DETAILED ACTION
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 . Claims included in prosecution are claims 1, 3-8, and 11-21.
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 9/8/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Objections
1. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “sclaroglucan” in line 2 should be recited as --- scleroglucan ---. Appropriate correction is required.
2. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “sclaroglucan” in line 2 should be recited as --- scleroglucan ---. Appropriate correction is required.
3. Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “cylcomethacone” in line 2 should be recited as --- cyclomethicone ---. Appropriate correction is required.
4. Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: “hydrolysed” in line 1 should be recited as --- hydrolyzed---. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
1. Claim(s) 1, 3-6, 8, 11-12, 14-16, and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belhaj et al. (WO 2020/190697, Sep. 24, 2020) (hereinafter Belhaj) in view of Jager et al. (WO 2018/122165, Jul. 5, 2018) (hereinafter Jager).
Belhaj discloses personal care compositions (Abstract). The invention provides a topical formulation comprising a starch component wherein the starch component comprises a nOSA starch and a HP starch wherein the nOSA starch and HP starches are present in the formulation at a concentration of 2-10% (¶ [0003]). An HP starch refers to a hydroxypropylated starch (¶ [0009]). In one aspect, the formulation is in the form of an emulsion (¶ [0010]). The emulsion contains an aqueous phase where the aqueous phase may comprise or consist of water (¶ [0012]). The amount of the aqueous phase in the emulsion may be between 40 wt% to
70 wt% (satisfies claim 14) (¶ [0013]). The preferred oil phase comprises a silicone oil (i.e., an oil comprising at least one silicon atom) (¶ [0015]). The personal care compositions comprise deodorants and antiperspirants, along with other formulations (¶ [0024]). The emulsion may contain at least one further ingredient such as a skin active or a silicone (satisfies claim 6) (¶ [0029]). Examples contained benzyl alcohol (satisfies claim 20) (¶ [0031]). The emulsions utilize a starch blend of HP starch in an amount 5-25% and nOSA starch in an amount of 75-95% (satisfies claim 4) (¶ [0032]). The starch blend can additionally contain other dry ingredients if desired in the final emulsions such as texturizers. Preferred texturizers include scleroglucan and texturizers are preferably included in an amount of 0.5-5% (¶ [0033]). The INCI name of the nOSA starch is sodium starch octenylsuccinate while the INCI name of the HP starch is hydroxypropyl starch phosphate (satisfies claim 16) (¶ [0034]).
Belhaj differs from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the composition comprises an antiperspirant active such as an aluminum salt in an amount such as 15-25% or 5-25%.
However, Jager discloses a cosmetic composition comprising an oily phase comprising
at least one silicone oil (Abstract). The inventors have found, surprisingly, that the use of a scleroglucan gum can give a dispersion of oil in an aqueous gel stability and sensory properties never before obtained, namely dry-effect, fresh-effect and/or non-wetting-effect sensations, and also a non-tacky sensory property in the presence of an antiperspirant active agent and most particularly of an aluminum salt (Pg. 2). An "antiperspirant active agent" means a salt which, by itself, has the effect of reducing the flow of sweat, of reducing the sensation on the skin of moisture associated with human sweat or of masking human sweat (Pg. 22). Suitable antiperspirant active agents for use in the composition include aluminum salts (Pg. 22). Suitable aluminum salts include in particular aluminum chlorohydrate in activated or unactivated form (Pg. 22). The antiperspirant active agents may preferably be present in an amount of from 0.5% to 25% by weight (Pg. 23). Thus, the composition may advantageously be in the form of an antiperspirant or deodorant composition (Pg. 23).
As discussed above, Belhaj discloses wherein the compositions may be antiperspirant/ deodorant compositions. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant claims, to have formulated the composition of Belhaj to contain an aluminum salt such as aluminum chlorohydrate in an amount of from 0.5% to 25% motivated by the desire to utilize a an antiperspirant active which would have a non-tacky sensory property when used along with scleroglucan as taught by Jager. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success when including aluminum chlorohydrate since aluminum chlorohydrate is known for use in antiperspirant or deodorant compositions comprising scleroglucan gum as taught by Jager.
Alternatively, generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. As discussed above, Belhaj discloses wherein the compositions may be antiperspirant/deodorant compositions and further discloses wherein the compositions may comprise skin actives. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the composition of Belhaj to contain an aluminum salt such as aluminum chlorohydrate in an amount of from 0.5% to 25%, since it is a known skin active and amount thereof for use in antiperspirant/deodorant compositions comprising silicone oils and scleroglucan as taught by Jager.
Regarding the amounts of scleroglucan recited in instant claim 3 (i.e., 0.25-5%), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). As discussed above, Belhaj’s composition preferably comprises scleroglucan in an amount of 0.5-5%. Accordingly, because the range recited in the instant claims overlaps with the range disclosed by Belhaj, the range disclosed by Belhaj meets the instantly recited limitations. Accordingly, a composition comprising 0.25-5% scleroglucan would have been obvious.
Regarding the amounts of texturizer recited in instant claim 3 (i.e., 2-5%), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). As discussed above, Belhaj’s composition preferably comprises nOSA starch and HP starches at a concentration of 2-10%. Accordingly, because the range recited in the instant claims lies within the range disclosed by Belhaj, the range disclosed by Belhaj meets the instantly recited limitations. Accordingly, a composition comprising 2-5% texturizer would have been obvious.
Regarding the amounts of HP/nOSA starch recited in instant claim 4 (i.e., 5-25% & 75-95%), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). As discussed above, Belhaj’s starch blend comprises HP starch in an amount 5-25% and nOSA starch in an amount of 75-95%. Accordingly, because the range recited in the instant claims lies within the range disclosed by Belhaj, the range disclosed by Belhaj meets the instantly recited limitations. Accordingly, a blend comprising 5-25% HP starch and 75-95% nOSA starch would have been obvious.
Regarding the amounts of texturizer recited in instant claim 11 (i.e., 1-10%), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). As discussed above, Belhaj’s composition preferably comprises nOSA starch and HP starches at a concentration of 2-10%. Accordingly, because the range recited in the instant claims lies within the range disclosed by Belhaj, the range disclosed by Belhaj meets the instantly recited limitations. Accordingly, a composition comprising 1-10% texturizer would have been obvious.
Regarding the amounts of scleroglucan recited in instant claim 12 (i.e., 0.1-5%), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). As discussed above, Belhaj’s composition preferably comprises scleroglucan in an amount of 0.5-5%. Accordingly, because the range recited in the instant claims overlaps with the range disclosed by Belhaj, the range disclosed by Belhaj meets the instantly recited limitations. Accordingly, a composition comprising 0.1-5% scleroglucan would have been obvious.
Regarding the amount of water recited in instant claim 14 (i.e., 50-80%), in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I). As discussed above, Belhaj’s emulsion comprises an aqueous phase which may comprise or consist of water in an amount of 40 wt% to 70 wt%. Accordingly, because the range recited in the instant claims overlaps with the range disclosed by Belhaj, the range disclosed by Belhaj meets the instantly recited limitations. Accordingly, a composition comprising 50-80% water would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 15, as discussed above, Belhaj in view of Jager disclose wherein particularly suitable aluminum salts include aluminum chlorohydrate. Accordingly, a composition comprising such a component would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 16, as discussed above, Belhaj in view of Jager disclose wherein the INCI name of the nOSA starch is sodium starch octenylsuccinate while the INCI name of the HP starch is hydroxypropyl starch phosphate. Accordingly, a composition comprising such components would have been obvious.
Regarding claim 20, as discussed above, examples of Belhaj in view of Jager contained benzyl alcohol. Accordingly, a composition comprising such a component would have been obvious.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Belhaj and Jager render obvious claims 1, 3-6, 8, 11-12, 14-16, and 20-21.
2. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belhaj et al. (WO 2020/190697, Sep. 24, 2020) (hereinafter Belhaj) in view of Jager et al. (WO 2018/122165, Jul. 5, 2018) (hereinafter Jager) and further in view of Dihora et al. (US 2017/0189281, Jul. 6, 2017) (hereinafter Dihora).
The combined teachings of Belhaj and Jager are discussed above.
The combined teachings of Belhaj and Jager do not disclose wherein the silicone used is cyclomethicone.
However, Dihora discloses antiperspirant compositions comprising a starch (Abstract). The compositions may comprise a volatile silicone carrier (¶ [0046]). Such silicones are cyclic and can have from about 3 silicone atoms to about 7 atoms. Suitable volatile silicones for use include cyclomethicone (¶ [0047]).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. As discussed above, Belhaj discloses wherein the composition may comprise silicon oils. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the composition of Belhaj to comprise cyclomethicone, since it is a known silicone oil for use in antiperspirant compositions comprising starches as taught by Dihora.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Belhaj, Jager, and Dihora render obvious claim 7.
3. Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belhaj et al. (WO 2020/190697, Sep. 24, 2020) (hereinafter Belhaj) in view of Jager et al. (WO 2018/122165, Jul. 5, 2018) (hereinafter Jager) and further in view of Abrutyn (Cosmetics and Toiletries, Deciphering Antiperisperiant Formulas, Nov. 11, 2013) (hereinafter Abrutyn).
The combined teachings of Belhaj and Jager are discussed above.
The combined teachings of Belhaj and Jager do not disclose wherein the composition has a pH of 4-8.
However, Abrutyn discloses that the basic building block of antiperspirant actives is aluminum chemistry, through which elemental aluminum is reduced in an acidic medium to produce what is traditionally known as aluminum chlorohydrate (ACH) (Pg. 2). Formulating with antiperspirant actives is relatively easy, but there is a need to watch basicity (Pg. 7). Antiperspirant actives are acidic and could precipitate in the presence of a pH above 7.0. (Pg. 8).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to have formulated the composition of Belhaj and Jager to have a pH of 7.0 and less motivated by the desire to avoid the precipitation of antiperspirant actives as taught by Abrutyn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success since known antiperspirant actives for use include aluminum chlorohydrate as taught by Abrutyn.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Belhaj, Jager, and Abrutyn render obvious claim 13.
4. Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belhaj et al. (WO 2020/190697, Sep. 24, 2020) (hereinafter Belhaj) in view of Jager et al. (WO 2018/122165, Jul. 5, 2018) (hereinafter Jager) and further in view of Everaert et al. (WO 2020/160544, Aug. 6, 2020) (hereinafter Everaert).
The combined teachings of Belhaj and Jager are discussed above.
The combined teachings of Belhaj and Jager do not disclose the specific type of scleroglucan or its molecular weight.
However, Everaert discloses compositions comprising 1,3-β-D-glucans, specifically scleroglucan, for use in the manufacture emulsions for use in topical formulations, especially personal care products (Abstract). The scleroglucan may be in the form of native scleroglucan or hydrolyzed scleroglucan. Preferably, if the scleroglucan is native scleroglucan, the molecular weight of the scleroglucan may be between 1,500,000 and 6,000,000 Daltons. Preferably, if the scleroglucan is a hydrolyzed scleroglucan, the molecular weight may be between 50,000 and 100,000 Daltons (¶ [0037]). Personal care products comprise antiperspirants (¶ [0064]).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. As discussed above, Belhaj in view of Jager disclose wherein the composition comprises scleroglucan. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the composition of Belhaj in view of Jager to comprise native or hydrolyzed scleroglucan with a molecular weight of 1,500,000-6,000,000 Daltons or 50,000-100,000 Daltons, respectively, since they are known scleroglucans and molecular weights thereof for use in emulsions used as antiperspirants as taught by Everaert.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Belhaj, Jager, and Everaert render obvious claims 17-18.
5. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Belhaj et al. (WO 2020/190697, Sep. 24, 2020) (hereinafter Belhaj) in view of Jager et al. (WO 2018/122165, Jul. 5, 2018) (hereinafter Jager) and further in view of Fan et al. (US 2008/0187504, Aug. 7, 2008) (hereinafter Fan).
The combined teachings of Belhaj and Jager are discussed above.
The combined teachings of Belhaj and Jager do not disclose wherein the composition comprises a glycol such as propylene glycol.
However, Fan discloses a composition comprising at least one active chosen from at
least one antiperspirant active and at least one deodorant active (Abstract). Suitable antiperspirant actives include aluminum chlorohydrate (¶ [0040]). The composition may contain emollients where suitable emollients include propylene glycol (¶ [0049]). The composition may also contain particulates such as hydrophobically modified starches (¶ [0051]).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. As discussed above, Belhaj in view of Jager disclose wherein the composition comprises emolients. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the composition of Belhaj in view of Jager to comprise propylene glycol, since it is a known emollient for use in antiperspirant compositions which comprise aluminum chlorohydrate and hydrophobically modified starches as taught by Fan.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Belhaj, Jager, and Everaert render obvious claims 19.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 9/8/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s argument that claim 2 was indicated as allowable, the Examiner respectfully points to the previous Office Action, mailed 4/6/2026, where no claims were indicated as allowed nor were any claims indicated as allowable upon being rewritten in independent form. Rather, claim 2 was objected to as being a substantial duplicate of previously presented (now cancelled) claim 10 and Applicant was advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 10 would be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. Claim 2 stood rejected over Belhaj et al. (WO 2020/190697, Sep. 24, 2020) (hereinafter Belhaj) in view of Jager et al. (WO 2018/122165, Jul. 5, 2018) (hereinafter Jager) in the previous Office Action and upon being incorporated into claim 1, remains rejected over that prior art in this Office Action as well, as discussed above.
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the teachings of Abrutyn, Everaert, and Fan were applied to meet the limitations of New claims 13 and 17-19.
In light of the foregoing, the Examiner does not find Applicant’s arguments to be persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 3-8, and 11-21 are rejected
No claims are allowed.
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 Abdulrahman Abbas whose telephone number is (571)270-0878. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Sahana S. Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
