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. Claims included in the prosecution are claims 1-9. It appears the inventor(s) filed the current application pro se (i.e., without the benefit of representation by a registered patent practitioner). While inventors named as applicants in a patent application may prosecute the application pro se, lack of familiarity with patent examination practice and procedure may result in missed opportunities in obtaining optimal protection for the invention disclosed. The inventor(s) may wish to secure the services of a registered patent practitioner to prosecute the application, because the value of a patent is largely dependent upon skilled preparation and prosecution. The Office cannot aid in selecting a patent practitioner. A listing of registered patent practitioners is available at https://oedci.uspto.gov/OEDCI/ . Applicants may also obtain a list of registered patent practitioners located in their area by writing to Mail Stop OED, Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450. Claim Objections Claims 4, 5, 7 and 9 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternate only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim should not be treated on the merits ; however, for sake of compact prosecution the Examiner has decided to examine the claims. Claims 2 and 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: the term “and” should be recited immediately prior to “AgCl.” 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-9 are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited. Claim 1 recite the term “dissolved/suspended.” The claim is indefinite since it is not clear whether the salts have to be dissolved AND suspended or whether the salts have to be dissolved OR suspended. The scope of “/” is unclear. Claim 1 also recites the phrase “an efficacy enhancing/irritancy minimizing/skin calming vehicle.” The claim is also indefinite since it is not clear whether the vehicle needs to be efficacy enhancing, irritancy minimizing, AND skin calming or whether the vehicle needs to be just one of those. Additionally, the scope of an efficacy enhancing/irritancy minimizing/skin calming vehicle is unclear since it is not clear whether the vehicle is one compound that can enhance efficacy, minimize irritancy, and calm skin, or whether the vehicle is multiple compounds and through the multiple compounds the vehicle can enhance efficacy, minimize irritancy, and calm skin. If the vehicle is one compound, it is not clear what compound is capable of enhancing efficacy, minimizing irritancy, and calming skin. Claims 2 and 3 recite the limitation "The composition/formulation" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear what composition/formulation the claims are referring to. Additionally, it is not clear whether the composition/formulation is one embodiment or two embodiments. The scope of “/” is unclear. Claims 2 and 3 are also indefinite since the claims do not recite a transitional phrase. Therefore, it is unclear whether the composition/formulation is limited to the compounds recited. Claims 4 and 5 recite the limitation "the organic carrier" in the first line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claims 2 nor claim 3 recite an organic carrier. Therefore, the scope of organic carrier is unclear. Claim 4 is also indefinite since it is unclear whether “having from about 1 to about 6 carbon atoms” modifies just the carbonates or whether it modifies straight-chain , b ranched, and cyclic alcohols, polyols, esters, and carbonates. Claim 6 recites practical different concentrations. The claim is indefinite since it is unclear how the term “practical” modifies different concentrations. In other words, it is unclear how practical different concentrations is different from different concentrations. Claim 6 recites wherein the metals salts are at concentrations from 0 to 25%. The claim is further indefinite since it is unclear what unit the percentage is in. For example, whether the percentage is by weight, by volume, or by w/v. Claim 8 recites the phrase “in addition to treating the axillae for perspiration and/or odor control.” The claim is indefinite since none of the claims recite treating the axillae for perspiration and/or odor control. Therefore, it is unclear what claim 8 is further limiting. Claim 9 recites an article of manufacture comprising a composition of any of claims 1-8. The claim is indefinite since it is unclear how an article of manufacture can comprise an antiperspirant formulation when an antiperspirant formulation is in itself an article of manufacture. 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. 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 . 1. Claim s 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 5,723,110, Mar. 3, 1998) (hereinafter Yamamoto) in view of Jimenez et al. (US 2023/0310289, Dec. 22, 2021 Filing Date ) (hereinafter Jimenez). Yamamoto discloses a deodorant cosmetic composition used to prevent the dispersion or secretion of unpleasant body odors (col. 1, lines 13-15). The deodorant cosmetic composition has no rough feeling (col. 2, line 6). Poor dispersion and aggregation cause s rough feeling (i.e., the composition is dissolved/suspended) (col. 2, lines 23-24). The deodorant cosmetic composition comprises an antibacterial zeolite having all or a part of its ion exchangeable ions substituted with ammonium ions and antibacterial metal ions (col. 2, lines 9-14). Examples of antibacterial metal ions include silver, copper, zinc, and tin (col. 3, lines 14-15). The antibacterial zeolite is prepared by bringing zeolite into contact with a mixed aqueous solution prepared in advance and containing ammonium ions, and silver ions, copper ions, zinc ions, and other antibacterial metal ions and causing substitution between the ion exchangeable ions in the zeolite and the above ions (col. 3, lines 31-36). The silver ions used may be silver nitrate (col. 3, line 48). The copper ions used may be (II) copper nitrate (col. 3, line 51). The zinc ions used may be (II) zinc nitrate (col. 3, line 54). The tin ions used may be tin sulfate (col. 3, line 57). From the viewpoint of antibacterial property, the antibacterial metal ions are preferably contained in the zeolite in an amount of 0.1 to 15% by weight (col. 3, lines 18-20). The amount of the antibacterial zeolite blended in is preferably at least 0.1% by weight. When at least 0.1% by weight, the deodorizing effect appears much more remarkably (col. 4, lines 35-38). Selective blending of aluminum compounds is preferable in the sense of further enhancing the deodorizing effect caused by enhancing the sweat suppressing effect (col. 7, lines 34-37). Suitable aluminum compounds include aluminum chloride (col. 7, line 40). The composition may comprise salicylic acid as a bactericide (col. 12, line 5). The composition may comprise ethanol (Example 66 ). Ethyl alcohol has an astringent action. A powerful astringent action is used to suppress the secretion of sweat and thereby indirectly prevent body odor (col. 1, lines 21-26). The composition may also comprise propylene glycol (Example 65). Yamamoto differs from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the composition comprises a zirconium salt . However, Jimenez discloses wherein zirconium-containing active ingredients have antibacterial properties and can reduce odor-causing bacteria on the skin (¶ [0157]). Suitable zirconium-containing active ingredients include zirconyl oxyhalides (¶ [0161]). Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated a zirconium salt into the composition of Yamamoto since the composition comprises antibacterial metal ions and zirconium is a known and effective antibacterial metal ion by reducing odor-causing bacteria on skin as taught by Jimenez. In regards to instant claim 1 reciting an antiperspirant composition, since the composition of Yamamoto comprises aluminum compounds and aluminum compounds suppresses sweat as taught by Yamamoto, the composition of Yamamoto is an antiperspirant. In regards to instant claim 1 reciting a synergistic combination, a claim reciting a “synerg istic” combination of compounds is rejectable under 35 USC 103 over a combination of references disclosing each of the compounds individually, with the term being assessed for nonobviousness as an unexpected result. See MPEP 716.02(a). In the instant case, Applicant has not shown wherein the claimed combination is unexpected. In regards to instant claim 1 reciting wherein an efficacy enhancing/irritancy minimizing/skin calming vehicle, the instant specification discloses in paragraph (10) wherein a propylene glycol/salicylic acid vehicle has permitted the use of higher concentrations of aluminum chloride with less irritancy. Accordingly, since Yamamoto discloses wherein the composition may comprise propylene glycol and salicylic acid, Yamamoto discloses the claimed vehicle. In regards to instant claim 6 reciting wherein the metal salts are at different concentrations from 0 to 25%, Yamamoto discloses in the first paragraph in column 4 wherein silver, copper, and zinc may be in different amounts and in Example 57 wherein the aluminum compound and the antibacterial metal ions may be in different amounts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the antibacterial metal ions may be in different amounts from each other and from the aluminum compound. In regards to the amounts being from 0 to 25%, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed range through routine experimentation depending on the level of antibacterial and sweat suppression effect desired since Yamamoto discloses wherein the antibacterial metal ions provide an antibacterial property and wherein the aluminum compound enhances sweat suppressing effect. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In regards to instant claim 8 reciting wherein the formulation may be used to treat hands, feet, lower back, groin, peri-anal area, buttocks, and other areas, this would have been obvious since Yamamoto discloses in Example 65 wherein the composition may be a body cleanser. In regards to instant claim 9 reciting an article of manufacture, Yamamoto discloses in Example 69 a pack containing the composition. 2 . Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto et al. (US 5,723,110, Mar. 3, 1998) (hereinafter Yamamoto) in view of Jimenez et al. (US 2023/0310289, Dec. 22, 2021 Filing Date ) (hereinafter Jimenez) , and further in view of Bloom (US 2009/0257970, Oct. 15, 2009) , Hilliard, JR. et al. (US 2019/0298625, Oct. 3, 2019) (hereinafter Hilliard, JR.), Inward (US 4,900,534, Feb, 13, 1990), and Banowski et al. (WO 2010/145923 A2, Dec. 23, 2010) (hereinafter Banowski ). The teachings of Yamamoto and Jimenez are discussed above. Yamamoti and Jimenez do not teach wherein the composition comprises CuCl 2 (H 2 O) 2 , AlCl 3 (H 2 O) 6 , SnCl 2 (H 2 O) 2 , ZnCl 2 , ZrOCl 2 (H 2 O) 8 and/or AgCl , and wherein the ethanol is anhydrous . However, Bloom discloses antiperspirant compositions including a copper salt (abstract). The copper salt can be copper chloride dihydrate (¶ [0007]). The composition may include an aluminum salt. The composition may include aluminum trichloride hexahydrate (¶ [0010]). The composition may comprise anhydrous ethanol (¶ [0026]). Hilliard, JR. discloses an antiperspirant/deodorant composition comprising tin (II) chloride dihydrate (Table 15). Inward discloses preparation of antiperspirants (col. 1, lines 4-5). The antiperspirants may comprise zirconyl chloride octahydrate (Experiment 4). Banowski discloses an antiperspirant composition (abstract). Suitable antiperspirant active ingredients include zinc chloride (page 4 of translation). The composition may comprise a silver salt such as silver chloride (claim 11). Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. The prior art teaches wherein the composition may comprise copper ions, aluminum compounds, tin ions, zinc ions, zirconium salts, and silver ions. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to have incorporated copper chloride dihydrate, aluminum trichloride hexahydrate, tin (II) chloride dihydrate, zirconyl chloride octahydrate, zinc chloride and silver chloride into the composition of Yamamoto since these are known and effective source of copper ions, aluminum compounds, source of tin ions, zirconium salts, source of zinc ions, and source of silver ions for deodorant compositions, respectively, as taught by Bloom, Hilliard, JR., Inward, and Banowski . Yamamoto discloses wherein the composition may comprise ethanol. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated anhydrous ethanol into the composition of Yamamoto since it is a known and effective ethanol for deodorant compositions as taught by Bloom. In regards to the amounts of CuCl 2 (H 2 O) 2 , SnCl 2 (H 2 O) 2 , ZnCl 2 , ZrOCl 2 (H 2 O) 8 and AgCl recited in the instant claims, as discussed above, copper ions, tin ions, zinc ions, zirconium ions, and silver ions are antibacterial metal ions which provide an antibacterial property. Therefore, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed amount through routine experimentation depending on the level of antibacterial effect desired. In regards to the amount of AlCl 3 (H 2 O) 6 recited in the instant claims, as discussed above, aluminum compounds enhance the sweat suppressing effect. Therefore, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed amount through routine experimentation depending on the level of sweat suppression effect desired. In regards to the amount of ethanol recited in the instant claims, Yamamoto discloses wherein ethyl alcohol has an astringent action. A powerful astringent action is used to suppress the secretion of sweat and thereby indirectly prevent body odor. Therefore, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed amount through routine experimentation depending on the level of sweat suppression to prevent body odor desired. In regards to the amount of salicylic acid recited in the instant claims, Yamamoto discloses wherein salicylic acid is bactericide. Therefore, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art to have arrived at the claimed amount through routine experimentation depending on the level of antibacterial effect desired. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Conclusion Claims 1-9 are rejected. No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TRACY LIU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5115 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 9 am - 5 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Ali Soroush can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-9925 . 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. /TRACY LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614