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 .
Claim 24 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 4, applicant need to change “and” to --- or ---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 26 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 1, applicant need to insert --- the --- between “wherein” and “concentrate”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 3, applicant need to insert --- or --- after “Maltodextrin,” and before “Cellulose Gum.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 2, applicant need to insert --- or --- after “Cellulose Gum,” and before “Maltodextrin.”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities: on line 1, applicant need to change “packaging of the concentrate” to --- packaging enclosing the concentrate ---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 41 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 41, applicant recite that the cosmetic cleansing composition comprises the concentrate of claim 23 and water at a weight ratio of water to concentrate of from 2:98 to 7:93. It is the Examiner’s belief that applicant actually meant to state --- at a weight ratio of water to the concentrate of from 93:7 to 98:2. --- (based on the reading of the 5th paragraph on pg.9 of present specification) because claim 41 is not drawn to a cosmetic cleansing concentrate but to a cosmetic cleaning composition obtained by mixing the cleansing concentrate of claim 23 with water (which means that the weight amount of water would be much greater than the weight amount of the concentrate). Appropriate correction is required. *** For the purpose of examining claim 41 on the merit, the Examiner interpreted instant claim 41 to claim the weight ratio of water to the concentrate that ranges from 93:7 to 98:2.
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) 23, 24, 26, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jeong et al (KR10-2009-0073621 and its English translation).
Jeong teaches (see English translation, abstract) a powder composition for cleansing face comprising amino acid surfactant, isethionate surfactant and mung bean powder (as an active ingredient). Under Preparation Example 2, Jeong prepares the face-washing powder compositions of its inventive Example 3 in the form of a powder, and such composition contains: 31 wt.% of an amino acid based surfactant (a mixture of sodium lauroyl glutamate and sodium cocoyl glutamate); 5.0 wt.% of an isethionate-based surfactant (sodium cocoyl isethionate); 25.0 wt.% of mannitol; 9.8 wt.% of maltose; 18.0 wt.% of starch; 1.0 wt.% of silica; 10 wt.% of mung bean powder; and 0.2 wt.% of combination spices. Since Jeong’s Inventive Example 3 composition (which is in powder (solid) form) contains 36 wt.% of surfactants in total, contains starch (instant polysaccharide) and contains no liquid ingredient, Jeong teaches instant claims 23, 24, 26, 36 and 37.
With respect to instant claim 40, Jeong teaches (see the paragraph under Preparation Example 2 in English translation) that all the ingredients were blended together in a Henschel mixer to form the face-washing powder composition of its inventive Example 3. Thus, Jeong teaches instant step (a) of claim 40. With respect to instant step (b), Jeong teaches (see the paragraph under Experimental example 1) that the face-washing powder composition of Example 3 is dissolved in distilled water to prepare an 8% aqueous solution to test the makeup removal effect. Thus, Jeong teaches instant step (b) of claim 40, and therefore, Jeong teaches instant claim 40.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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.
Claim(s) 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (KR10-2009-0073621 and its English translation).
As discussed above, Jeong teaches (see the paragraph under Experimental example 1) that its face-washing powder composition of its inventive Example 3 is dissolved in distilled water to prepare an 8% aqueous solution (to test the makeup removal effect). This means that the ratio of water to the concentrate (Jeong’s face-washing powder composition of inventive Example 3) is 92:8. Such ratio is very close to instant ratio of 93:7, and thus renders instant range of claim 41 prima facie obvious. Where the claimed ranges and prior art do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties, a prima facie case of obviousness would exist which may be overcome by a showing of unexpected results, In re Titanium Metals Corporation of America v. Banner, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Thus, Jeong renders obvious instant claim 41.
Claim(s) 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeong et al (KR10-2009-0073621 and its English translation) in view of Harper et al (US 2020/0140781 A1), Yamamoto (JP2012-107147 and its English translation) and Aoyama et al (US 2019/0191936 A1).
As discussed above, Jeong teaches that its face-washing powder composition of its inventive Example 3 is dissolved in distilled water to prepare an 8% aqueous solution (to test the makeup removal effect), but Jeong does not teach the use of instant squeeze foamer equipped with an actuating unit to contain the aqueous solution of its face-washing powder composition. Harper teaches ([0003]) that solid cleansers do not often foam to a desired profile or volume, i.e.., they do not foam quickly enough, nor do they have the desired foam stability. Yamamoto teaches (see the 2nd paragraph under BACKGROUND-ART) that a foam-type cleansing agent is foamed when discharged from a foamer container, such as squeeze foamers or pump foamers. When the cleansing composition passes through a porous film inside the container at the time of discharge, the cleansing composition is mixed with air to become a foam. Aoyama teaches ([0030]) that a squeeze foamer makes a liquid foamy and discharges the foamy liquid by squeezing (actuating) the container body while a pump-foamer has a manual pump and makes a liquid foamy and discharges the foamy liquid by pushing down (actuating) the head of the foaming dispenser. Since Jeong indicates (see the 8th paragraph under DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS in English translation) that it desires an improved foaming force, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to put Jeong’s 8% aqueous solution in a squeeze foamer or a pump-foamer with a reasonable expectation of improving the foam quality and force. Thus, Jeong in view of Harper, Yamamoto and Aoyama renders obvious instant claim 42.
Claim(s) 23-26, 28, 30-32 and 34-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al (US 2020/0140781 A1).
In claims 1 and 7, Harper teaches a solid cleansing product comprising at least a first surfactant and at least a second surfactant, wherein the first and second surfactants are present in a combined surfactant weight amount of about 36 wt.% of the solid cleansing product. Harper further teaches ([0013]) that the term “solid” means that it is not in liquid form and has less than 0.2 wt.% of water in the cleansing product. Harper also teaches ([0035]) that each of the first and second surfactants are milled to form a powder having a desired particle size (which means that the first and second surfactants are in solid form). Thus, Harper teaches instant component (a).
With respect to instant component (b) (one or more polysaccharides), Harper teaches ([0029]) that its solid cleansing product can further contain additional skin benefit ingredients, such as moisturizing agent. Among examples for the moisturizing agent, Harper teaches maltodextrin (instant one or more polysaccharides). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further include maltodextrin in Harper’s soldi cleansing product discussed above with a reasonable expectation of providing moisturizing property to its solid cleansing product. Thus, Harper renders obvious instant component (b).
Thus, Harper renders obvious instant claims 23, 26, 30, 31 and 36.
With respect to instant clams 24 and 25, Harper teaches ([0018]) that its preferred second surfactant is sodium coco-sulfate. Thus, it would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use sodium coco-sulfate as Harper’s second surfactant with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, Harper renders obvious instant claims 24 and 25.
With respect to instant claim 28, Harper teaches ([0019]) that the weight ratio of the first surfactant to the second surfactant is preferably 1:1. As discussed above, Harper teaches (claim 7) that a combined surfactant weight amount is about 36 wt.% of the solid cleansing product. Assuming that there is only the first and second surfactant present in its solid cleaning product, this gives about 18 wt.% for the amount of the second surfactant (sodium coco-sulfate). Thus, Harper renders obvious instant claim 28.
With respect to instant claims 32 and 34, as already discussed above, Harper teaches that its solid cleansing product can further contain a moisturizing agent such as maltodextrin (instant one or more polysaccharides). Harper further teaches ([0029]) that additional skin benefit agents (such as a moisturizing agent) can be used in the amount of 1-10 wt.%. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to further include maltodextrin in the amount of 1-10 wt.% in Harper’s solid cleaning product discussed above with a reasonable expectation of providing moisturizing property to its solid cleansing product. The range 1-10 wt.% for the amount of maltodextrin (instant one or more polysaccharides) falls within instant range (0.1-10 wt.%) of claim 32 (and thus teaches instant range) and overlaps with instant range (0.1-7 wt.%) of claim 34, thus rendering instant range prima facie obvious. In the case “where the [claimed] ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness would exist which may be overcome by a showing of unexpected results, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Thus, Harper renders obvious instant claims 32 and 34.
With respect to instant claim 35, Harper teaches ([0029]) that its solid cleansing product can further contain preservatives such as sodium benzoate. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to further contain sodium benzoate as a preservative in Harper’s solid cleansing product with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, Harper renders obvious instant claim 35.
With respect to instant claim 37, Harper teaches (claim 17) that its solid cleansing product is in the form of a pressed tablet. Thus, Harper renders obvious instant claim 37.
With respect to instant claims 38 and 39, Harper teaches ([0014] and [0032]) that its solid cleansing product may be packaged in a (water) dissolvable outer film. Thus, Harper renders obvious instant claims 38 and 39.
With respect to instant claim 40, Harper teaches ([0035]-[0036]) that its milled powdered surfactants (in the amount of about 36 wt.% as taught in its claim 7) are added to a dry powder blender along with the binder, bulking agents, buffering agents, anti-caking agents and other optional components (such as moisturizing agent (maltodextrin)). These components are blended together to achieve sufficient mixing, and then a glidant is added. The entire composition is mixed again. Once fully mixed, the composition is ready for tableting. Thus, Harper teaches instant step (a). As to instant step (b), Harper teaches ([0039]) that when used by a consumer, the solid cleansing product is to be combined with water and manipulated by the consumer through rubbing the hands or skin to a point where foam is generated to a sufficient level. Thus, Harper teaches instant step (b). Thus, Harper renders obvious instant claim 40.
With respect to instant claim 41, Harper teaches ([0078] and claim 14) mixing 0.25 g of its solid cleansing product with 250 mL (250 g) of water. Given such teaching as a starting point, instant range for the weight ratio of water to concentrate (98:2 – 93:7) would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Thus, Harper renders obvious instant claim 41.
Claim(s) 27 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al (US 2020/0140781 A1) in view of Bugdahn et al (WO 2022/122131 A1).
With respect to instant claims 27 and 29, as already discussed above, Harper teaches ([0018]) that its preferred second surfactant is sodium coco-sulfate. Harper also teaches ([0018]) that its preferred first surfactant is sodium cocoyl isethionate, which does not teach instant disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate. However, as evidenced by Bugdahn et al ([0195]), Harper’s sodium cocoyl isethionate and instant disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate are known in the art as equivalently or interchangeably used surfactants for the preparation of solid surfactant compositions. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate (instead of sodium cocoyl isethionate) as Harper’s first surfactant in its solid cleansing product with a reasonable expectation of success. As to instant range for the amount of disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate, Harper teaches ([0019]) that the weight ratio of the first surfactant to the second surfactant is preferably 1:1. As discussed above, Harper teaches (claim 7) that a combined surfactant weight amount is about 36 wt.% of the solid cleansing product. Assuming that there are only the first and second surfactants present in its solid cleaning product, this gives about 18 wt.% for the amount of Harper’s first surfactant (sodium cocoyl isethionate which is to be replaced by disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate as discussed above). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to use about 18 wt.% of disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate as Harper’s first surfactant with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, Harper in view of Bugdahn renders obvious instant claim 27. As to instant claim 29, since Harper teaches ([0019]) that the weight ratio of the first surfactant (disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate) to the second surfactant (sodium coco-sulfate) is preferably 1:1, Harper in view of Bugdahn renders obvious instant claim 29.
Claim(s) 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al (US 2020/0140781 A1) in view of Viscovitz et al (US 2002/0013237 A1).
Harper teaches ([0029]) that additional skin benefit ingredients, such as thickening agents, can be included in its solid cleansing product composition. As one of examples for the thickening agents, Harper teaches carbomer. Furthermore, it is well known in the art that carbomer and instant cellulose gum are equivalently or interchangeably used as thickeners in a skin cleansing composition, as evidenced by Viscovitz ([0029]). Also, Harper teaches ([0029]) that the additional skin benefit ingredients (such as thickening agents) can be used in the amount of about 1-10%. It would be obvious to one skilled in the art to use about 1-10 wt.% cellulose gum as Harper’s thickener with a reasonable expectation of success. Such range overlaps with instant range 0.1-5 wt.% of claim 33, thus rendering instant range prima facie obvious. In re Wertheim, supra. Thus, Harper in view of Viscovitz renders obvious instant claim 33.
Claim(s) 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al (US 2020/0140781 A1) in view of Yamamoto (JP2012-107147 and its English translation) and Aoyama et al (US 2019/0191936 A1).
Harper teaches ([0002]) that its solid cleansing products are foamable in the presence of water and teaches ([0078] and claim 14) mixing 0.25 g of its solid cleansing product with 250 mL (250 g) of water. Harper also teaches ([0003]) that solid cleansers do not often foam to a desired profile or volume, i.e.., they do not foam quickly enough, nor do they have the desired foam stability. Yamamoto teaches (see the 2nd paragraph under BACKGROUND-ART) that a foam-type cleansing agent is foamed when discharged from a foamer container, such as squeeze foamers or pump foamers. When the cleansing composition passes through a porous film inside the container at the time of discharge, the cleansing composition is mixed with air to become a foam. Aoyama teaches ([0030]) that a squeeze foamer makes a liquid foamy and discharges the foamy liquid by squeezing (actuating) the container body while a pump-foamer has a manual pump and makes a liquid foamy and discharges the foamy liquid by pushing down (actuating) the head of the foaming dispenser. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to put Harper’s aqueous solution of its solid cleaning product in a squeeze foamer or a pump-foamer with a reasonable expectation of improving the foam quality and force. Thus, Harper in view of Yamamoto and Aoyama renders obvious instant claim 42.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 23-41 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18, 20, 23-26, 30, 31 and 34-37 of copending Application No. 18/567,427 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reason:
Claim 18 of App.’427 teaches a cosmetic cleansing concentrate (in solid form) which comprises (a) one or more solid surfactants and (b) Caesalpinia Spinosa Gum and/or Cellulose Gum (instant polysaccharide(s)) and comprises less than 7 wt.% liquid ingredients based on the total weight of the concentrate. Claims 20, 23 and 24 of App.’427 teach that the concentrate can comprises disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate and sodium coco sulfate in the amount of 8-30 wt.% and 12-34 wt.%, respectively, which means that the sum of these two surfactants would be 20-64 wt.%. This range overlaps with instant range at least 35 wt.% (as well as instant range (not more than 55 wt.%) of claim 26) for the amount of one or more solid surfactants, thus rendering instant range prima facie obvious. In re Wertheim, supra. Thus, claims 18, 20, 23 and 24 of App.’427 render obvious instant claims 23-28, 30, 31 and 36.
With respect to instant claim 29, claim 25 of App.’427 teaches that the concentrate comprises disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate and sodium coco sulfate at a weight ratio of from 1.5:1 to 1:2. Thus, claim 25 of App.’427 renders obvious instant claim 29.
With respect to instant claims 32 and 33, claim 26 of App.’427 teaches that the concentrate can comprises 0.1-30 wt.% (in total) of Caesalpinia Spinosa Gum and Cellulose gum (instant one or more polysaccharides). Such range overlaps with instant ranges of claim 32 and 33, thus rendering instant ranges prima facie obvious. In re Wertheim, supra. Thus, claim 26 of App.’427 renders obvious instant claims 32 and 33.
With respect to instant claims 34 and 35, claims 30 and 31 of App.’427 teach that the concentrate comprises 0.1-20 wt.% of maltodextrin and that the concentrate further comprises sodium benzoate. Thus, claims 30-31 of App.’427 render obvious instant claims 34 and 35.
With respect to instant claims 37-39, claims 34-36 of App.’427 teach instant claims 37-39. Thus, claims 34-36 of App.’427 render obvious instant claims 37-39.
With respect to instant claim 40, claim 37 of App.’427 (in combination with other claims of App.’427 discussed above) teaches instant method of claim 40. Thus, claim 37 (together with other claims discussed above) of App.’427 renders obvious instant claim 40.
With respect to instant claim 41, claim 37 of App.’427 teaches that after the cosmetic cleaning concentrate is prepared, such concentrate is dissolved in water to obtain the cosmetic cleansing composition. Although claim 37 of App.’427 does not explicitly teach instant range for the weight ratio of water to concentrate as claimed in instant claim 41, instant range would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Thus, claim 37 of App.’427 renders obvious instant claim 41.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 23-29 and 36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 12, 14, 19, 20 and 26 of copending Application No. 18/566,724 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following reason:
Claims 12, 19 and 20 of App.’724 teach a cosmetic cleansing product (in solid form) which comprises (a) binder and (b) 0.1-50 wt.% of solid surfactants, which are disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate and sodium coco sulfate and comprises less than 15 wt.% of liquid ingredients. Claim 14 of App.’724 teaches that the binder can be starch paste (instant polysaccharide). The range 0.1-50 wt.% for the amount of solid surfactant overlaps with instant range (at least 35 wt.%) of claim 23 and instant range (not more than 55 wt.%) of claim 26, thus rendering instant ranges prima facie obvious. In re Wertheim, supra. Also, the range less than 15 wt.% for the amount of liquid ingredients overlaps with instant range less than 7 wt.% of claim 23, thus rendering instant range prima facie obvious. In re Wertheim, supra. Thus, claims 12, 14, 19 and 20 of App.’724 render obvious instant claims 23-26.
With respect to instant claims 27-29, as discussed above, claims 12, 19 and 20 of App.’724 teach 0.1-50 wt.% of solid surfactants which are disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate and sodium coco sulfate. Assuming that disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate and sodium coco sulfate are present in the weight ratio of 1:1, this gives 0.05-25 wt.% for each of disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate and sodium coco sulfate. Such range overlaps with instant ranges of claims 27 and 28, thus rendering instant ranges prima facie obvious. In re Wertheim, supra. Thus, claims 12, 19 and 20 of App.’724 render obvious instant claims 27-29.
With respect to instant claim 36, claim 26 of App.’724 teaches that the concentration of water is less than 5 wt.% based on the total weight of the concentrate. Thus, claim 26 of App.’724 renders obvious instant claim 36.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIN J. LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1333. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Kwon can be reached on 571-272-0581. 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).
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.
/SIN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
September 29, 2025
Prosecution Insights