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 Claims Claims 1-10, 16-20 and 28-32 are pending. Claims 11-15, 21-27 and 33-40 are canceled. This is the first office action on the merits. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statements filed February 22, 2023 and May 14, 2025 have been reviewed. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of disteardimonium hectorite as the derivative of hectorite clay and isopropyl palmitate as the emollient with traverse in the reply dated November 11, 2025 is noted. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 1-10, 16-20 and 28-32 are examined on their merits in light of the elected species. 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. Claim s 5, 7, 8 , 10 , 18, 20, 30, and 32 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 s 5, 7, 10, 18, 20, 30, and 32 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for reciting the limitation “ (ratio of 15 wt% concentrate and 85 wt% propellant). ” This ratio in parentheses is vague and confusing since it is not clear whether th is specific ratio is require by the claims. This phrase is not explained in the specification and cannot be determined by reference to any other claims. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of how to determine what this phrase means. For the purposes of this office action claim s 5, 7, 10, 18, 20, 30, 32 will be interpreted as if the ratio is not required by the claims. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) for reciting “substantially free” in line 2. The phrase “ s ubstantially free” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The phrase “substantially free” is not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree . The specification at paragraph [0019] does not clarify how much can be present to meet the limitations of substantially free, since there i t recited about 1% wt, with a recitation of preferably and more preferably for the values, so the description of the phrase in the specification only raises ambiguity, instead of resolving it. One skilled in the art, therefore, would not be reasonably apprised of the metes and bounds of the claims. 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-10, 16-20 and 28-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Emmerling et al. WO 2006/063726 (6/22/2006) in view of Banowski et al. WO 2009/083547 (7/9/2009) and Deckner et al. https://www.ulprospector.com/knowledge/4757/pcc-silicones-wow-factor-formulations-part-1-fluids/ (7/29/2016) (“Silicones”) as evidenced by the specification. Emmerling et al. (Emmerling) teaches antiperspirant and/or deodorant cosmetic compositions which comprise a water-in-oil emulsion having at least one antiperspirant or deodorant ingredient, at least one propellant and an aerosol dispenser. (See Abstract). Emmerling teaches that it is a storage stable emulsion spray product. In the oil phase Emmerling describes isododecane as a preferred oil component. Isododecane is called for in instant claims 2 and 29. Isododecane corresponds to the formula in claims 1 and 28. The isododecane is present in an amount of about 5 to 50 wt%. 5 to 50 wt% overlaps with the from about 5 to about 75 wt% called for in instant claims 3 and 30. Emmerling teaches that silicates serve as odor absorbers which can also advantageously support the rheological properties of its water-in-oil emulsions. Particularly advantageous silicates in its invention include hectorite. (See page 7). Further particularly preferred components in the composition include dimethiconol. Emmerling teaches that it has been found surprisingly that the addition of a dimethiconol improves the spray pattern of the emulsion spray and prevents the spray device from clogging for longer periods of time. Emmerling teaches that some of the most particularly preferred dimethiconols are dissolved as a solution in a dimethicone. One such dimethiconol is Wacker-Belsil DM 3096. (See page 1). A dimethiconol dissolved as a solution in a dimethicone is a blend of a dimethicone and a dimethiconol as called for in instant claims 1, 16 and 28. Wacker-Belsil DM 3096 has a viscosity of 6,000 mPa.s at 25 ˚C as evidenced by the instant specification at [0050] in Example 2. 6,000 mPa.s at 25 ˚C = 6,000 cP which is called for in instant claims 6 and 31. Emmerling teaches preferred total amounts of dimethiconol of from 0.2 to 0.5 % by weight. (See page 7). Emmerling teaches that preferred oil components include isopropyl palmitate. (See page 3). Isopropyl palmitate is called for in instant claim 9. Emmerling’s compositions are cyclomethicone free as called for in instant claim 8. Emmerling teaches hectorite but does not teach stearalkonium hectorite. Emmerling teaches the silicone gum blend Wacker-Belsil DM 3096 but does not teach the approximate amount of dimethiconol or dimethicone. These deficiencies are made up with the teachings of Banowski et al. and Silicones Banowski et al. (Banowski) teaches antiperspirant compositions for personal hygiene formulated as a suspension or solution that can be sprayed using a propellant, containing at least one antiperspirant substance, at least one oil, which is liquid under normal conditions as the carrier, 0 to 3% of free water, based on the weight of the composition and at least one organosiloxane-oxyalkylene copolymer. (See Abstract). Banowski teaches that its preferred compositions contain at least one lipophilic thickener that is selected from hydrophobized clay minerals among other thickeners such as fumed silicas. Banowski teaches that hydrophobic clay minerals are particularly preferred. Banowski teaches that particularly suitable thickeners include di stear dimon ium hectorite. (See page 15). Silicones teaches that typically, less than 100,000 cSt fluids are referred to as gums and are used in shampoos and conditioners. The most efficient feel-modifying, tack reducing silicones are gum blends comprised of 85 to 90 percent of a low viscosity carrier and 10 to 15 percent gum. Carriers used include dimethicone and cyclopentasiloxane. (See paragraph 6 in Silicones on page 1). As mentioned previously, Emmerling teaches preferred total amounts of dimethiconol of from 0.2 to 0.5 % by weight. The Wacker-Belsil DM 3096 is a blend of dimethiconol in dimethicone but the exact ratio of dimethiconol to dimethicone is unknown because this is a proprietary blend. However, the viscosity is known to be 6,000 mPa.s at 25 ˚C. As taught by Silicones, typically, less than 100,000 cSt fluids are comprised of 85 to 90 percent of a low viscosity carrier such as dimethicone and 10 to 15 percent gum (higher viscosity silicones such as dimethiconol). Even with a ratio of 85 to 90 percent of a low viscosity carrier such as dimethicone and 10 to 15 percent dimethiconol, the amount of dimethicone would be 4.5 wt% and would thus be well below the 16% limit required by instant claim 16. Additionally, the total amount of the silicone blend would be 5.0 % (0.5% dimethiconol + 4.5% dimethicone = 5%). 5% silicone gum blend falls within the 2 to about 15% called for in instant claims 7, 20 and 32. It would be prima facie obvious before the earliest effective filing date for one of ordinary skill in the art making the Emmerling water in oil emulsion composition of 5 to 50 wt% isododecane, isopropyl palmitate and Wacker-Belsil DM 3096 to have the hectorite be disteardimonium hectorite in order to have an effective lipophilic thickener as taught by Banowski that can also absorb odor as taught by Emmerling. It would be prima facie obvious before the earliest effective filing date for one of ordinary skill in the art making the Emmerling water in oil emulsion composition of 5 to 50 wt% isododecane, isopropyl palmitate and Wacker-Belsil DM 3096 to have the amount of Wacker-Belsil DM 3096 be 5% in order to have an efficient feel-modifying, tack reducing silicone as taught by Silicones that has dimethiconol present in an amount of 0.2 to 0.5 % by weight as taught by Emmerling. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CHICKOS whose telephone number is (571)270-3884. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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 . 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. SARAH CHICKOS Examiner Art Unit 1619 /SARAH ALAWADI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619