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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed 23 June 2026 for application 18/605,577 filed 15 March 2024. Claims 21, 35, and 37 are amended. Claims 1-20 are canceled. Currently, claims 21-38 are pending.
REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
The status for each rejection and/or objection in the previous office is set out below.
35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and Double Patenting
REJECTIONS – MAINTAINED & NEW
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
(Maintained) Claims 21-29 and 31-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson et al. (Antimicrobial compositions containing cationic active ingredient, US 2015/0272124 A1, 2015, entered in IDS on 25 March 2024) in view of Keenan et al. (Cleansing bar with distributed polymeric network providing enhanced delivery, US 2006/0281650 A1, 2006), as evidenced that coconut methyl glucosamides (CAS 1591783-13-9) are comprised of carbon chain lengths between C8 to C18, and Klug et al. (N-methyl-N-acylglucamine containing composition, WO 2013178700, 2013).
Pederson discloses a concentrated cleaning mixture containing the ingredients including: an antimicrobial composition with 0.1-10.0 wt. % of cationic activities including benzalkonium chloride and chlorhexidine gluconate (para. 0015), both with reported activities against gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria (para. 0013), a foaming boosting surfactant with 0.5-25.0 wt.% including non-ionic foam-boosting surfactant with a hydrophobic region having an alkyl group containing 6-18 carbon atoms and can include alkyl amine oxides (para. 0054), and a carrier such as water or other suitable diluent, which after taking the other ingredients of the composition into account, can account for 17.0-99.05% of total weight of the composition (para. 0010), giving the composition a pH of 4.0-9.0 (para. 0011), and can give an in vitro greater than 5 log reduction of microorganisms in 30 seconds (pg. 13, table 8). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that 'suitable protection' is provided if the protective layer is 'about' 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant's] claimed range."). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range). A prima facie case of obviousness necessarily exists when the prior art range overlaps or touches a claimed range. MPEP § 2144.05.
Pederson does not, however, disclose the use of glucosamides as a foaming agent or as a mixture with an amine oxide derivative.
Keenan rectifies this by teaching a fibrous cleansing bar that includes a hydrous lather composition (abstract), which can include amongst other ingredients, non-ionic surfactants with a specific example of glucosamides such as coconut alkyl N-methyl glucosamide (CAS 1591783-13-9) (para. 0114), providing an example of application within the context of soap for human dermal use. Klug expounds on glucosamines of structure explaining that they are advantageous over surfactants such as polyhydroxy fatty acid amides in having lower-melting solids, dilute in water, and easily form gels, and offer improved handling for processing. Coconut methyl glucosamides are encompassed within the genus described by Klug.
As such, it would have been prima facie obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to consider the use of glucosamides as a foaming boosting surfactant in the cleaning mixture disclosed by Pederson, as taught by Keenan as a known alternative of useful polyhydroxy fatty acid amide surfactants for cleansing.
(Maintained) Regarding the limitations of claim 22 , where the primary foaming agent is a C8-C16 glucosamide and the concentrated cleaning composition contains less than 0.5 wt.% amine oxide, is met as coconut methyl glucosamides (CAS 1591783-13-9) are comprised of carbon chain lengths between C8 to C18 and by Pederson, (Table A), where the foam boosting surfactant, amine oxide, has a lower limit of 0.1 wt.% of the composition total.
(Maintained) Regarding the limitations of claim 23, wherein the concentrated cleaning composition further comprises a secondary foaming agent in a concentration between about 0.05 wt.% and about 4 wt.%, is met as Pederson discloses the use of additional surfactants or combination of surfactants, present in amounts from 0.5-10.0 wt.% (para. 0108).
(Maintained) With respect to the limitations of claim 24, where the concentrated cleaning composition further comprises a chelant comprising methylglycinediacetic acid in a concentration between about 0.05 wt.% and about 0.5 wt.%, is met as Pederson discloses the use of a chelating agent of 0.1-6.0 wt.% (para. 0010) which can include methylglycine-N,N-diacetio acid (para. 0099).
(Maintained) Concerning the limitations of claim 25, wherein the concentrated cleaning composition further comprises a foam structure enhancing agent in a concentration between about 0.05 wt.% and about 3 wt.%, is inherently met as Pederson discloses the use of a foam stabilizer of 0.1-10 wt.% (para. 0097).
(Maintained) With regards to the limitations of claim 26, wherein the concentrated cleaning composition further comprises a humectant in a concentration between about 0.05 wt.% and about 3 wt.%, is inherently met as Pederson discloses the use of a dermal adjuvant between 0.5-25 wt.% (para. 0010) which includes humectants (para. 0072).
(Maintained) Regarding the limitations of claim 27, wherein the concentrated cleaning composition further comprises a preservative in a concentration between about 0.01 wt.% and about 2 wt.%, is inherently met as Pederson discloses the use of preservatives in a composition in an amount between 0-3.0 wt.% (para. 103).
(Maintained) The limitations of claim 28, wherein the concentrated cleaning composition further comprises an emollient in a concentration between about 1 wt.% and about 5 wt.%, is met as Pederson discloses the use of dermal adjuvants including emollients in a composition between 1-30.0 wt.% (para. 0065).
(Maintained) The limitations of claim 29, wherein the primary foaming agent comprises a C8-C16 glucosamide, and wherein the C8-C16 glucosamide comprises capryloyl/caproyl methyl glucosamide, cocoyl methyl glucamide, lauroyl/myristoyl methyl glucamide, or a mixture thereof, is met as Keenan teaches the use of cocoyl methyl glucamide (para. 0114).
(Maintained) With regards to the limitations of claim 31, wherein the concentrated cleaning composition further comprises one or more ingredients, is met as Pederson discloses the use of additional ingredients such as skin moisturizer/protectants (para. 0071), occlusive agents (para. 0074), skin conditions (0075), general addition function materials (para. 0102), thickeners (para. 0105), pH-adjusting compounds (para. 0109), antioxidants (para. 0112), fragrances (para. 0114) and dyes (para. 0116).
(Maintained) Regarding the limitations of claim 32, where a method of preparing a ready-to-use antimicrobial composition comprising diluting a concentrated cleaning composition to form the ready-to-use antimicrobial composition, is inherently met as Pederson discloses methods employing the compositions including that the concentrated compositions may be diluted prior to packaging or diluted prior to/at the point of use (para. 0121).
(Maintained) Concerning the limitations of claim 33, where the ready-to-use antimicrobial composition is diluted with the carrier at a weight ratio of between about 1:1: to about 1:25 to form a use solution, is inherently met as Pederson discloses that the diluent ratio can be from about 1:1 to about 1:10 (para. 0121).
(Maintained) The limitations of claim 34, where the primary foaming agent is a C8-C16 glucosamide and the concentrated cleaning composition contains less than 0.5 wt.% amine oxide, are met as coconut methyl glucosamides (CAS 1591783-13-9) are comprised of carbon chain lengths between C8 to C18 and by Pederson, (Table A), where the foam boosting surfactant, amine oxide, has a lower limit of 0.1 wt.% of the composition total.
(Maintained) Regarding the limitations of claim 35, where the ready-to-use antimicrobial composition further comprises a secondary foaming agent in a concentration between about 1 wt.% and about 30 wt.%, wherein the ready-to-use antimicrobial composition further comprises a chelant comprising methylglycinediacetic acid in a concentration between about 0.1 wt.% and about 10 wt.%, and/or wherein the ready-to-use antimicrobial composition further comprises a foam structure enhancing agent in a concentration between about 0.5 wt.% and about 35 wt.%, are met as Pederson discloses the use of additional surfactants or combination of surfactants, present in amounts from 0.5-10.0 wt.% (para. 108), the use of a chelating agent of 0.1-6.0 wt.% (para. 0010) which can include methylglycine-N,N-diacetic acid (para. 0099), and the use of a foam stabilizer of 0.1-10 wt.% (para. 0097).
(Maintained) The limitation of claim 36, where the ready-to-use antimicrobial composition is a hand soap, are met as Pederson discloses the practical end uses of antimicrobial compositions including hand cleansers, surgical scrubs, hand sanitizer gels, and similar personal care products (para. 0186). Additionally, Pederson compares the properties of the antimicrobial composition to hand soaps in terms of mildness index (para. 0159, fig. 4), and foam volume and stability (para. 0161, fig. 6).
