DETAILED ACTION
1 This action is responsive to the amendment filed on August 12, 2026.
2 The cancellation of claim 8 is acknowledged. Pending claims are 1-7 and 9-19.
3 The rejections of the claims under 112, second paragraph and under 102 have been withdrawn because of the applicant’s amendment.
4 The rejection of claim 11 is maintained for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action that mailed on May 12, 2026.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5 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.
6 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 1-7, 9-10 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolf et al. (US 4,310,328 A) in view of Frantz et al. (US 20130156712 A1).
Rolf et al., (US’ 328 A) teaches a method for liming animal skins and hides which comprises treating the skins and hides in a bath of an aqueous alkaline liming liquor as claimed in claims 1, 7 and 12 (see claim 1).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Rolf et al., (US’ 328 A) by reciting a composition including quaternary ammonium salts.
Frantz et al. (US’ 712 A1) in analogous art of skin treatment formulation, teaches a method for treating skin, comprising treating a skin with a composition comprising depilating (unhairing) agents include thioglycolate (thiol) as claimed in claims 10 and 17 (see page 5, paragraphs, 0056), wherein the composition also comprises benefit agents include carnitine (3-carboxy-2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethyl-1-propanaminium) and choline (2-hydroxy-N,N,N-trimethyl-ethanaminium) as claimed in claims 1-5 and 13-15 (see page 6, paragraph, 0065) and others benefit agents as claimed in claim 6 (see page 6, paragraph, 0065), and wherein the benefit agents be present in an of from about 0 to about 35% by wt., of the composition as claimed in claims 9 and 16 (see page 5, paragraph, 0054), wherein the composition also comprises surfactants as claimed in claim 10 (see 5, paragraph, 0052).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Frantz et al. (US’ 712 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the method of treatment skin of Rolf et al., (US’ 328 A) by incorporating the quaternary ammonium salts as taught by Frantz et al. (US’ 712 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious based on the teaching of Frantz et al. (US’ 712 A1) that refers to the use of quaternary ammonium compounds as the benefits in skin treatment formulation, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of quaternary ammonium compounds as taught by Frantz et al. (US’ 712 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous skin treatment composition taught by Rolf et al., (US’ 328 A), absent unexpected results.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
7 Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 112, second paragraph, applicant argued that the amended claim 11 recites that amounts of these constituents based upon the weight of the hides, skins or pelts being treated.
The examiner respectively, disagrees with the above argument, because the maximum percentage known is “100%” and not “500%” as claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite based on the claimed percentage “500%”. Correction is required.
Claims 18 and 19 dependents upon a rejected base claim. Therefore, claims 18 and 19 are rejected as well.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for replying 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 EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights