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 1-7 are currently pending and the claims as originally filed on 10/08/2024 are acknowledged.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The two (2) information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/01/2024 and 05/07/2025 were filed before the mailing date of the instant first action on the merits. The submissions thereof are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. It is noted that the foreign references have only been considered to the extent that an English language abstract, translation or statement of relevance has been provided to the examiner. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner, and signed and initialed copies are enclosed herewith.
Abstract
The abstract of the specification is objected to a minor informality.
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. See MPEP 608.01(b)
In the instant case, the abstract is simply written as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
45
766
media_image1.png
Greyscale
That is, the current abstract is not descriptive by not complying with the above guideline. Accordingly, appropriate correction is requested.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: claim 4. That is, it appears that the subject matters of claim 4 is not disclosed in the specification.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 reciting “the top of the rheological solid composition” in line 1, lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is requested.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending application No. 18/909342.
Although the claims at issue are not identical (method of producing a rheological composition vs. a rheological composition of copending ‘342), they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets require the same or very similar composition comprising crystallizing agent (the sodium salts of fatty acids), and overlapping amount, water, overlapping optimal purity and single purity. The difference between them is that the composition of patent ‘328 requires amount of water and benefit agent perfume, and but the claimed language uses “comprising” which does not exclude introduction of water amount and benefit agent.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the copending ‘342 subject matter.
This is a provisional double patenting rejection since the conflicting claims have not yet been patented.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of patent no. 11,812,909B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical (method of producing a rheological composition vs. a rheological composition of patent ‘909), they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets require the same or very similar composition comprising crystallizing agent (sodium salts of fatty acids), and overlapping amount, water, overlapping ranges of firmness, thermal stability, aqueous phase expression, optimal purity and single purity. The difference between them is that the composition of patent ‘909 requires erodible foam, and but the claimed language uses “comprising” which does not exclude introduction of the said element.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patent ‘909 subject matter.
Claims 1, 2, and 5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of patent no. 12,138,328B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical (method of producing a rheological composition vs. a rheological composition of patent ‘328), they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets require the same or very similar composition comprising crystallizing agent (sodium salts of fatty acids) and overlapping amount, water, and NaCl, overlapping ranges of firmness, thermal stability, aqueous phase expression, optimal purity and single purity. The difference between them is that the composition of patent ‘328 requires amount of water, and but the claimed language uses “comprising” which does not exclude introduction of water amount.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patent ‘328 subject matter.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of patent no. 12,138,333B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical (method of producing a rheological composition vs. a rheological composition of patent ‘333), they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets require the same or very similar composition comprising crystallizing agent (sodium salts of fatty acids) and overlapping amount, water, and NaCl, overlapping ranges of firmness, thermal stability, aqueous phase expression, optimal purity and single purity. The difference between them is that the composition of patent ‘333 requires the amount of water, and but the claimed language uses “comprising” which does not exclude introduction of water amount.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patent ‘333 subject matter.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 15-17 of patent no. 12,414,906B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical (method of producing a rheological composition vs. a rheological composition of patent ‘906), they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets require the same or very similar composition comprising crystallizing agent (sodium salts of fatty acids) and overlapping amount, water, and overlapping ranges of firmness, thermal stability, aqueous phase expression, optimal purity and single purity. The difference between them is that the composition of patent ‘906 requires cooling sensate and alcohol, and but the claimed language uses “comprising” which does not exclude introduction of those ingredients.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patent ‘906 subject matter.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-13, and 16 of patent no. 12,691,045B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical (method of producing a rheological composition vs. a rheological composition of patent ‘045), they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets require the same or very similar composition comprising crystallizing agent (sodium salts of fatty acids) and overlapping amount, water, and overlapping ranges of firmness, thermal stability, aqueous phase expression, optimal purity and single purity. The difference between them is that the composition of patent ‘045 additionally requires suspending agent and active agent, and but the claimed language uses “comprising” which does not exclude introduction of those ingredients.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patent ‘045 subject matter.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of patent no. 12,122,979B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical (method of producing a rheological composition vs. a rheological composition of patent ‘979), they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets require the same or very similar composition comprising crystallizing agent (sodium salts of fatty acids) and overlapping amount, water, and overlapping ranges of firmness, thermal stability, aqueous phase expression, optimal purity and single purity. The difference between them is that the composition of patent ‘979 requires substrate and emulsifier, and but the claimed language uses “comprising” which does not exclude introduction of those element.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patent ‘979 subject matter.
Claims 1-3 and 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of patent no. 12,232,673B2.
Although the claims at issue are not identical (method of producing a rheological composition vs. a rheological composition of patent ‘673), they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim sets require the same or very similar composition comprising crystallizing agent (sodium salts of fatty acids) and overlapping amount, water, and overlapping ranges of firmness, thermal stability, aqueous phase expression, optimal purity and single purity. The difference between them is that the composition of patent ‘673 requires erodible foam, and but the claimed language uses “comprising” which does not exclude introduction of the said element.
Consequently, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the obvious variation of the instantly claimed subject matter over the patent ‘673 subject matter.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYUNG S CHANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1392. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Yong (Brian-Yong) S Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/KYUNG S CHANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights