DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed May 26, 2026. Applicant has amended claims 6 and 14. Currently, claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in the prior Office action, Paper No. 20260306.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments and remarks.
The rejection of claims 14-16 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 applicant regards as the invention is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Wu et al, US 2013/0225472, is maintained for the reasons of record.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 8-13 and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Guangzhou, CN 109966184, is withdrawn in view of applicant’s remarks.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/221,790 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s timely filed terminal disclaimer.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/757,209 is withdrawn in view of applicant’s timely filed terminal disclaimer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the amendment to claim 14 overcomes the rejection 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 applicant regards as the invention. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner maintains that a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. In the present case, claim 14 recites the broad recitation “alkyl amphoacetate”, followed by the narrow recitation of “selected from disodium…..”. See MPEP 2173.05(c). Claims 15-16 are included in this rejection for being dependent upon claim 14. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is still required.
Applicant further argues that Wu et al, US 2013/0225472, does not teach or suggest in general a composition comprising all of the ingredients in the relative amounts, as required by applicant in the instant claims. However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Specifically, the examiner asserts that Wu et al generally discloses a solid composition comprising a glycol ether, a gelling agent, and water (see abstract), wherein water is added in an amount of greater than 10% by weight (see paragraph 20), that the composition contains 5-30% by weight of solvents, such as hexylene glycol and glycerin (see paragraphs 23-24), 0.5-30% by weight of amphoteric surfactants, such as alkyl amphoacetates (see paragraphs 30-31), 0.5-30% by weight of nonionic surfactants, such as polyoxyethylene derivatives of polyol esters (see paragraphs 32-33), and 0.05-10% by weight of solidifying synergists, such as gellan gum (see paragraphs 21-22 and page 9, claim 12), per the requirements of the instant invention. Furthermore, the examiner asserts that applicant’s results in the Examples on pages 53-54 of the instant specification are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims, as required in MPEP 716.02(d). Accordingly, the examiner asserts that applicant has not shown that the unexpected results occur over the entire claim range.
Conclusion
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 BRIAN P MRUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1321. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00am-5:30pm Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew, can be reached on 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 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN P MRUK/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Brian P Mruk
July 28, 2026
Prosecution Insights