(Maintained) With respect to the limitations of claim 37, where the ready-to-use antimicrobial composition comprises from about 0.01 wt.% to about 2 wt.% of the antimicrobial active; from about 0.1 wt.% to about 5 wt.% of the primary foaming agent; from about 65 wt.% to about 99.7 wt.% of the carrier; and from about 0.05 wt.% to about 4 wt.% of the foam structurer enhancing agent, these are met as Pederson discloses that the active ingredient in the antimicrobial composition can comprise 0.1-10.0 wt.% and preferably 0.1-5.0 wt.% (para. 0043); that the surfactant is present in amount of 0.1-40.0 wt.% and preferably 1-25 wt.% (para. 0050); that the carrier comprises 17-99.06 wt.% (para. 0010, extrapolated); and that the foam stabilizer is present in 0.1-10.0 wt.% and preferably 0.5-8.0 wt.% (para. 0097).
(Maintained) The limitations of claim 38, where the ready-to-use antimicrobial composition comprises from about 0.01 wt.% to about 2.0 wt.% of the antimicrobial active; from about 0.1 wt.% to about 5 wt.% primary foaming agent; from about 0.1 wt.% to about 5 wt.% secondary foaming agent; from about 65 wt.% to about 99.7 wt.% carrier; from about 0 wt.% to about 1 wt.% of the chelant; and 0 wt.% to about 4 wt.% of the foam structure enhancing agent, are met as Pederson discloses that the active ingredient in the antimicrobial composition can comprise 0.1-10.0 wt.% and preferably 0.1-5.0 wt.% (para. 0043); that the surfactant is present in amount of 0.1-40.0 wt.% and preferably 1-25 wt.% (para. 0050); a secondary or additional surfactant or combination of in a concentration between about 0.5 -10 wt.% (para. 108); that the carrier comprises 17-99.06 wt.% (para. 0010, extrapolated); the use of a chelating agent of 0.1-6.0 wt.% (para. 0010); and that the foam stabilizer is present in 0.1-10.0 wt.% and preferably 0.5-8.0 wt.% (para. 0097).
(Maintained) Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pederson and Keenan, evidenced by coconut methyl glucosamides (CAS 1591783-13-9) are comprised of carbon chain lengths between C8 to C18, as applied to claims 21-29 and 31 above, and further in view of Mehlhorn et al. (Compositions comprising flavonoid-containing extracts from plants of the genus citrus and/or isolated citrus flavonoids and specific cationic surface-active agents, and said composition for use as an agent for treating infestations with head lice, US 2017/0071202 A1, 2017).
Pederson disclosed a cleaning mixture comprised of an antimicrobial composition, carrier which included water, and a foaming surfactant which was modified by the teachings of Keenan to include the use of glucosamides including coconut methyl glucosamides.
They do not, however, teach the use of a second foaming agent, which comprises trimethyl ammonium chloride, palmitamidopropyl trimonium chloride, a phospholipid derivative surfactant, or mixtures thereof.
Melhorn overcomes this by teaching the use of cationic surface-active agents, including palmitamidopropyltrimonium chloride is used as a secondary surfactant (para. 0016).
As such, it would have been prima facie obvious, to a person of ordinary skill in the art, to consider the use of palmitamidopropyl trimonium chloride as a secondary surfactant as part of a mixture intended for cleaning that has antimicrobial properties in the compositions as disclosed and taught by Pederson and Taylor.
Response to Arguments
The office kindly thanks the Applicant for their consideration and arguments to the previous office action. Responses are detailed below.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6 – Claim Objections, filed 23 June 2026, with respect to claims 21 and 35 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections of claims 21 and 35 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 37 to depend on claim 35 in the reply filed 23 June 2026 is acknowledged.
On pgs. 7-12 – Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, filed 23 June 2026, the Applicant argues:
Keenan is non-analogous art: … Keenan is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention… directed to a solid or semi-solid fibrous cleansing bar… not a liquid or gel concentrated antimicrobial composition….Keenan mentions glucosamides only in passing… the sole mention of an antimicrobial agent in Keenan is a passing reference to Triclosan as a hydrophobic skin benefit…
There is no motivation to combine Pederson and Keenan: …Pederson’s system is specifically designed around amine oxide as the foam-boosting surfactant… does not mention glucosamides among its nonionic surfactants… identifies no deficiency with amine oxide… provides no teaching or suggestion that glucosamides would be suitable as a primary foaming agent in a liquid antimicrobial composition where the surfactant must not inhibit the cidal activity of the cationic active ingredient…
There is no reasonable expectation of success in combining Pederson and Keenan: … the specification teaches that surfactant choice critically affects antimicrobial efficacy… Pederson’s Table 8 data was obtained with amine oxide as the foam-boosting surfactant, not glucosamides… not established that the modified composition… would achieve the same log reduction…
Mehlhorn fails to fill any gaps in teaching: … Mehlhorn is directed to “a composition having anti-lice properties” which is a fundamentally different field from antimicrobial hand cleaning compositions… Mehlhorn explicitly states that monoalkyl and dialkyl quats and amidoquats are not known to have any licicidal effects” and “have not been employed for treating lice infections…
Applicant’s suggestion that Keenan is not in the same field of endeavor is unconvincing as both Keenan and Pederson apply to the invention falling under the genus of products for personal hygiene. Though the physical form of the inventions does differ, their purposes, and thus their ingredients, are fungible. While it is correct that Keenan does not mention glucosamides extensively, multiple mentions are not required for prior art to be construed as teachings. The fact that Keenan makes the person of ordinary skill in the art aware of the possibility of its use is sufficient to be considered a teaching as optimization is expected to be a part of the inventive process. Indeed, Klug describes advantageous reasons to consider the use of glucosamides in the composition of soap. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant is correct that Pederson does not mention glucosamides among its nonionic surfactants and doesn’t identify a deficiency with amino oxides. However, a patent document is not expected to provide reasons to its readers as to what deficiencies exist with the invention or components of the invention. The Applicant is also correct in stating that Keenan does not teach that glucosamides would be suitable as a primary foaming agent in a liquid antimicrobial composition where the surfactant must not inhibit cidal activity. However, this is once again piece meal analysis as the purpose of Keenan and Klug is to demonstrate that the prior art already taught that glucosamides were a known ingredient before the effective filing date. Pederson may not mention glucosamides but also does not exclude it. As Pederson identifies amine oxides as another acceptable ingredient in a soap with cidal activity, is it is within reason for a person of ordinary skill in the art to explore other possibilities, including glucosamides because of the other stated advantages, with a reasonable expectation of success from within the genus of cationic active ingredients for soap.
Applicant’s argument that Pederson’s results were obtained with amine oxides is unconvincing on the face. While this statement is correct, it merely establishes that amine oxides are one efficacious sub-genus of the genus of cationic active ingredients in soap that doesn’t inhibit cidal activity, not that any other possibility was impossible. Indeed, if that were the case, the instant application might not have been submitted. The instant invention appears to be the outcome of known ingredients that had already established previously by Pederson that a soap with a cationic active ingredient that did not inhibit cidal activity was possible. As such, the Examiner, concludes that this combination and outcome appears to have a reasonable expectation of success.
Applicant is correct in stating that Mehlhorn’s invention is purposed for the treatment of lice and that they do state (para. 0023) that as a single component monoalkyl and dialkyl quats and amidoquats do not have licicidal effects. However, in para. 0021, they identify the purpose as cationic surface-active agents, typically used for the conditioning in hair and emulsifiers (para. 0021), and the composition can be purposed for not only shampoos but lotions, liquid, washing solution (para. 0035). More importantly, claim 30 does not purport the use of palmitamidopropyl trimonium chloride as a microcidal agent but as a secondary foaming agent. Indeed, even if the antimicrobial properties were of consideration, Innopharmchem (Beyond hair: versatile applications of Palmitamidopropyltrimonium chloride, Innopharmchem, ©2025) teaches, for the purpose of this argument only, that the utility extends to washing and disinfecting products with inherent antimicrobial characteristics that can enhance the efficacy of products like hand sanitizers and body washes (para. 4), though it is silent on the lack of licicidal properties.
Conclusion
Claims 21-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Allen Chao whose telephone number is (571)272-7001. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0700-1300.
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, James H Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached at 571-272-5548. 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.
/ALLEN CHAO/Examiner, Art Unit 1622
/JAMES H ALSTRUM-ACEVEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1622
Prosecution Insights