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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on May 12, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on May 12, 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
a) the variables “R2, R3, a, b, and c” in Formula (7) in line 3 are not legible
b) in lines 16, 17 and 18 (counting each formula as one line), “(R10), (R11)” and “(R12)” should be replaced with “(10), (11)” and “(12),” respectively to be consistent with the numbering in line 2.
Appropriate correction 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.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayakawa (US Patent No. 5,527,492, already cited in IDS dated 11/14/2025).
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 7-8, Hayakawa teaches in Example 5 a liquid detergent composition for household ware which comprises 15 w/w% Alanon ACE (a surfactant based on N-cocoyl-N-methyl-β-alanine sodium, an anionic surfactant), 0.01 w/w% hinokitiol triethanolamine salt, 0.001 w/w% hinokitiol L-arginine salt, (wherein both hinokitiol salts meet Formula 7 in claim 1 and claim 3), among others and q.s. water (see col. 6, lines 1-13; col. 5, lines 28-29).
Regarding claims 4-6, even though Hayakawa does not explicitly disclose the hinokitiol salts having a pKa of less than about 8, a calcium binding efficiency of less than about 7, or an iron binding efficiency greater than about 10, it would be inherent for the hinokitiol salts to exhibit the same properties because the same compounds have been utilized. “Products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Hence, Hayakawa anticipates the claims.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2020/0078281), hereinafter “Wang.”
Regarding claims 1, 3 and 7-9, Wang teaches in Example W2 a body wash which comprises 15.0 wt% sodium lauryl sulfate, 29% solution (an anionic surfactant), 0.1 wt% hinokitiol (which meets Formula 7 in claim 1 and claim 3), among others and balance water (see 2nd Table on page 9).
Regarding claims 4-6, even though Wang does not explicitly disclose the hinokitiol having a pKa of less than about 8, a calcium binding efficiency of less than about 7, or an iron binding efficiency greater than about 10, it would be inherent for the hinokitiol to exhibit the same properties because the same compounds have been utilized. “Products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Hence, Wang anticipates the claims.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmaus et al. (WO 2008/003529, already cited in IDS dated 04/16/2026).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 7-8, Schmaus teaches in Example 9 an anti-oxidant shower gel which comprises 10 wt% sodium laureth sulfate (an anionic surfactant), 0.05 wt% tropolone of formula II (which meet Formula 7 in claim 1 and claim 2), and balance water (see entire page 20).
Regarding claims 4-6, even though Schmaus does not explicitly disclose the tropolone having a pKa of less than about 8, a calcium binding efficiency of less than about 7, or an iron binding efficiency greater than about 10, it would be inherent for the tropolone to exhibit the same properties because the same compounds have been utilized. “Products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Hence, Schmaus anticipates the claims.
Claims 1-2 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sander et al. (WO 2020/199790, already cited in IDS dated 11/14/2025).
Regarding claims 1-2 and 7-9, Sander teaches in Table III a dish washing concentrate which comprises 31.0 wt% sodium lauryl sulfate (an anionic surfactant), 0.01 wt% tropolone (which meet Formula 7 in claim 1 and claim 2), and 31.6 wt% water (see top portion on page 54).
Regarding claims 4-6, even though Sander does not explicitly disclose the tropolone having a pKa of less than about 8, a calcium binding efficiency of less than about 7, or an iron binding efficiency greater than about 10, it would be inherent for the tropolone to exhibit the same properties because the same compounds have been utilized. “Products of identical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Hence, Sander anticipates the claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references are considered cumulative to or less material than those discussed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 PM.
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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights