DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 19 August 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is overcome in view of the terminal disclaimer filed as part of the response. 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 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.
Claims 1-10, 14-16, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yao et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0213243).
Yao et al. discloses stable soap based cleansing compositions (title). One embodiment contains ethylene glycol distearate as pearlescent agent in 1.5 wt%, sodium laureth sulfate in 4.1 wt%, cocamidopropyl betaine in 4.0 wt%, sodium chloride, water, and methisothiazolinone preservative (example 2). This composition is free of parabens, as well as all of the options recited in the alternative by instant claim 1 except for the option that the composition is free of an isothiazolinone derivative. However, since the composition only has to be free of isothiazolinone or an isothiazolinone derivative, the example reads upon the limitation (the first option, namely being free of isothiazolinone).
Yao et al. further suggests adding myristyl alcohol as an emollient (paragraph [60]). Thus, a pearlizing composition as recited by instant claim 1 is suggested by Yao et al.
Instant claims 2-7, 9-10, and 14-15 further limit the ingredients present, and the above cited example reads upon these limitations. Instant claim 8 recites a limitation to the pH, and the pH is read upon by the disclosed value.
Instant claim 16 recites the further inclusion of additional ingredients, and such ingredients are taught by Yao et al. (see for example paragraph [54]).
Instant claims 20 and 21 recite that the composition is a personal care product, and the soap-based cleaning composition reads upon these limitations.
Instant claim 22 recites the inclusion of the composition in a personal care product in order to prevent bacterial and/or fungal contamination. While the effect is not taught by Yao et al., the composition is included in a personal care product and thus would necessarily have this effect.
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.
Claims 11, 13 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0213243) as applied to claim 1 above.
Instant claims 11, 13, and 17-19 recite limitations to the amounts of the ingredients present. The amounts in the example do not read upon all the ranges recited. But Yao et al. suggests ranges which at least overlap the recited ranges. The ethylene glycol distearate pearlescent material may be present in from 0.05 to about 10 wt% (paragraph [71]). The sodium laureth sulfate and cocamidopropyl betaine surfactants can be present in from about 1 to about 80 wt% (paragraph [57]). The myristyl alcohol emollient is present in from 0.1 to about 15 wt% (paragraph [60]). The sodium chloride viscosity adjuster can be present in from 0.1 to about 20 wt% (paragraph [64]). And water in the example is 77 wt%. And in cases involving overlapping ranges, where the instantly claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that the rejection is not proper because the example disclosed by Yao et al. has an isothiazolinone or derivative thereof. The Examiner acknowledges the argument, but does not consider it persuasive. Yao et al. discloses that the example cited has methyl isothiazolinone. Since the composition only has to be free of isothiazolinone or an isothiazolinone derivative, the example reads upon the limitation (the first option, namely being free of isothiazolinone).
Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter. Instant claim 12 recites that the composition consists of the seven ingredients. Yao et al. does not teach such a composition, as a fatty acid salt and a crosslinked acrylic emulsion polymer are taught by Yao et al. as essential ingredients and these would not have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to remove.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Brian Gulledge whose telephone number is (571) 270-5756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am - 4pm.
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at (571) 272-3311. 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.
/Brian Gulledge/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
