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
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 5-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20210369589 A1).
With regard to claim 1, claims 5-12, 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 sodium gluconate at 1.25-2.5wt%, zinc lactate at 1wt%, and panthenol at 0.5wt% (see Table 1), and may be in the form of a wipe (see [0025]).
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.
With regard to claim 13, Zhang discloses the composition may comprise a fragrance at 0.04wt% (see Table 1).
With regard to claim 19, Zhang discloses a method of cosmetically treating skin, comprising: identifying a target portion of skin where treatment is desired; and applying an effective amount of the composition to the target portion of skin over the course of a treatment period (see Claim 18).
Claims 2-4 and claim 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20210369589 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Banowski (US 20200390679 A1).
With regard to claims 2-4, Zhang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
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.
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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US 20210369589 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gonzales (US 20120317736 A1).
With regard to claim 20, Zhang discloses all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Zhang fails to disclose a method wherein the step of providing the cleaning composition comprises the step of applying the cleaning composition to a substrate to form a cleaning wipe.
Gonzales discloses a liquid cleaning and/or cleansing composition, which comprises biodegradable abrasive cleaning particles, an analogous art (see Abstract). Gonzales further discloses the composition may comprise sodium gluconate and zinc lactate (see [0173]). Gonzalesfurther discloses the composition may be loaded onto a cleaning substrate wherein the substrate is a paper or nonwoven towel or wipe or a sponge (see Claim 17). Gonzales further discloses a process of cleaning and/or cleansing a surface with a cleaning and/or cleansing composition, wherein said surface is contacted with said composition, preferably wherein said composition is applied onto said surface (see Claim 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the wipe of Gonzales with the composition of Zhang as both Gonzales and Zhang disclose compositions comprising sodium gluconate and zinc lactate for cleaning biological surfaces. It stands to reason that the composition of Zhang would work on a wipe as the two compositions are similar and thus both should be effective in the form of a wipe. Further, the method of contacting the cleaning composition of Zhang is similar to the method of cleaning and/or cleansing a surface with a cleaning and/or cleansing composition of Gonzales. Therefore, the composition and method of Zhang may be utilized in the method of Gonzales for the purpose of cleaning biological surfaces.
Conclusion
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights