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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Claims 1-10 have been examined.
Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Drawings
The present application contains no drawings.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. § 371 based on PCT Application No. PCT/CN2022/084278, filed 03/31/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (“Wang”) (CN101658469A, 03/03/2010) in view of Fiore et al. (“Fiore”) (EP3922235A1, 12/15/2021), further in view of INCIDecoder (Purell Hand Sanitizer Ingredients, 03/06/2020), and as evidenced by Lubrizol (Carbopol® Ultrez 20 Polymer, published 06/02/2006).
In regard to claims 1-9, Wang teaches a transparent hand sanitizer gel comprising 47%-56% absolute ethanol, 0.1%-0.3% Carbomer U20, 0.01%-10% glycerin, 0.02%-0.11% acid-base modifier, including triethanolamine, 20%-50% deionized water, and additional cosmetic ingredients (see, Abstract; claims 1-2 and 8, inter alia). Lubrizol evidences that Carbopol® Ultrez 20 Polymer (Carbomer U20) is an acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer having a viscosity of approximately 54,000 mPa.s), thereby teaching the claimed carbomer based thickener, the crosslinked acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate copolymer of instant claim 4, and a viscosity falling within the claimed range of instant claim 5. Wang further teaches use of triethanolamine as the acid-base modifier used to neutralize the carbomer gel system (see, claim 2, inter alia). Triethanolamine corresponds to the claimed neutralizer and inherently satisfies the claimed elemental formula limitations of instant claims 1 and 6. Wang additionally teaches glycerin, which inherently corresponds to the claimed moisturizer of instant claims 8-9. Wang further teaches the preparation of a transparent hydroalcoholic gel sanitizer (see, claim 8, inter alia). However, Wang does not explicitly teach hydrogen peroxide in the claimed amount, alcohol concentration specifically within 75-85%, or caprylyl glycol.
Fiore teaches a hydroalcoholic gel composition comprising at least 70% alcohol, including ethanol or isopropanol, 0.15-6% gelling agent, 0.01-0.1% pH adjusting agent including triethanolamine, 0.05-2.0% carbomer, 0.1-4.5% cellulose polymer, 0.1%-6% disinfecting ingredient including hydrogen peroxide, 12-18% water, and additional cosmetic ingredients (Abstract; claims 1-2, 6-7, 10-12; paragraphs [0010], [0028], inter alia). Fiore therefore teaches hydrogen peroxide in an amount overlapping the claimed range and alcohol concentrations overlapping and encompassing the claimed 75-85% range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to modify the sanitizer gel composition of Wang to incorporate the hydrogen peroxide taught by Fiore and to adjust the alcohol concentration to a value within the claimed 75-85% range. The references are directed to the same field of endeavor, namely hydroalcoholic hand sanitizer gels, and address the same objective of providing effective sanitizing compositions. Fiore explicitly teaches incorporation of hydrogen peroxide into hydroalcoholic carbomer-based gel systems as a disinfecting ingredient (see, paragraph [0028]). Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been motivated to incorporate the hydrogen peroxide taught by Fiore into the sanitizer composition of Wang in order to provide additional disinfecting capability and to obtain the predictable benefits associated with the use of known sanitizer ingredients for their established functions. Further, modification of the relative amounts of the known formulation ingredients, including adjustment of concentrations within the ranges taught or suggested by the prior art, would have been an obvious matter of routine formulation optimization. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have been capable of selecting suitable concentrations to achieve desired formulation properties as such parameters constitute result-effective variables whose optimization is ordinarily within the level of ordinary skill of the art (see MPEP §2144.05).
INCIDecoder teaches a commercial hand sanitizer gel comprising ethyl alcohol, water, isopropyl alcohol, caprylyl glycol, glycerin, acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer, aminomethyl propanol, and additional cosmetic ingredients (see, ingredients overview). INCIDecoder therefore teaches caprylyl glycol in a hydroalcoholic sanitizer gel composition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to incorporate caprylyl glycol into the composition of Wang, as modified by Fiore, because caprylyl glycol was a known cosmetic additive used in hand sanitizer formulations. Substitution of one known formulation additive for another to obtain its recognized advantages represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. Accordingly, claims 1-9 would have been obvious over Wang in view of Fiore and further in view of INCIDecoder, and as evidenced by Lubrizol.
In regard to claim 10, Wang teaches a method for preparing a hand sanitizer gel comprising preparing separate alcohol and aqueous mixtures, including a carbomer containing aqueous mixture, combining the mixtures, optionally adding additional ingredients, and adding an acid-base modifier to obtain a homogeneous transparent gel (see, claims 8-10). Fiore similarly teaches a method of preparing a hydroalcoholic gel comprising preparing an alcohol containing aqueous solution, sequentially adding gel-forming and viscosity modifying components, and subsequently adding a pH adjusting agent to obtain the hydroalcoholic gel (see, claims 16-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to employ the preparation method of Wang in manufacturing the modified sanitizer composition because the claimed method merely recites mixing known ingredients according to their established functions using conventional formulation techniques. The combination would have yielded no more than predictable results. Therefore, claim 10 would have been obvious over Wang in view of Fiore and further in view of INCIDecoder, and as evidenced by Lubrizol.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI M ALAOUIE whose telephone number is 571-272-0844. The examiner can normally be reached Flextime: (M-TH) 7:30 am 6:30 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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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, vis it: 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.
/ALI M. ALAOUIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights