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. Election Acknowledged Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of Group I encompassing claims 1-13, 16, 17, 21 and 22 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged . As the prior art cited describes the claims of Group II noted in the requirement mailed 10/31/2025 there is not a serious burden to co-examine the two groups. As such, the restriction requirement between Groups I and II is withdrawn. Claims 1-13, 16, 17, 21-25 are pending and presented for examination on the merits. The following rejections are made. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 8/6/2024 and 12/26/2023 have being considered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-12 and 21 -24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiozpeoplou (US 4487757) . Kiozpeoplou is directed to a dispensing container of toothpaste having the following cross-sectional structure: (see Figure 1) wherein the dispensing container has separate envelopes, each of which contain a different toothpaste portion, wherein each envelope terminate s at the ne ck of the tube so that the contents may be dispensed simultaneously. As illustrated, the two outlets of the neck of the dispensing container are considered ‘nozzles’ per instant claims 1 and 2. The separate envelopes of the dispensing container are simultaneously filled with distinct toothpaste composition s (see column 14, lines 1-5) (see instant claim 5) , wherein each toothpaste portion comprises a base oral composition contacted with a colorant so as to produce two distinctly colored compositions (see abstract , see column 11, lines 16-60 and Example 1 -6 ) such that when the distinctly colored composition are dispensed from the container the toothpaste possesses a multicolored striped appearance reflecting the first and second colorants as separate compositions (see instant claim s 1 and 22 ) . Example 1 states that the two toothpaste portions, when dispensed, come into interfacial contact and present a clear blue stripe on the surface of the toothpaste (see column 11, line 66 to column 12, line 1) (see instant claim s 8 , 21 and 23 ). The release of the two portions can be controlled by changing the depth of the inner container as well as by squeezing the tube to push out the contents. The squeezing would control the rate or volume of the dispensation from the outlet nozzles as required by instant claim 2. When not being squeezed from the container, the composition remains undisturbed in the tube in the unique, multicolored pattern (see instant claim 6). Kiozpeoplou ’s toothpaste matrix is made by combining a silica aerogel thickener, water (vehicle), polishing agents such as silica modified with alumina (an abrasive) (see portion 1 of Example 1), humectants such as glycerol and surfactants such as sodium lauryl sulfate (see instant claims 9-12 , 23 and 24 ). 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. Claim s 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-1 3, 16, 17 and 21 -25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiozpeoplou (US 4487757) . Kiozpeoplou is relied upon for disclosure described in the rejection of claim 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-12 and 21 -24 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) . Kiozpeoplou tooth paste composition is to contain 1) thickening agents so as to control the consistency of the composition including gums and polymers such as sodium carboxymethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, xanthan gum, silica and Arabic gum in an amount of 0.5-2% by weight (see column 7, lines 30-35) (see instant claim s 13 , 17 and 25 ); 2) vehicles such as water, glycerol, polyethylene glycol, etc in an amount of 20-99% by weight (see column 10, lines 24-28) (see instant claim s 13 and 25 ); 3) a polishing abrasive to enhance cleaning activity of the toothpaste, such as silica combined with alumina, in an amount of 1-30% by weight (see column 7, lines 4-8) (see instant claim s 13 and 25 ); and 4) surfactants for improving detersive and foaming activity, such as sodium lauryl sulfate, in an amount between 0.05-5% by weight (see column 8, lines 60-62) (see instant claim s 1 3 and 25 ) The selection of the various claimed components from Kiozpeoplous teaching would have been obvious as the selection of a known material based on its intended purpose is supportive of obviousness. See MPEP 2144.07. Regarding the concentration of the components in the resulting composition set forth by instant claim 17, this would have been a product of optimizing the framework set forth by the reference. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) which states that where the general conditions of a claim are described, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Similar rational is applied to instant claim 16 (silica abrasive:silica thickener ratio of about 1:1 to 2:1) because the reference suggests 0.5-2% of silica thickener and 1% of abrasive silica, a ratio of the abrasive to the thickening silica 2:1 to 1:2 results which obviates instant claim 16. . Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary. Claim s 3, 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kiozpeoplou (US 4487757) as applied to claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-1 3, 16, 17 and 21-2 5 above, and further in view of Gantenberg (US 2008/0245678) . Kiozpeoplou fails to teach their method as comprising forming the unique, multicolored pattern of the first and second colorants in the vessel comprises agitating the vessel while disposing the first portion of the oral care composition into the vessel, while disposing the second portion of the oral care composition into the vessel, or while disposing both the first and second portions of the oral care composition into the vessel , wherein the agitating of the vessel comprises swirling. Grantenberg is directed to a toothpaste composition comprising having a transparent multi-phase with alternating bands . The composition is to be provided in a dispenser such as a tube or pump bottle (see [0043, 0131]) (see instant claim 7). The toothpaste composition may disposed into the container at a steady rate or discontinuously wherein the container may be rotated (i.e. swirling) during the filling process (see [0127]) (see instant claims 3 and 4). It would have been obvious to modify Kiozpeoplou’s method of filling the toothpaste container to include the action of rotating the container during filling as such a technique was known to be used with success in the art. Combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is supportive of obviousness. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary. 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. Claims 12 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim s 12 and 24 both recite ‘optionally’ throughout. However, it is not clear if the species which follow the optional language are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). C onclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3504 . The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 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 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). /KYLE A PURDY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611