DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments filed on 11/17/2025 wherein claims 1, 7, 14, 16 and 19 have been amended and claims 6, 13 and 18 have been cancelled. Claims 14 and 15 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 16, 17, 19 and 20 are presented for examination on the merits. The following rejections are made.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 11/17/2025 overcome the rejection of claim 1-9 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Chiou et al. (CN 105246515). This rejection has been withdrawn as claim 1 has been amended to require the presence of an odor-neutralizing agent and an odor-counteracting agent as well as identify a structure of polyacrylic polymer.
Applicant’s amendments filed 11/17/2025 overcome the rejection of claims 1-11 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 102(a)(2) over Chiou et al. (US 2017/0189320). This rejection is withdrawn for the reason noted under section 3.
Applicant’s amendments/arguments filed 11/17/2025 overcome the rejection of claims 1-6, 7-13 and 16-20 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Chiou et al. (US 2017/0189320). This rejection has been withdrawn as Chiou does not contemplate the structures claimed for the carrying colloidal composition. It is also noted that claims 6, 13 and 18 have been cancelled.
New Rejections, Necessitated by Amendment
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 7-12, 16, 17, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berg et al. (EP 1654013; translation provided), evidenced by Pubmed: acrylic acid.
Berg is directed to antimicrobial compositions for application on to a skin pads, wipes or skin coverings (see page 5). It is noted that each of these delivery structures may be broadly understood as hygiene products as recited by instant claim 1. It is further noted that these delivery structures are intended uses for the claimed composition. See MPEP 2111.02(II).
The composition may comprise water (see instant claim 37) (see instant claim 1), fillers such as titanium dioxide and zinc oxide (see page 24) (zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are odor-neutralizing agents; see instant claims 1, 16 and 17), a preservative (see page 29) (preservatives are odor-counteracting agents; see instant claims 1 and 19), dyes and pigments (i.e. colorants) (see page 29) (see instant claims 1 and 20).
Berg’s composition may take the form of an emulsion, microemulsion, hydrocolloidal dispersion, etc. (see pages 2, 15 and 28). It’s noted that each of these types of compositions encompass a colloidal composition as required by instant claim 1.
Berg’s formulation is to also comprise a viscosity enhancing polyacrylate of the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
102
190
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(see page 10 of original document; see pages 10-11 of translation) wherein R represents a long-chain alkyl radical and x and y represent the stoichiometric proportion of the respective comonomers (see page 10) (see instant claims 1, 2, 10 and 11). An exemplified polyacrylate copolymer is C10-C30 alkyl acrylate and acrylic acid copolymerized with an allyl ether of sucrose (or pentaerythritiol) (see page 11) (see instant claims 3, 4, and 12). Acrylate/C10-C30 alkyl acrylate copolymers include those of tradenames Pemulen TR1 and TR2 (see page 10). Berg teaches that the viscosity enhancing polyacrylate is present in the composition in an amount of between 5-30% by weight (see page 11) (see instant claim 5). Although Berg does not describe the subscripts x and y as being from 1-10,000 and 0-1,000, respectively, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of working with the general structure of Berg to identify stoichiometric values which yield the best thickening benefit. If such identified values within the ranges claimed, then that would have been the product of ordinary skill and common sense rather than innovation.
Berg teaches that the composition is to also comprise a gel forming crosslinked polyacrylic acid polymer (i.e. homopolymer of 2-propenoic acid; see instant claim 9) having an average molecular weight of between 450,000-4,000,000 g/mol (see pages 14 and 15). The polyacrylic acid polymer would overlap with the claimed structure having y of 0 (see instant claims 7-9) as the resulting polymer would be only that of the acrylic acid monomer. Regarding the number of units in the polyacrylic acid, as polyacrylic acid has a molecular weight of about 72 g/mol (see pubmed evidence), this would suggest that the number acrylic acid monomers (x in the claimed formula) would be between 6,250-55,555 (which overlaps with that claimed in claim 1, x is 1-10,000).
The only difference between Berg and the instant claims is that Berg does not teach the specific combination of components as claimed in a single embodiment, or with sufficient specificity to be anticipatory. The specific combination of features claimed are described within the teaching of Berg, but ‘such ‘picking and choosing’ within several variable does not necessarily give rise to anticipation. When a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious. See MPEP 2141(I). Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been obvious to have selected various combinations of various disclosed ingredients from within Berg's disclosure, to arrive at a composition such as that claimed with a reasonable expectation for success.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Potentially Relevant Prior Art
Dvoracek et al (US 2003/0206979)
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is (571)270-3504. The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 571-272-6175. 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).
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611