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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on May 27th 2025 has been entered. Claims 2-8 and 10-20 are pending in the application. Claim 1 and claim 9 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1, 5-7, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang (US 20210369589 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claims 2-4 and claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang (US 20210369589 A1) and further in view of Banowski (US 20200390679 A1) is withdrawn.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Zhang (US 20210369589 A1) and further in view of Gonzales (US 20120317736 A1) is withdrawn.
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 2-8, 11, and 13 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. The above claims initially depended from claim 1 and were amended to depend from claim 9. Both claim 1 and claim 9 have been canceled. ““If the base claim has been canceled, a claim which is directly or indirectly dependent thereon should be rejected as incomplete” (see MPEP 608.01(n)).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 10, 12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20210369589 A1).
With regard to claims 10, 12, and claims 14-17, Zhang discloses a skin care composition that provides good sensory properties and has a low skin irritation potential (see Abstract). Zhang further discloses the composition may comprise zinc lactate at 1wt% and panthenol at 0.5wt% (see Table 1), and may be in the form of a wipe (see [0025]). Zhang further discloses the composition may comprise 0.1-5wt% of a pH buffer comprising gluconic acid and sodium gluconate (see [0005]). While the composition disclosed in the instant claims is a cleaning wipe and the composition disclosed by Zhang is a skin care composition, this is merely intended use and does not carry patentable weight.
While the claimed composition is not taught in a single embodiment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date and with a reasonable expectation of success, to utilize sodium gluconate, zinc lactate, and panthenol, as disclosed by Zhang, as such a composition provides good sensory properties and has a low skin irritation potential, as disclosed by Zhang.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20210369589 A1) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Banowski (US 20200390679 A1).
With regard to claim 18, Zhang discloses all of the limitations of claim 14.
However, Zhang fails to disclose an organic phospholipid.
Banowski discloses an antiperspirant cosmetic agent, an analogous art (see Abstract). Banowski further discloses the antiperspirant cosmetic agent may be in the form of a wipe (see [0074]). Banowski further teaches the antiperspirant cosmetic agent comprises at least one deodorant active ingredient, which may be cocamidopropyl PG-dimonium chlorides phosphates (see [0090]) at 0.001-15wt% (see [0079]). Banowski further discloses such ingredients reduce the number of skin germs from the group of staphylococci, corynebacteria, anaerocococci and micrococci involved in the formation of odors, or inhibit their growth (see [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the cocamidopropyl PG-dimonium chlorides phosphates of Banowski in the skin care composition of Zhang for the purpose of reducing the number of skin germs from the group of staphylococci, corynebacteria, anaerocococci and micrococci involved in the formation of odors, or inhibiting their growth, as disclosed by Banowski.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20210369589 A1) and further in view of Richli (EP 3290500 A1).
With regard to claim 19 and claim 20, Zhang discloses a skin care composition that provides good sensory properties and has a low skin irritation potential (see Abstract). Zhang further discloses the composition may comprise zinc lactate at 1wt% and panthenol at 0.5wt% (see Table 1), and may be in the form of a wipe (see [0025]). Zhang further discloses the composition may comprise 0.1-5wt% of a pH buffer comprising gluconic acid and sodium gluconate (see [0005]).
However, Zhang fails to disclose a method of cleaning a surface.
Richli discloses cleansing agents, an analogous art (see Abstract). Richli further discloses the compositions may comprise sodium gluconate (see [0147]) and zinc lactate (see [0166]). Richli further discloses the composition may be in the form of moist wipes (see [0244]). Richli further discloses a method of cleansing comprising the provision of a cleaning and care product comprising a preparation according to the preceding subject invention and bringing into contact a natural or manufactured surface, a body or body part, such as skin, hair, fur, etc., a hard or flexible surface, as well as textiles, carpets or natural fibers with the washing solution (see [0227]). Richli further discloses the composition may be utilized in the manufacture of cleansing and care products, including moist wipes (see [0244]).
As both the composition of Zhang and the composition of Richli may be in the form of a wipe and comprise both sodium gluconate and zinc lactate, it stands to reason that the method of Richli would be compatible with the cleaning composition of Zhang. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the method of Richli with the cleaning composition of Zhang as Richli discloses a method of cleansing comprising the provision of a cleaning and care product comprising a preparation according to the preceding subject invention and bringing into contact a natural or manufactured surface and further discloses the composition may be utilized in the manufacture of cleansing and care products, including moist wipes and Zhang discloses the composition may be in the form of a wipe.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 10, 12, and 14-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant argues that Zhang discloses sodium gluconate at 1.8% by weight. As stated above, Zhang discloses the composition may comprise 0.1-5wt% of a pH buffer comprising gluconic acid and sodium gluconate (see [0005]). The entire reference must be considered.
Applicant further argues that Banowski fails to cure the deficiencies of claim 10 and claim 14. Specifically, Applicant argues that Banowski fails to disclose gluconic acid salt is present in the cleaning composition in an amount of from about 0.1% to about 1.0% by weight of the cleaning composition, as required by claims 10 and 14. As stated above, Zhang discloses the composition may comprise 0.1-5wt% of a pH buffer comprising gluconic acid and sodium gluconate (see [0005]). The entire reference must be considered.
Applicant further argues that Gonzales fails to cure the deficiencies of claim 19. As Gonzales is no longer relied upon as prior art, Applicant’s arguments regarding Gonzales are moot.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights