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 .
Claim Status
Applicants’ amendments and 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claims 1, 3, and 11 are amended.
Claims 16-20 are newly added.
Claims 1-20 are examined on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 12, and 15 recite “hydratable”, “hydrated” and/or “hydrating”. Although Applicant’s instant specification provides no single definition to these terms, it does however makes reference to “hydrate” stating “the cleansing powder is composition is easy to carry and hydrate” (page 4, and “method of cleaning with the cleansing powder composition of the first aspect of this invention by hydrating the composition“ (page 4, , and “Cleansing powder composition as used herein means a composition that is hydratable and suitable to clean skin, hair, nails or an inanimate object”. it is noted that the instant claims are composition claims and future intended use is not given patentable weight. Thus any cleansing powder composition comprising a) a surfactant system comprising a taurate and glycinate; b) a polysaccharide builder; and c) an emulsifier having anhydrophobic-lipophilic balance,HLB, of at least 8,wherein the total surfactant in the system is at least 70% by weight taurate and glycinate, and further wherein the polysaccharide builder comprises microcrystalline cellulose, maltodextrin and Oryza sativa (rice) starch at a weight ratio of 35 to 75% microcrystalline cellulose to 3 to 15% maltodextrin to 20 to 60% by weight Oryza sativa (rice) starch, based on total weight of the polysaccharide builder will meet this limitation.
Claims 6 and 14 recites “the composition is a precursor to a hands, face, body, nails, or inanimate object wash composition” and “is a composition for skin, hair, nails, or an inanimate object” in which it is noted that the instant claims are composition claims and future intended use is not given patentable weight. Thus any composition meeting the limitations of claim 1 or 12 respectively, will meet this limitation.
Maintained Rejections
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.
Claims 1, 3-11, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (
US20090068255A1, published 03/12/2009, hereafter Yu) and as evidenced by Pharmacists Coffee (Emulsifying Agents. Pharmacists Coffee, Our Magazine. (2010, August 25). https://pcm.me/emulsifying-agents/, hereafter Pharmacists Coffee).
As evidenced by Pharmacists Coffee, sodium lauryl sulfate, and sodium dioctyl sulfo succinate are emulsifiers (page 1, paragraph 3).
Yu teaches a skin care composition used in both cosmetic compositions and pharmaceutical compositions for application to skin (abstract; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 6, and 14-15). Yu further teaches the composition to be a powder and teaches the composition can be used in skin care products such as cleansers ([0011] and [0013]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 6, and 14-15). Furthermore, Yu teaches the composition may be administered to the skin the in form of a cream, lotion, ointment, powder, spray, solution, gel, paste, serum, stick, foam, patch, face mask, etc. ([0012]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 6 and 14-15). Yu further teaches the composition comprises an emulsifier and teaches the emulsifier to be N-acyl taurate ([0089]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 20). Yu teaches the composition comprises a salt to be selected from a list to include potassium cocoyl glycinate and sodium cocoyl glycinate (page 39, paragraph 0135; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1-2 and 20). Yu further teaches the concentration of the salt in the final composition in the range of about 1-20% by weight then further expands the range to include about 1-30% weight ([0136]; according to claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 5). Yu teaches the salts are typically ionized and result in stoichiometrically equivalent amounts of cations and anions when dissolved in a solution (e.g., water) and are soluble ([0135]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 5) which reads on hydratable. Further, Yu teaches the formulation can be dissolved or dispersed in sterile water or other sterile injectable medium prior to use which also reads on hydratable ([0161]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 1). Yu teaches the composition comprises a thickener at concentration of about 1-50%, or more specifically about 5-50% ([0125]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 9). Yu teaches the thickener to be selected from a group to include microcrystalline cellulose ([0125]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 9). Yu teaches the composition, specifically powder compositions, comprises an absorbent at a concentration of 1-50% and teaches absorbents useful in the composition to be Oryza sativa (rice) starch, microcrystalline cellulose, or maltodextrin ([0138]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 9). Yu further teaches that absorbents typically have a large surface area and can attract other materials such as lipids ([0138]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1 and 9). Yu teaches the addition of surfactants/detergents/emulsifiers, in which the surfactant used would have an HLB from 10 to about 15, or in another embodiment from about 12 to about 18, or in another embodiment from about 14 to about 16 as determined in the “HLB system: a time saving guide to emulsifier selection” ICI Americas Inc., Wilmington, Del., 1976. ([0131]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 7, and 10). Yu then provides a list of possible surfactants to include sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate ([0132]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 1, 7, and 10). Yu teaches in certain embodiments, the composition comprises a fatty acid selected from the group containing glycerol ([0110]) and teaches the composition may also include other agents such as sunscreens ([0013]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 19). Yu teaches the composition further may include preservatives, antioxidants, and/or chelating agents to extend the shelf-life and/or prevent the degradation of the components of the inventive composition and teaches these to be: Palmitoyl Grape Seed Extract, Citrus Unshiu Peel Powder, Glycyrrhiza Glabra (Licorice), Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Extract, Aloe Barbadensis , marigold, Chamomilla Recutita (Matricaria) Flower Extract, Chamomilla Recutita (Matricaria) Flower Oil, Chamomilla Recutita (Matricaria) Flower Water, Chamomilla Recutita (Matricaria) Leaf Extract ([0121] and [0123]; according to the claim limitations of the instant claim 18).
Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). Furthermore, Yu teaches a composition comprised of: taurate, glycinate, microcellulose crystalline, maltodextrin, Oryza sativa (rice) starch, and compounds having an HLB of 10-15, which read on instant claims 1, 3-11. The reference does not specifically teach the concentrations of taurate, or Oryza sativa (rice) starch and maltodextrin individually as claimed by the Applicant. The concentrations of these components are clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and reasonably would expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of the ordinary skill to determine the optimal concentrations in order to best achieve desired results, such as the absorbent to remove lipids. Thus, absent of some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, this optimization of the concentrations of taurate, glycinate, microcellulose crystalline, maltodextrin, Oryza sativa (rice) starch would have been obvious at the time of Applicant's invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (
US20090068255A1, published 03/12/2009, hereafter Yu) in view of Watkinson et al. (WO/30473, published 11/16/1995, hereafter Watkinson), and as evidenced by Pharmacists Coffee (Emulsifying Agents. Pharmacists Coffee, Our Magazine. (2010, August 25). https://pcm.me/emulsifying-agents/, hereafter Pharmacists Coffee).
As outlined above, Yu teaches a cleansing powder composition comprising taurate, glycinate, microcrystalline cellulose, maltodextrin, Oryza sativa (rice) starch, and an emulsifier with an HLB of at least 8. However, although Yu teaches the addition of N-acyl taurate, it fails to explicitly teach the list of the instant claim 2.
Watkinson teaches a method of manufacturing N-acyl taurate derivatives, specifically sodium N-cocoyl, N-methyl taurate (abstact). Watkinson that most preferably their invention allows for the preparation of sodium N-cocoyl N-methyl taurate that is used as an anionic surface active sulphonate in detergents in the personal care industry (page 4, paragraphs 6-7).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim a skin cleansing powder comprising taurate (specifically N-acyl taurate), glycinate, microcrystalline cellulose, maltodextrin, Oryza sativa (rice) starch, and an emulsifier with an HLB of at least 8 as outlined Yu with the simple substitution of sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, which are known to be used in the field of personal care detergents as outlined by Watkinson. Simple substitution of one taurate commonly used in personal care products for another is within the purview of the skilled artisan and would yield predictable results.
Claims 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (
US20090068255A1, published 03/12/2009, hereafter Yu) and as evidenced by Pharmacists Coffee (Emulsifying Agents. Pharmacists Coffee, Our Magazine. (2010, August 25). https://pcm.me/emulsifying-agents/, hereafter Pharmacists Coffee) in view of Maglio et al. (Maglio, M. Martin, and John M. Hannegan. "Powdered Antiseptic Industrial Skin Cleansers." American Journal of Public Health and the Nations Health 43.4 (1953): 426-432., hereafter Maglio).
As outlined above, Yu teaches a cleansing powder composition comprising taurate, glycinate, microcrystalline cellulose, maltodextrin, Oryza sativa (rice) starch, and an emulsifier with an HLB of at least 8. Although Yu teaches a cleansing powder, it fails to teach the composition further comprising water or a specific method of washing using the cleanser outlined in Yu as in claims 12-15.
Magio teaches the multiple basin handwashing technique (page 428, paragraph 2). Magio’s study included two powdered skin cleansers (page 427, paragraphs 5-7). Magio teaches the powdered soap is diluted with 2 volumes of water to every 1 volume of soap (page 429, figure 1). Magio teaches the series of basins are used and the hands and arms are scrubbed in a uniform manner (page 428, paragraph 2).
One skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would claim a cleansing powder composition comprising taurate, glycinate, microcrystalline cellulose, maltodextrin, Oryza sativa (rice) starch, and an emulsifier with an HLB of at least 8 as outlined by Yu with the ready for improvement with the known technique of washing your hands and arms with a skin cleansing powder and water, at a ratio of water to soap the is 2:1 as outlined by Magio. Using the method of washing hands wherein the cleaning powder used to wash hands and arms in the desired ratio of water as claimed by instant claims 12-15 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/28/2026 are considered by the examiner.
In regards to the claim interpretation, Applicant references the PG Pub document US20240148628A1 corresponding to the instant application. Applicant references paragraph [0019] which states “Cleansing powder composition as used herein means a composition that is hydratable and suitable to clean skin, hair, nails or an inanimate object. Surfactant system comprising a taurate and glycinate means the total source of surfactant in the cleansing composition powder that comprises both a taurate and a glycinate where the total surfactant in the system is at least 70%, and preferably, at least 80%, and most preferably, at least 90% by weight taurate and glycinate. In an embodiment of the invention, taurate and glycinate make up from 92.5 to 100% by weight of the surfactant in the surfactant system. In yet another embodiment of the invention, taurate and glycinate make up 100% by weight of the total surfactant (excluding emulsifier) in the system. Polysaccharide builder means a carbohydrate that builds (i.e., contributes to) the viscosity of the end use wash composition and/or builds smooth sensory benefits. Skin, as used herein, includes skin on the feet, face, neck, chest, arms (including under arms), hands, legs, buttocks, back and scalp. Inanimate object is meant to include a hard surface like a counter, glass, an appliance door, vehicle and a porcelain fixture such as a dish, mug, sink, tub or toilet. Inanimate object is also meant to include materials comprising nylon, cotton and/or polyester (e.g., clothes, curtains, shirts, rugs, sneakers, upholstery), and fruits and vegetables that are typically washed before consumption. Substantially free of bicarbonate means less than 5.0%, and preferably, less than 2.75%, and most preferably, less than 1.25% by weight bicarbonate based on total weight of the cleansing powder composition. In an embodiment of the invention, the cleansing powder composition comprises no (0.0% by weight) bicarbonate. The cleansing powder composition after hydration (i.e., combining with water) is herein referred to as an end use wash composition and is therefore a precursor to an end use composition. The end use wash composition includes shampoos for hair washing, body washes, automobile wash products as well as home care wash compositions like hard surface and window cleaners, toilet bowl cleaners and laundry detergents. In one embodiment, the end use wash composition of the present invention is a hand, body, face, scalp and/or nail wash composition. In another embodiment, the end use wash composition is a shampoo (i.e., hair washing) composition. In still another embodiment, the end use wash composition is a home care composition. Powder flow, as used herein, means easy to shake out of a shaker, where powder clumping and static cohesion are not visually observed.” Applicant argues this paragraph defines hydration claiming that it means “combining with water”. Applicant further argues that the powder when hydrated with water yields a mild and desirable wash composition and references paragraph [0039] of the corresponding PG Pub which discusses using the powder to wash hands and hair.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that paragraph [0019] that hydration means “combining with water”, it is first noted that this instant paragraph [0019] uses “combining with water” as an example, “i.e.”, and not a definition. Further, it regards to Applicant’s argument, it is noted that the instant claims are directed towards a powder composition and intended use, such as washing hands with the composition or use in a washing composition is not given patentable weight.
