Claims 1-18 are pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2 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 5, 6, 14, 15 and 17 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.
Claims 5, 6, 14 and 15 recite the limitation “the cationic polymer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Correction is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the bubble elasticity of the composition”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3 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.
4 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.
Claims 1 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Emiru et al. (US 20210095228 A1).
Emiru et al. (US’ 228 A1) teaches a method that a diutan gum is included (added) in the cleaning composition as claimed in claim 1 (see page 4, paragraph, 0051). Emiru et al. (US’ 228 A1) teaches a cleaning composition same to those claimed, which is inherently should have same property of improving bubble density and bubble elasticity of 11,000 cps or more when measured by a BROOKFIELD LV viscometer as claimed in claim 8, wherein the lower pH range of the cleaning composition is about 7 as claimed in claim 7 (see page 5, paragraph, 0056). Emiru et al. (US’ 228 A1) also teaches a cleaning composition same to those claimed., which inherently should have same utility of cleaning hair, body or hand as claimed in claim 9. Emiru et al. (US’ 228 A1) all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Emiru et al. (US’ 228 A1) anticipates the claims.
Claims 10 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)1 as being anticipated by Emiru et al. (US 20210095228 A1).
Emiru et al. (US’ 228 A1) teaches a cleaning composition comprising a diutan gum as claimed in claim 10 (see claim 1). Emiru et al. (US’ 228 A1) teaches a cleaning composition same to those claimed, which is inherently should have same property of a bubble elasticity of 11,000 cps or more when measured by a BROOKFIELD LV viscometer as claimed in claim 17, wherein the lower pH range of the cleaning composition is about 7 as claimed in claim 16 (see page 5, paragraph, 0056). Emiru et al. (US’ 228 A1) also teaches a cleaning composition same to those claimed, which inherently should have same utility of cleaning hair, body or hand as claimed in claim 18. Emiru et al. (US’ 228 A1) teaches all the limitations of the instant claims. Hence, Emiru et al. (US’ 228 A1) anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5 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.
6 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 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elder et al. (US 20170304173 A1) in view of Park et al. (US 2020170894 A1).
Elder et al. (US’ 173 A1) teaches a cleaning composition for cleaning skin and body as claimed in claim 18 (see page 1, paragraph, 0017), wherein the cleaning composition also comprises rheology modifiers include diutan gum and guar gum (cationic polymer) in the amounts of 0.01 to 5 wt. % which is covered the claimed range as claimed in claims 10, 12-13 and 15 (see page 2, paragraphs, 0037-0038), wherein the cleaning composition has a pH in the range of 1-5 which is covered the claimed range as claimed in claim 16 (see page 10, Example 1).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Elder et al. (US’ 173 A1) by reciting skin cleaning composition comprising an amino acid-based surfactant.
However, Elder et al. (173 A1) teaches skin cleaning composition that comprises surfactants (see page 1, paragraphs, 0007-0008).
Park et al. (US’ 894 A1) in analogous art of skin cleaning formulation, teaches a cleaning composition useful for cleaning body/skin and hair (see page 1, paragraph, 0001), wherein the cleaning composition comprises amino acid surfactants as claimed in claim 11 (see page 6, paragraph, 0109).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Park et al. (US’ 894 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the cleaning composition of Elder et al. (173 A1) by incorporating the amino acid surfactants as taught by Park et al. (US’ 894 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious based on the teaching of Elder et al. (173 A1) that clearly suggests the use of surfactants in the cleaning composition, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of amino acid surfactants as taught by Park et al. (US’ 894 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous cleaning composition taught by Elder et al. (173 A1), absent unexpected result.
Regarding the limitations of claim 14, Elder et al. (US’173 A1) teaches a cleaning composition that comprises rheology modifiers include diutan gum and guar gum (cationic polymer) in the amounts of 0.01 to 5 wt. % (see page 2, paragraphs, 0037-0038).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Elder et al. (US’ 173 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the amounts and the weight ratio between the gums (diutan and guar) in the cleaning composition in order to get the maximum effective amounts of these ingredients in the cleaning composition, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a cleaning composition to have similar property to those claimed, absent unexpected result.
Regarding the limitation of claim 17, the combined prior arts of Elder et al. (US’ 173 A1) and Park et al. (US’ 894 A1) as described above, disclose a personal cleaning composition comprising diutan gum, amino-acid based surfactants and cationic polymers, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a cleaning composition to have similar property of bubble elasticity as those claimed, when measured by a BROOKFIELD LV viscometer as claimed, absent unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761