DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
2. Information Disclosure Statements filed 6/26/2025 is acknowledged.
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 1-6, 8-10 and 12-22 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 1 recites 0.001 to 20 % anionic surfactant and further recites wherein the anionic surfactant comprises at least a taurate. This limitation lacks antecedent basis because the claim does not specify there is more than one present but merely recites a percent of anionic surfactant. The same issue applies for the zwitterionic surfactant and lack of antecedent basis. The dependent claims are included because they do not cure the deficiency of claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the anionic surfactant comprises isethionate, taurate sodium alkyl sulfate, acyl glutamate, glycinate alaninate or a mixture thereof and claim 1 recites a taurate so it is not clear if this is additional surfactants. Furthermore, the claim recites or mixture of surfactants but claim 1 does not specify one or more than one anionic surfactants are present.
If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022).
It is believed the claim should recite “The cleaning composition according to claim 1, further comprising an anionic surfactant selected from the group consisting of isethionate, sodium alkyl sulfate, acyl glutamate, glycinate alaninate or a mixture thereof”. The same issue applies to claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the cleansing composition wherein the zwitterionic surfactant comprise lauryl betaine or a mixture thereof but depends from claim one that does not recite there is more than one surfactant. Furthermore, it is not clear if these are additional surfactants present or if these are meant to be the betaine recited in claim 1. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See In re Kiely, 2022 USPQ2d 532 at 2* (Fed. Cir. 2022).
Claims 9 and 15 recite (RV5 spindle, 10 rpm, 30s @ 25°C) in parenthesis and it is not clear if this libation is exemplary and is meant to a required claim limitation or not. It is suggested to remove the parenthesis.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
The factual inquiries 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 1-6, 8-10 and 12-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trentini et al. (WO 2019038309) in view of Pawson et al. (GB 2378186), and Feng et al. (US 20220241179) as evidenced by pKa of citric acid: Essential Data & Buffering [Master Guide].
Trentini et al. (WO 2019038309) (hereinafter Trentini et al.) disclose personal cleansing compositions that contain betaine surfactant and taurate surfactant (claim 1). 4 % by weight sodium methyl cocyl taurate and 4 % by weight cocoamidopropyl betaines disclosed and 0.6 wt % citric acid where the pH is from 4 to 6 and the composition is substantially free of electrolytes and thickening agent ( claims 1, 5, 8, 10, example 2 table 2A). The citric acid is used to adjust the pH (Example 4). Trentinin et al. disclose that betaine surfactants help to boast lather and are generally milder than sulfate surfactants. The cleansing surfactant include both taurate and betaine and present from 5 to 15 % and Trentini et al. discloses that when the composition contains greater than 10 weight percent of cleansing surfactant, the weight ratio of betaine surfactant to taurate is from 80:20 to 20:80 which overlaps with the claimed amount of betaine. Trentinin et al. disclose when translucency is or transparency is desired, the amount of cleansing surfactant and relative amount of betaine surfactant to taurate surfactant should be selected such that little or no added electrolyte is needed to build viscosity. The personal cleansing compositions of the subject invention have or are adjusted to viscosities in the range of from 2500cP to 10000 cP. As evidenced by pKa of citric acid: Essential Data & Buffering [Master Guide], citric acid has three pKa values, 3.13, 4.76 and 6.40 at 25° C. The composition is free of sulfate. While the viscosity is not measured exactly the same way, the centipoise is disclosed to be the same and is desired.
Pawson et al. (GB 2378186) (hereinafter Pawson et al.) disclose liquid cleansing compositions where the acid buffering compounds include citric acid and the acid is preferably present in an amount of 0.05 to 3 wt % of the composition.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to optimize the amount of citric acid. One would have been motivated to do so for its buffering properties.
Trentini et al. does not explicitly state the composition is biodegradable however, Feng et al. (US 20220241179) disclose there is increased demand for sustainable, safe and environmentally friendly green compositions (para 0005) and that these include biodegradable ingredients (para 0042). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the composition be biodegradable. One would have been motivated to do so to provide for an environmentally friendly green composition.
CORRESPONDENCE
4. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Danah Al-awadi whose telephone number is (571) 270-7668. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00 am - 6:00 pm; M-F (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Robert A. Wax can be reached on (571) 272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Danah Al-Awadi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
