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 .
Specification
The first line of the specification should be updated to recite that “This application claims benefit of Provisional Serial No. 63/433,074, filed on December 16, 2022.”.
Claim Interpretation
The examiner construes the limitation “wherein the personal cleansing composition is substantially free of or free of ethoxylated anionic sulfate surfactant” that is recited in instant claims 1 and 20 to mean that the composition contains less than about 1% by weight of ethoxylated anionic sulfate surfactant, as defined by applicant on page 7, lines 21-23 of the instant specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 and 13-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of instant claim 1, the limitation “55” should be amended to recite “55%”. Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are included in this objection for being dependent on claim 1. 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 1-11 and 13-20 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 1-11 and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “wherein the hydric solvent is a solvent that is a neutral organic species that contains at least 2 hydroxyl groups and is not a hydrotrope” in independent claims 1 and 20. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear which solvents that contain at least 2 hydroxyl groups are categorized as a hydrotrope and which ones are not. Claims 2-11 and 13-19 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 1. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “Test Method as disclosed herein”. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear what specific method steps are required to measure the elastic modulus of the personal cleansing composition recited in instant claim 2. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 3 is 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 applicant regards as the invention. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “an average degree of branching of greater than 90%”, followed by the narrow recitation of “or from about 40% to about 60% by weight”. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “from about 0%” in line 12 of the claim 4 and in line 11 of claim 8. This limitation renders the claims vague and indefinite, since one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to ascertain the metes and bounds of “about 0%”. It is unclear what numerical values are covered by “about 0%”. The examiner suggests that the limitation should be amended to recite “from 0%”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 4-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitations “wherein a, b and c add up to about 100% by weight of the C12 alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant” and “wherein d, e and f add up to about 100% by weight of the C13 alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant”. Specifically, claims 4-6 and 8-10 require that the composition “consists of” the three components. Accordingly, the total amount of the three components must add up to 100% by weight, and not “about 100% by weight”. Claims 7 and 10 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claims 6 and claim 10. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claims 8-10 recite the limitation “wherein d, e and f add up to about 100% by weight of the C13 alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant” in the last line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the examiner asserts that each of claims 8-10 contain components a, b and c. Claims 8-10 should be amended to recite “wherein a, b and c add up to about 100% by weight of the C13 alkyl sulfate anionic surfactant” to provide proper antecedent basis. Claim 11 is included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 10. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, for containing the limitation “(water:composition)” in instant claim 19. This limitation renders the claim vague and indefinite, since it is unclear if the limitation that appears within the parentheses is required. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
March 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights