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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allef et al (US2014/0349902) in view of Kleinen et al (US2018/0133133).
Allef et al teaches an aqueous skin cleaning compositions comprising comprising water, at least one biosurfactant and at least one fatty acid [0023] and sum of all surfactants in the compositions is from 5 to 20% by weight, and that the fraction of fatty acid, based on the sum of fatty acid and surfactants, is from 0.1 to 20% by weight [0016]. Allef et al further teaches the composition contains thickeners [0047]. Allef gives specific examples with compositions containing 1.5% cocamidopropyl betaine and glyceryl laurate, 1.5% sodium chloride, 2.0% capryl/capramidopropyl betaine coco-betaine [Table 45]. Allef et al teaches compositions containing glyceryl oleate and coco betaine [Table 41, 50].
Allef et al does not explicitly teach the ratio being 1:1.5 to 1:8.
Kleinen et al teaches cosmetic cleaning composition [0003] comprising water, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, glyceryl laurate, wherein the ratio of glycerol fatty acid ester to betaines is 1.5:3.5 and 1:3 [examples 103c and 103j]. Keling teaches an advantage of the composition is milder for skin and eye irritation [0027] and storage stable at elevated and reduced temperatures [0028].
It would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed invention before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the following reasons. One would modify the ratio of fatty acid to betaine taught by Allef to match the ratio taught Kleinen in order to create a superior cleaning composition. Based on the teachings of Kleinen, the changes in ratio can be determined through routine optimization. It is not inventive to discover such regimens by routine experimentation when general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) and MPEP §2144.05(11). Therefore, the invention as a whole would be obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW whose telephone number is (571)272-2817. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri, 8-5.
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-Petigrew 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.
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761