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 .
The examiner acknowledges receipt of IDS filed 08/27/2024, and preliminary amendment filed 06/24/2024.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are amended.
Claim 5 is canceled.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are pending.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/MY2024/050012 filed 02/26/2024 and which claims benefit of Malaysia application PI2024000888 filed 02/08/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed 08/27/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 6-11 are 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 1 recites “additional properties.” There are no boundaries for an additive imparting additional properties. No property is named to describe the additional properties. The boundaries of protection sought for “additional properties” and “additive imparting additional properties” has not been limited making the boundaries of protection sought for “additional properties” and “additive imparting additional properties” undefined and unclear.
Correction is respectfully requested.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HENAO ADLEVANKIN et al. (US 20240173220 A1) in view of ARORA et al., (US 20170348549 A1).
The invention in claim 1 is directed to non-abrasive oral care composition that comprises a fragrance, additive, a type of plant derived anionic surfactant and a type of plant derived non-ionic surfactant and the type of plant derive anionic surfactant is sodium cocoyl apple amino acid. Fragrance for imparting aroma, additive for imparting additional properties and the oral care composition forming a protective coating on an applied dental structure are the intended uses. Prior art oral composition comprising fragrance, additive is capable of the intended uses.
The closest prior art, HENAO ADLEVANKIN, teaches an oral care composition that comprises surfactant system that comprises four or more surfactants individually selected from non-sulfate based anionic surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant, nonionic surfactant and an amino acid surfactant, a stannous ion source, a nitrate ion source and a phosphate source (see the whole document with emphasis on the abstract; paragraph [0009]). In one embodiment, the oral care composition comprises a surfactant system comprising betaine surfactant, taurate surfactant, glutamate surfactant and a glucoside surfactant; a stannous ion source, nitrate ion source, and a phosphate source (paragraphs [0011], [0027]).
Sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, potassium cocoyl taurate, potassium methyl cocoyl taurate, sodium caproyl methyl taurate, sodium cocoyl taurate, sodium lauroyl taurate, sodium methyl cocoyl taurate are some of the anionic surfactants mentioned in paragraph [0040] and [0041]. The one or more anionic surfactants is present from about 0.1 to about 6 wt% (paragraph [0036]). The amphoteric surfactant is present at from about 0.1 to about 5 wt% (paragraph [0042]) and cocamidopropyl betaine is named in paragraph [0044]. The non-ionic surfactant is present from about 0.1 to about 7 wt% (paragraph [0045]) and lauryl glucoside is named in paragraph [0046]. The grapefruit oil, eucalyptus oi, orange oil, peppermint oil (paragraph [0092]) meet the limitation of fragrance. The thickening agents such as carrageenan (paragraph [0076], xanthan gum (Table 1) meet the requirement for additive.
Difference between claim 1 and HENAO ADLEVANKIN: HENAO ADLEVANKIN teaches anionic surfactant. HENAO ADLEVANKIN does not teach the specific sodium cocoyl apple amino acid anionic surfactant.
However, it is known in the prior art that sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, sodium cocoyl amino acids, sodium cocoyl apple amino acid and sodium lauroyl sarcosinate are anionic surfactants (claims 1 and 3 of ARORA). HENAO ADLEVANKIN teaches sodium cocoyl taurate, potassium cocoyl taurate, potassium methyl cocoyl taurate, sodium caproyl methyl taurate, sodium cocoyl taurate, sodium lauroyl taurate, sodium methyl cocoyl taurate (SMCT), sodium methyl lauroyl taurate, sodium methyl myristoyl taurate, sodium methyl oleoyl taurate, sodium methyl palmitoyl taurate, sodium methyl stearoyl taurate (paragraph [0041]), all of which are anionic surfactants.
Therefore, before the effective date of the invention, the ordinary skilled artisan having knowledge of the teachings of ARORA would use any of the anionic surfactants in ARORA including sodium cocoyl apple amino acid with the expectation of achieving gentle foaming of the oral care product. Both the sodium cocoyl apple amino acid and sodium methyl cocoyl taurate are anionic surfactant and thus functionally equivalent. One functionally equivalent anionic surfactant can be used imp lase of the pother with the expectation of achieving the same foaming goal.
For claim 2 and 3, the cocamidopropyl betaine meets the requirement of the claims.
For claim 4, the amphoteric surfactant is present at from about 0.1 to about 5 wt% (paragraph [0042]) and the from about 0.1 to about 5 wt% overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 to 3 wt% with the disclosed range allowing for 0.1 to 3 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
For claim 6, the anionic surfactants is present from about 0.1 to about 6 wt% (paragraph [0036]), and from 0.1 to 6% overlaps the claimed range of 0.3 to 6 wt% and the disclosed range allows for 0.3 to 6 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
For claim 7, the lauryl glucoside meets the requirement of the claim.
For claim 8, the non-ionic surfactant is present from about 0.1 to about 7 wt% (paragraph [0045]) which overlaps the claimed range of 0.1 to 3 wt%. The disclosed range allows for the claimed 0.1 to 3 wt%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
For claim 9, one form of the oral care composition of HENAO ADLEVANKIN is a mouthwash (paragraph [0098]) which is a liquid and is capable of foaming when swished.
For claim 10, the oral care composition of HENAO ADLEVANKIN comprises essential oil (paragraph [0092]) and imparting flavor is the intended use; the oral care composition of HENAO ADLEVANKIN also comprises menthol (paragraph [0092]) and sweetener (paragraph [0088], Table 1), providing colling sensation and imparting pleasant taste are the intended uses. Menthol and sweetener are capable of these intended uses.
For claim 11, the presence of zinc compounds such as zinc benzoate (paragraph [0063]) meets the limitation of preservative and for preventing growth of microorganisms is the intended use and the preservative zinc benzoate is capable of the intended use.
Therefore, HENAO ADLEVANKIN in view of ARORA renders claims 1-4 and 6-11 prima facie obvious.
No claim is allowed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BLESSING M FUBARA whose telephone number is (571)272-0594. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am-6 pm (M-T).
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, Brian Yong Kwon can be reached at 5712720581. 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.
/BLESSING M FUBARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights