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 Objections
Claims 16, 21, 22, 25 and 26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in claim 16, line 14, “on” should be added after “based” to read as “based on”
b) in claim 21, it is suggested that “glycerin” in line 1 be replaced with “glycerol” to be consistent with the same term recited in claim 16, line 14
c) in claim 22, line 10, “on” should be added after “based” to read as “based on.” It is also suggested that “total” be added before “weight” in line 6 to be consistent with lines 3-4
d) in claim 25, it is suggested that “glycerin” in line 1 be replaced with “glycerol” to be consistent with the same term recited in claim 22, line 10
e) in claim 26, line 1, it is suggested that “TiO2, ZnO2,” be replaced with ““TiO2, ZnO2,”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 22-28 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 22 is indefinite because in line 2, it is not clear what the percentage of the fatty acid soap is based on. The “65 to 80%” should read as “65 to 80 wt%.”
Claims 23-28, being depended on claim 22, inherit the same rejection as in claim 22 above.
In addition, claim 26 is indefinite in the recital of “polyox high molecular weight” in line 2 because it is not clear what this component is, and the term “high molecular weight” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The said term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claims 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Oliveira Sichmann et al. (US 2009/0005290, already cited in IDS dated 01/30/2024), hereinafter “Sichmann.”
Regarding claims 16, 19-20 and 22-24, Sichmann teaches an extruded personal washing bar which comprises: at least about 40 wt% of a soap, preferably 50-80 wt%; from about 0.1 wt% to about 20 wt% of a polyol; no more than about 30 wt% water; from about 0.01% to about 3% based on the weight of the bar composition of inclusions dispersed uniformly in the bar (see abstract), and from 0-5 wt% fatty acids, i.e., free fatty acids (see Table 5) like lauric (C12) fatty acid (see Example 5 in Table 1) or coconut fatty acids (see Example 1 in Table 1). A preferred soap is a mixture of about 10% to about 40% derived from coconut oil or other lauric rich oils ("laurics soap") and about 90% to about 60% tallow or other stearic rich oils ("stearics soaps") (see paragraph [0037]) like palm oil (see paragraph [0035]). Coconut oil employed for the soap may be substituted in whole or in part by other "high-lauric" to "lauric rich" oils, that is, oils or fats wherein at least 50% of the total fatty acids are composed of lauric or myristic acids and mixtures thereof, and one example is palm kernel oil (see paragraph [0036]). One of the preferred polyols is glycerol (glycerin), and a level between about 3% and about 10% by weight of the bar is generally optimal (see paragraphs [0060] and [0063]). The water level in the bar typically ranges from about 3% to about 30% by weight of the bar depending upon the age of the bar, and preferably, the water level should be greater than about 10% by weight based on the continuous phase (see paragraph [0064]). Sichmann also teaches a process for preparing the personal washing bar which comprises intensive mixing or working of the soap mass while it is in a semi-solid plastic state with the remaining ingredients above and forming into a cohesive mass by extrusion (see paragraphs [0095]-[0096] and [0151]). Sichmann, however, fails to specifically disclose a cleansing bar comprising 65 to 80 wt% fatty acid soap, wherein C8 to C14 fatty acid soap is present in an amount between 15 and 30 wt% based on the total weight of the fatty acid soap, further wherein the fatty acid soap comprises 10 to 40 wt% soap derived from palm kernel oil and 60 to 90 wt% derived from palm oil based on the total weight of the fatty acid soap; 3 to 5 wt% glycerol, 15 to 25 wt% water, and 0.5 to 5 wt% free fatty acid which comprises C12 free fatty acid in an amount from 40 to 100 wt% based on the weight of the free fatty acid, as recited in independent claims 16 and 22, or in an amount from 60 to 100 wt% based on total weight of the free fatty acid as recited in claim 23.
Considering that Sichmann teaches a personal washing bar which comprises 50-80 wt% soap, wherein a preferred soap is a mixture of about 10% to about 40% derived from coconut oil or other lauric rich oils ("laurics soap") and about 90% to about 60% stearic rich oils ("stearics soaps") like palm oil (se paragraph [0035]) and wherein the coconut oil may be substituted in part by other "high-lauric" to "lauric rich" oils like palm kernel oil; 0-5 wt% fatty acids, i.e., free fatty acids like lauric (C12) acid; between about 3% and about 10% by weight of glycerol; and from about 3% to about 30% by weight of water, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., 65 to 80 wt% fatty acid soap, wherein soap derived from coconut oil is 15 wt%, which is mostly C12 fatty cid soap, soap derived from palm kernel oil 15 wt% and soap derived from palm oil is 60 to 90 wt%, all based on the total weight of the fatty acid soap; 0.5 to 5 wt% fatty acid like lauric (C12) fatty acid; 3-5 wt% glycerol and 15-25 wt% water) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Inasmuch as the only free fatty acid which is added to the soap bar is lauric (C12) fatty acid (see Example 5 in Table 1), the lauric (C12) fatty acid is 100 wt%, based on the total weight of the free fatty acid.
Regarding claim 17, Sichmann teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Sichmann teaches that the soaps are added in the form of soap noodles, and the soap noodles, by themselves, do not appear to contain glycerol (see paragraph [0151]). Please note that “less than” includes 0 as the lower limit, see In re Mochel, 470 F 2d 638, 176 USPQ CPA 1974.
Regarding claim 18, Sichmann teaches the features as discussed above. Sichmann, however, fails to specifically disclose the glycerol being added before the fatty acid soap or before the fatty acid soap and free fatty acid.
Even though Sichmann does not specifically disclose the glycerol being added before the fatty acid soap or before the fatty acid soap and free fatty acid, rather the soap mass is mixed with the remaining ingredients, i.e., glycerol and free fatty acid, changing the order of steps does not render a claimed process non-obvious over the prior art, Ex parte Rubin, 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). Also, selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results, see In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946). Also, selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious, see In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930). See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(C).
Regarding claims 21 and 25, Sichmann teaches the features as discussed above. As discussed above, Sichmann teaches that the soap bar comprises from about 0.1% to about 20% of a polyol, preferably between about 3% and about 10% by weight of the bar, and from 0-5 wt% fatty acids (see abstract, paragraph [0063] and Table 5). Sichmann, however, fails to specifically disclose glycerol (i.e., glycerin) to free fatty acid weight ratio of below 5 or below 5:1.
Considering that Sichmann teaches between about 3% and about 10% by weight of glycerol, and from 0-5 wt% fatty acids, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g., 4wt% glycerol to 1 wt% free fatty acid, or 4:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claims 26-27, Sichmann teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Sichmann teaches that the bar is transparent (see claim 8), i.e., not opaque, hence, the bar is free of opacifying agents like TiO2.
Regarding claim 28, Sichmann teaches the features as discussed above. In addition, Sichmann teaches that the bar contains adjuvants like perfume, dyes, and chelating agents, among others (see paragraph [0089]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761