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 the Claims
Previous product claim elections are noted to include a guanide compound as the biocide and polyglyceryl-10 caprylate/caprate as the polyglycerol ester.
Claim 2 has been canceled; it is noted its subject matter is newly presented in combination with amended scope of claim 1, and the new combination of features is addressed below as necessitated by amendment. Claims 3-8, 11, 12, 15, and 16 remain withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/10/25 and 12/10/25 have been considered by the examiner inasmuch as documents listed therein have been submitted into the file wrapper with an English translation where it is a foreign language document cited.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 13, and 14 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112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/10/2025 (hereafter, “Remarks”) have been fully considered and are addressed as follows.
Applicant has deleted claim language from claim 1 and has modified the scope of claim 1, both structurally by the addition of a component formerly examined under the now-canceled claim 2 and functionally by the removal of previously claimed product features and/or properties and/or effects. New grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment are presented below to address this new combination of elements. Applicant’s argument that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 should be withdrawn are persuasive in view of the language of claim 1 which has been removed by amendment.
Applicant requests rejoinder of previously withdrawn claims, however no claim is eligible for rejoinder at this time since no claim is in condition for allowance.
New Grounds of Rejection Necessitated by Amendments filed 11/10/25
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/178043A1 (hereafter, “Pambou”; newly cited).
The claims are drawn to a composition comprising (i) a biocidal agent and (ii) a polyglycerol ester in a ratio further specified in the claims. Instantly elected, the biocidal agent is a guanide.
Pambou teaches antiperspirant/deodorant compositions in various disclosed formulation forms (see abstract, in particular). The formulations may comprise a preservative in an amount of 0.01 to about 10% w/w, or 0.1 to about 7% w/w (see [0077]), and the preservative may be chlorhexidine for instance (see [0075])(limitation of claims 9 and 10). Chlorhexidine is noted specifically to be a guanide and more specifically a biguanide. Polyglyceryl-10 oleate may be included for instance in an amount of 0.60% w/w as exemplified in Example 5 (see [0099] and [0100])(limitation of claims 13 and 14). More specifically, Pambou teaches Example 6 which is a formulation for various antiperspirants wherein polyglyceryl-10 dipalmitate is included in an amount of 4% in Example 6A and in the same example where a gluconolactone/sodium benzoate/ calcium gluconate component is included in a w/w% amount of 1.00% (see [0103]). Accordingly, Example 6A teaches a preservative component embodied which Pambou teaches as functionally equivalent to the preservative which is chlorhexidine (a guanide) (see [0075] and [0076]).
Because Pambou does not teach a single embodiment including the instantly elected components, this rejection is made using obviousness rationale. Pambou’s Example 6A teaches a weight ratio range of polyglycerol ester to biocidal agent disclosed to be functionally equivalent to the instantly elected guanide to be 4:1, a value within the instantly claimed range. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to substitute one of Pambou’s preservatives for another in Pambou’s Example 6A for instance, with a reasonable expectation of success since Pambou teaches both of these components to function as preservatives alike. Further, one would have been motivated to perform routine optimization procedures as to the optimization of amounts of preservatives including those within the parameters of Pambou’s suggestions as noted above, based on routine inquiry in the art.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed at this time.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREA B CONIGLIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 5712720616. 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.
/AUDREA B CONIGLIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617