In regards to the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 1, 3-11, and 16-20 over Yu as evidenced by Pharmacists Coffee, Applicant first argues that the instantly claimed invention is directed towards a cleansing powder and that the teaches of Yu (US20090068255A1) are directed towards the application of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors to the skin. Applicant continues the argument by references a single example in Yu, example 26, claiming this example is directed towards “controlled delivery of drugs”. Further, Applicant argues that N-acyl taurate is taken from a list of other emulsifiers.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that Yu is directed towards application of matrix metalloproteinase inhibiters and delivery of drugs, it is first noted that Applicant’s instant claims utilize the open-ended term of “comprising” which the MPEP 2111.03(I) gives definition to “comprising” stating that it is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. Therefore, Applicant’s instant claims are inclusive of unrecited elements such as matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors. Further, the MPEP 2111.03(III) states “applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or specific components which would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention.” In summary, Applicants have failed to properly demonstrate how matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed composition. Further, it is reiterated that Yu teaches the composition to be a powder and teaches the composition can be used in skin care products such as cleansers ([0011] and [0013]), thus teaching a cleansing powder as instantly claimed. Further, in regards to Applicant’s reference to example 26 of Yu, it is noted that the rejection of record is a 35 USC § 103 rejection in which a reference is analyzed using its broadest teachings. MPEP 2123 [R-5]. “[W]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007)(quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. A person of ordinary skill in the art who is not an automaton is capable of producing the method of the instant claims with predictable results. Under 35 USC § 103 the prior art is taken as whole and a reference to a single example is an improper rebuttal. In regards to Applicant’s argument that N-acyl taurate is taken from a list of other emulsifier, Applicant is again reminded that the MPEP 2111.03(III) states “applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or specific components which would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention.” Applicant has failed to demonstrate how the other components would materially change the characteristics of the invention.
In summary, the examiner is not persuaded by Applicant’s arguments and the rejection is maintained and updated to account for claim amendments and/or newly added claims.
In regards to the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claim 2 over Yu in view of Watkinson, Applicant first argues for the same reasons above the rejection should be withdrawn. Applicant again makes reference to example 26 solely claiming the example does not list any of the polysaccharides. Further, Applicant argues that Yu makes no mention to a powder composition being hydrated with water to yield a superior wash composition. Lastly, Applicant argues against Watkinson, saying that it is directed towards a method of separating solutes.
In response to applicant's arguments against Yu individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, it is again noted that under 35 USC § 103 the prior art is taken as whole and a reference to a single example is an improper rebuttal. In regards to Applicant’s argument that Yu does not teach the use of composition as wash composition, Applicant is again reminded that intended use, such as use in a washing composition is not given patentable weight. Further, it is again noted that Yu teaches the composition to be a powder and teaches the composition can be used in skin care products such as cleansers ([0011] and [0013]). As for Applicant’s argument against Watkinson, Applicant is again reminded one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, it is noted that Watkinson is solely cited to teach N-acyl taurate derivatives, specifically sodium N-cocoyl, N-methyl taurate (abstact), thus making simple substitution obvious.
In summary, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
In regards to the 35 USC § 103 rejection of claims 12-15 over Yu in view of Maglio, Applicant first argues for the same reasons above the rejection should be withdrawn. Applicant again makes reference to example 26 solely claiming the example does not list any of the polysaccharides. Further, Applicant argues that Yu makes no mention to a powder composition being hydrated with water to yield a superior wash composition. Lastly, Applicant argues that Maglio is directed towards soap and teaches away from the composition which is directed towards a powder.
Similarly to above, in response to applicant's arguments against Yu individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, it is again noted that under 35 USC § 103 the prior art is taken as a whole and a reference to a single example is an improper rebuttal. In regards to Applicant’s argument that Yu does not teach the use of composition as wash composition, Applicant is again reminded that intended use, such as use in a washing composition is not given patentable weight. Further, it is again noted that Yu teaches the composition to be a powder and teaches the composition can be used in skin care products such as cleansers ([0011] and [0013]). As for Applicant’s argument against Maglio, Applicant is again reminded one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, it is noted that Applicant has provided no reasoning or evidence that soap and powdered cleansers would be materially different from eachother. Furthermore, the MPEP 2111.03(III) states “applicant has the burden of showing that the introduction of additional steps or specific components which would materially change the characteristics of the claimed invention.”
In summary, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive and the rejection of record is maintained.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
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 ALEXANDRA NICOLE ISNOR whose telephone number is (703)756-5561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30am-3pm PST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571) 272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.N.I./ Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights