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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
Claim 3 is 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "silicon dioxide" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Specifically, the examiner asserts that the limitation “silicon dioxide” does not appear in claim 1. Appropriate correction and/or clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102((a)(1)) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kulkarni et al, US 2020/0352832.
Kulkarni et al, US 2020/0352832, discloses an oral care composition containing a potassium silicate, an orally acceptable carrier, and a core-shell silica particle (see abstract and paragraphs 6 and 20). It is further taught by Kulkarni et al that the oral care composition contains a second metal silicate (see paragraph 21), that the oral care composition contains at least 2 layers of silica core-shells (see paragraph 31), that the shell has a thickness of 10 nm (see paragraphs 35 and 41), that the oral care composition contains water (see paragraphs 62 and 64), that the oral care composition contains an anti-bacterial agent in the core shell silica particles in an amount of 0.001-0.075% by weight (see paragraphs 67-68), and that the oral care composition contains surfactants (see paragraphs 69, 76 and 88), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-4 and Tables 1-3, wherein Examples 3-4 contain 0.457% by weight of potassium silicate, and 2.75% by weight of surfactants. Based on the disclosure of Kulkarni et al, the examiner asserts that the mass ratio of surfactant to benefit agent is 36-2750 (i.e., 2.75% surfactant and 0.001-0.075% anti-bacterial agent) and that the mass ratio of silicate to benefit agent is 457 (i.e., .457% potassium silicate and 0.001% anti-bacterial agent). Therefore, instant claims 1-3, 5-6 and 9-16 are anticipated by Kulkarni et al, US 2020/0352832.
In the alternative that the above disclosure is insufficient to anticipate the above listed claims, it would have nonetheless been obvious to the skilled artisan to produce the claimed composition, as the reference teaches each of the claimed ingredients within the claimed proportions for the same utility.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-10, 12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al, WO 2021/129968.
Pan et al, WO 2021/129968, discloses a microcapsule comprising a core containing a benefit agent, a shell comprising silica, wherein the shell has an average thickness of 1-1000 nm, and the benefit agent is a fragrance or a dye (see abstract and page 2, lines 9-15). It is further taught by Pan et al that the microcapsule contains an inorganic material, such as a silicate and a zeolite (see page 6, lines 1-12), that the fragrance comprises 10-85% by weight of the microcapsule (see page 8, lines 15-18), that the microcapsule is part of a cosmetic composition, wherein the cosmetic composition contains 0.01-5% by weight of the microcapsule and a carrier (see page 9, lines 25-30), that the carrier comprises 1-85% by weight of water (see page 10, lines 1-4), and that the microcapsule is also a part of a hair composition that contains 1-50% by weight of a surfactant (see page 10, lines 20-29 and page 11, lines 11-24), per the requirements of the instant invention. Specifically, note Examples 1-4 and Tables 1-5. Based on the disclosure of Pan et al, the examiner asserts that the mass ratio of surfactant to benefit agent is 100:1 (i.e., 50% surfactant and 10% perfume in 5% capsule which is .5 divided by (.10 times .05) which equals 100:1).
Although Pan et al generally discloses a cosmetic/hair composition containing a silicate, the reference does not require such cosmetic/hair compositions containing this component with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have formulated a cosmetic/hair composition, as taught by Pan et al, which contained a silicate, because such cosmetic/hair compositions fall within the scope of those taught by Pan et al. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success, because such a cosmetic/hair composition containing a silicate is expressly suggested by the Pan et al disclosure and therefore is an obvious formulation.
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
June 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights