 5,833,956).
Xu et al. disclose dentifrice gel or paste compositions comprising about 40% to 70% by weight baking soda (sodium bicarbonate), natural or herbal ingredients, flavoring oils, xanthan gum, at least of betaine surfactant and a humectant (Abstract). The compositions also comprise water (Examples). Dentifrices have long been known and used to clean teeth and to combat plaque (paragraph 0003). Betaines include cocoamidopropyl betaine and cocoamidosulfobetaine and comprise 0.5 to 5% by weight of the composition (paragraph 0014). Sodium lauryl sulfate maybe used and comprises less than 2%. Natural or herbal ingredients include aloe (an anti-inflammatory agent, meeting instant claim 8). Sweeteners include stevioside (stevia) and comprise less than about 1% of the dentifrice formulations (paragraph 0033). A compositions comprises 67.262% baking soda, 0.85% xanthan gum, 4% cocoamidopropyl betaine (30%), glycerin, peppermint oil, sage oil and water (TABLE 1, Formula A).
Xu et al. differ from the instant claims insofar as they do not disclose that sodium lauryl sulfate is used in combination with a betaine surfactant.
Gorlin et al. disclose oral care compositions comprising a surfactant system comprising a mixture of two or more surfactants. One embodiment comprises a mixture of sodium lauryl sulfate and a betaine. The amount of sodium lauryl sulfate is used in an amount higher than the betaine. It was seen that when an additional surfactant was used, the compositions exhibited higher foam levels than when SLS alone was the sole surfactant (col. 6).
The same amount of total surfactant was used in all the examples of TABLE I. When a combination of SLS and CAPB was used in a ratio of 4:1, the foaming went up almost 2 fold. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the instant application to have used a combination of sodium lauryl sulfate and cocoamidopropyl betaine in a ratio of 1:4 because this combination will improve foaming without the need for additional total surfactant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the instant application to have used 65% to 70% sodium bicarbonate in the composition of Gorlin et al. because it is disclosed by Gorlin et al. as a suitable polishing agent and 65% to 70% is suitable for use in oral care compositions, as disclosed by Xu et al.
Conclusion
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are rejected.
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEZAH ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-1071. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-7:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana Kaup can be reached on 571-272-6897. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LEZAH ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612