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 1-13 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of Group I, claims 1-11, drawn to a solid cleansing composition, and the species of
a) a bar as in claim 10, and
b) silica structurant and thymol essential oil,
in the reply filed on 7/16/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is an existing technical relationship between a composition and its method of use, and further that Applicant has presented a reasonable number of species. This is not found persuasive because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a solid cleansing composition comprising: 2 to 15 wt% ammonium salt selected from ammonium chloride, ammonium benzoate, ammonium citrate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium acetate, ammonium sulphate, isopropyl ammonium chloride and mixtures thereof; and from 2 to 25 wt% of one or more carboxylic acids having a pKa in the range from 2.5 to 4.5, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Barne et al. (US 2019/0350829; cited in IDS), as described supra.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 12 and 13 are withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claim 11 is withdrawn as not being directed to the elected species.
Claims 1-10 are under consideration to the extent that the composition comprises the elected species.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/10/24. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
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 3-5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the carboxylic acid” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 1 "one or more carboxylic acids" encompasses multiple carboxylic acids. It is unclear whether just one, more than one, or all of the carboxylic acids must meet the claim limitation.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the carboxylic acid” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 1 "one or more carboxylic acids" encompasses multiple carboxylic acids. It is unclear whether just one, more than one, or all of the carboxylic acids must meet the claim limitation.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the carboxylic acid” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In claim 1 "one or more carboxylic acids" encompasses multiple carboxylic acids. It is unclear whether just one, more than one, or all of the carboxylic acids must meet the claim limitation.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barne et al. (US 2019/0350829; cited in IDS).
Barne et al. teach an antimicrobial composition and more particularly to an antimicrobial composition at the pH of skin (e.g. abstract).
Beerse et al. teach a solid cleansing composition in the form of a bar (e.g. claim 5) comprising:
a. from 5-40 wt% of an ammonium salt, including ammonium chloride, ammonium benzoate, ammonium citrate, ammonium carbonate, ammonium acetate, ammonium sulphate, isopropyl ammonium chloride and mixtures thereof (e.g. Claims 1 and 2); and
b. from 0.1 to 20 wt% of one or more carboxylic acids having a pKa in the range from 4.5-6.5, wherein the carboxylic acid is a cyclic aliphatic carboxylic acid, an aromatic carboxylic acid or mixtures thereof. (e.g. Claim 1);
wherein the pH of the composition is in the range of 4.5-6.5 (e.g. claim 4).
Regarding Claims 1-3, and 10, the concentrations of ammonium salt and carboxylic acids, the concentration ranges overlap with the claimed ranges. Regarding the pKa of the carboxylic acid, the ranges of 2.5-4.5 and 4.5-6.5 overlap at 4.5. 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) (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Barne et al. exemplify 2 wt% benzoic acid which has a pKa of 4.2 (e.g. Example P in [0114]).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Barne et al. teach the inclusion of 0.1-20 wt% of an anionic surfactant, including alkyl sulfate or alkyl ether sulfate (e.g. paragraphs 0032-0034; Claims 8 and 9). 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) (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barne et al. (US 2019/0350829; cited in IDS), as applied to claims 1-7 and 10, and further in view of Modak et al. (WO 2013/066403).
Regarding Claims 1-7 and 10, the teachings of Barne et al. are described supra. Barne et al. further teach the inclusion of essential oils and silica (e.g. paragraphs 0065, 0068, and 0073).
Barne et al. do not teach that the essential oil is the elected species of thymol. This is made up for by the teachings of Modak et al.
Modak et al. teach personal care products comprising antimicrobially effective low concentrations of benzyl alcohol, one or more essential oils and one or more botanical extract (e.g. abstract). Modak et al. teach that the essential oil is thymol and that the composition also comprises benzoic acid (e.g. Claim 3). Modak et al. teach that the composition can be solid in the form of a bar (e.g. page 18, line 8).
Regarding Claims 8 and 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select thymol as in Modak et al. as the essential oil of Barne et al. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted success as both of Barne and Modak disclose solid cleansing compositions in the form of a bar comprising essential oils and carboxylic acids. As Barne et al. do not provide examples of essential oils, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to seek out an appropriate choice, and would have predicted success in selecting Modak et al.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE PLOURDE BABSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3055. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-4:30; F 8-12:30.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. 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.
/NICOLE P BABSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights