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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/28/2026 has been entered.
Applicants' arguments, filed 01/28/2026, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112—4th paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 13 provides a list of suitable amine oxides; however every amine oxide therein is an amphoteric surfactant, which is in violation of Claim 1, which has been amended to recite “the antimicrobial cleansing composition is devoid of amphoteric surfactants”. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
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.
New by Amendment
1) Claim(s) 1-4, 7-9, 11, 14-15, 17, 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck et al., (WO 1998/53036) in view of Vincent et al., (ES 2257842, pub. 2006).
Gluck et al. teaches, “An antiseptic cleansing composition comprising an antimicrobial agent, an effective amount of an alkylpolysaccharide surfactant, at least one alcohol and at least one aryl alcohol” (Abstract). Note: “The alkylpolysaccharide surfactants are also known in the art as alkylpolyglucosides, however, for the purposes of the following discussion, the surfactant will be termed an alkylpolysaccaride” (p. 2, lines 22-24).
Suitable antimicrobial agents include “chlorhexidine, chlorhexidine salt” (bisgiquanide antimicrobial active)(Abstract). “When the antimicrobial agent is chlorhexidine digluconate it is used in an amount preferably not exceeding 4.5% w/v” (p. 3, lines 22-23).
The compositions further comprise “a solubilizing agent for example propylene glycol [C2-C8 glycol], a hydrotrope or mixtures thereof” (p. 4, lines 17-18); “a foaming agent such as an alkylaminooxide” (amine oxide) (Id. lines 21-22).
“The pH of the composition is typically adjusted to pH 5 to 7 . . . “ (p. 5, lines 8-9).
The prior art teaches a specific embodiment below:
PNG
media_image1.png
566
968
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(p. 7). Here the embodiment is free of quaternary ammonium compounds, and is devoid of amphoteric surfactants. Since the prior art teaches the same relative amount biguanide antimicrobial active, it would have been capable of passing European Standard EN-1499 (2013).
It would have been obvious to add the amine oxide as foaming agent in this embodiment. Plantaren 2000 is a C8-C16 alkyl polyglucoside.
Since the prior art teaches the same relative amount biguanide antimicrobial active, it would have been capable of passing European Standard EN-1499 (2013).
The compositions of Gluck et al. may optionally comprise additional “nonionic surfactants” (p. 5, lines 1-2), but the reference does not teach where the additional nonionic surfactant is ethylene oxide-propylene oxide block copolymer.
Vincent et al. teaches “an antibacterial cleaning composition having between 0.05 and 1% by weight of a cationic polymer having a charge density of 0.0025 or more, between 0, and 5% and weight of a zwitterionic surfactant, between 0.2 and 5% by weight of at least one biguanide compound, and optionally a non-ionic surfactant and a polymeric biocidal compound” (Abstract).
The composition “is highly effective in destroying bacteria and other microorganisms, but also soft enough for frequent use in a single day” (p. 4, 5th paragraph).
The prior art acknowledges the known “use of an alkyl polyglucoside as an agent used to increase the microbiocidal activity of biguanide compounds” (p. 3, 7th paragraph).
The biguanide compounds “is preferably a salt of chlorhexidine selected from the group consisting of gluconate, acetate, formate, lactate, isethionate and succinamate” (p 5, 3rd paragraph), as per claims 2-3.
The nonionic surfactant is taught to be present within a range of 0 to 10% by weight (see claim 1) and “preferably a alkyl polyglucoside” (Id.). Quaternary ammonium compounds are not required. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to exclude them.
“Another non-ionic surfactant suitable for the present invention is a polymeric surfactant comprising polyoxyethylene and polyoxypropylene. These block copolymers are sold under the Pluronics brand” (p. 9, 1st and 2nd full paragraphs). The reference further teaches, “When nonionic surfactants are used, these they are preferably incorporated in amounts ranging from 0 to 10% by weight of active in the total composition, being the most preferred in the range of 0-2% by weight of asset.” (Id.).
“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)” (see MPEP 2144.07).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to add the nonionic surfactant of Vincent et al., i.e. ethylene oxide-propylene oxide block copolymer (Pluronics brand) to the compositions of Gluck et al. based on its art recognized suitability for its intended use as a nonionic surfactant in an antibacterial cleaning composition comprising at least one biguanide compound. It would have been obvious to use about 0.1 wt% to about 2.0 wt.% of the surfactant of Vincent et al., as claimed, since Vincent teaches a preferred range of 0-2% by weight for nonionic surfactants.
2) Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck et al., (WO 1998/53036) in view of Vincent et al., (ES 2257842, pub. 2006), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lowe et al., (GB 2493041, pub. 2013).
The combination of Gluck et al. and Vincent et al., which is taught above, differs from claim 12 insofar as it does not teach coco glucoside.
Lowe et al. teaches compositions for treatment of skin disorders comprising “chlorhexidine or a pharmaceutical salt thereof” (Abstract).
Lowe et al. further teaches, “Surfactants may be included as cleansing agents, foamers, solubilizing agents and homogenisers. Examples include coco-glucoside and decyl glucoside” (p. 18, lines 18-19).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to use coco-glucoside as glucoside in the compositions of Gluck et al. based on its art recognized suitability for its intended use as surfactant in topical compositions comprising chlorhexidine, as taught by Lowe et al.
3) Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gluck et al., (WO 1998/53036) in view of Vincent et al., (ES 2257842, pub. 2006) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) (www.cir-safety.org, Aug. 2013).
The combination of Gluck et al. and Vincent et al., which is taught above, differs from claim 16 insofar as it does not teach one or more of PEG-7/PPG-2 propylheptyl ether.
CIR provides a panel review of alky PEG/PPG ethers used in cosmetics (Ti.). “PEG-7/PPG-2 Propylheptyl Ether” is listed therein as an alkyl PEG/PPG ether that is “safe in the present practices of use and concentration in cosmetics described in this safety assessment” (p. 10, Conclusion).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for its intended use (see MPEP 2144.07). Also, established precedent holds that it is generally obvious to add known ingredients to known compositions with the expectation of obtaining their known function (see 2144.06).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to add PEG-7/PPG-2 propylheptyl ether to the compositions of Gluck et al. since Gluck et al. teaches adding nonionic surfactants to its compositions. The artisan would have been reasonably expected to provide known polymers that are safe to use in cosmetics such as PEG-7/PPG-2 propylheptyl ether, as taught by CIR.
Technological Background
The prior art made of record and considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure BASF (Technical Information). BASF is pertinent for teaching Plantaren® 2000 N UP is a “C8-C16 fatty alcohol glycoside” (see General characterization at p. 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument is moot in view of the new ground of rejection above.
Conclusion
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WALTER E WEBB whose telephone number is (571)270-3287 and fax number is (571) 270-4287. The examiner can normally be reached from Mon-Fri 7-3:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana Kaup can be reached (571) 272-6897. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Walter E. Webb
/WALTER E WEBB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612