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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending. Note that, Applicant’s response filed May 19, 2026, has been entered.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on May 19, 2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 10-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 19, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to instant claims 3 and 4, line 3, it is suggested that before “low-molecular”, Applicant insert “the”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9 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.
The term “gel-like” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “gel-like” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Note that, the Examiner asserts that the instant specification provides no guidance or definition with respect to the term “gel-like” and in the absence of such a definition or guidance, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine the metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Note that, instant claims 2-9 have also been rejected due to their dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 175,074.
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, ‘074 teaches a solid gelled antiperspirant composition comprising: (a) 1 to 50 percent by weight of a solvent which is a small, polar organic and organic compatible compound; (b) 0 to 80 percent by weight of a cosolvent alcohol; (c) 1 to 10% by weight of dibenzylmonosorbitol acetal sorbitol; (d) 0 to 35% by weight of an emollient; (e) 5 to 25% by weight of an acidic antiperspirant active metal salt; 0 to 2.5% by weight of a C12 to C20 fatty acid; 0.05 to 5% by weight of a gel stabilizer which is a basic metallic salt. See claim 1. The small, polar organic solvent is morpholine, pyridine, N-methylpyrrolidone, pyrrolidone, acetic acid, ethylene carbonate, propylene carbonate, butyrolactone, dimethyl sulfoxide, dimethylformamide, 2-ethoxyethanol or caprolactam. See claim 3. Note that, the Examiner asserts that a C12-C20 fatty acid would fall within the broad scope of “an active washing or active cleaning agent” as recited by instant claim 1. Specifically, ‘074 teaches 20% propylene carbonate, 3% dibenzylidene sorbitol, 1% zinc stearate, etc. Additionally, ‘074 teaches a composition containing 3% by weight of dibenzylidene sorbitol, 14% by weight of butyrolactone, 5% by weight of acetamide MEA, etc. See page 8. ‘074 discloses the claimed invention with sufficient specificity to constitute anticipation.
Accordingly, the teachings of ‘074 anticipate the material limitations of independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joerger et al (US 2007/0207113).
With respect to independent, instant claim 1, Joerger et al teach personal care and cosmetic compositions comprising 1,3-propanediol, wherein the 1,3-propanediol in said personal care or cosmetic composition has a bio-based carbon content of about 1% to 100%. See Abstract. Some examples of typical personal care and cosmetic compositions include, but are not limited to gel polish removers, liquid rouges, blush, and facial powder, skin care composition, skin cleansing composition, skin cleansing bar, skin cleansing liquid, deodorant and antiperspirant sticks, roll-ons, aerosols, gels, oral products like toothpaste, styling gel, styling foam, hair mousse, hair spray, set lotion, hand sanitizer gels, antibacterial hand cleaner, deodorants, anti-perspirants, diaper rash cream, wet wipe, and baby bath, and vitamin creams, among others. See para. 8. Some examples of vehicles for skin product formulations include oil-in-water emulsion (O/W), water-in-oil emulsion (W/O), water-in-silicon (W/Si), Oleaginous emulsion, water-soluble emulsion, aqueous gel emulsion and absorption bases emulsion. See para. 97. Some examples of vehicles for oral product formulations include solid forms, such as paste, gel, cream, and ointment; and liquid forms such as washes, rinses, gargles, and sprays. A typical tooth paste/gel/cream/ointment formulation may include 1-60/15-55/30-50% abrasive, 1-80/1-50/1-30% Bio-PDO; 0.01-30/0.1-15/0.5-5% thickener, 0.01-10/0.1-7.5/0.5-5% surfactant, and 0.0001-2/0.001-1/0.01-0.5% antiseptic. See paras. 95-109. Compositions herein preferably contain an emulsifier and/or surfactant, generally to help disperse and suspend the discontinuous phase within the continuous aqueous phase. Suitable surfactants include nonionic, anionic, zwitterionic, amphoteric, etc. See paras. 166-171. Structurants also may be additional component of the compositions of the invention that are highly desirable in certain product forms. Structurants, when employed, are preferably present at from 1% to 30% by weight of a composition. Suitable structurants include cellulosic thickeners such as hydroxy propyl cellulose and hydroxy ethyl cellulose, and dibenzylidene sorbitol, propylene carbonate, etc. See paras. 181-182.
Joerger et al do not teach, with sufficient specificity, a composition containing a gelling agent, a compound of Formula (I), an active washing or active cleaning agent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Nonetheless it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to formulate a composition containing a gelling agent, a compound of Formula (I), an active washing or active cleaning agent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims. with a reasonable expectation of success and similar results with respect to other disclosed components, because the broad teachings of Joerger et al suggest a composition containing a gelling agent, a compound of Formula (I), a active washing or active cleaning agent, and the other requisite components of the composition in the specific amounts as recited by independent, instant claim 1 and the respective dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Remaining references cited but not relied upon are considered to be cumulative to or less pertinent than those relied upon or discussed above.
Applicant is reminded that any evidence to be presented in accordance with 37 CFR 1.131 or 1.132 should be submitted before final rejection in order to be considered timely.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY R DEL COTTO whose telephone number is (571)272-1312. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:00pm, EST.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (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 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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/G.R.D/
July 14, 2026
Prosecution Insights