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
Applicant’s declaration, claim amendments and arguments in the response filed 17 June 2026 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-10, 12-20 & 22 are pending.
Claims 11 & 21 are cancelled.
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 12 & 15 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-10, 13, 14, 16-20 & 22 are under consideration.
Examination on the merits is extended to the extent of the following species:
1) Component (ii)- coco betaine as amphoteric surfactant of general formula (II);
2) Component (iii)-polyquaternium 10;
3) Inorganic electrolyte sodium chloride;
4) Composition is free from silicone;
5) composition is free from thickening polymers and secondary surfactant not defined in component (ii); and
6) isotropic surfactant phase is absent.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied and constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Declaration Filed Under § 1.132
The declaration filed on 17 June 2026 by Applicant is acknowledged. The declaration is addressed in the response to Applicant’s traverse below.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 June 2026 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed and initialed copy of each IDS is included with the instant Office Action.
New and Maintained Rejections
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, 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.
Claims 1-10, 13, 14, 16-20 & 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dong [(WO 2011/049932; Published: 04/28/2011; IDS- 03/01/2026; previously cited); as evidenced by Hewlings (J. Cardiovasc. Dev. Dis. 2020 7, 59; Published: 12/17/2020; previously cited)] in view of Zhu (US 2013/0210923; Published: 08/15/2013; previously cited) and PQ-10 (Cosmetics & Toiletries; Published 03/29/2018; previously cited).
*The examiner notes the term, “Coco derived” is not defined by the specification or the claims. The term has been broadly interpreted as any aliphatic group present in coconut oil.
With regard to claims 1 (A)(i), 1(A)(ii) 1 ( C), 2, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 20 (A) (i), 20 (C) & 22, Dong in Table 9, Example 51 teaches a composition consisting of 8.8% active sodium (C14-16) alpha olefin sulfonate (i.e. M+ is the sodium solubilizing cation, R1= C11-C13), 1.0% active dimethyl cocobetaine (i.e. cocobetaine), 2.2 % active cetyl dimethyl betaine (i.e. cetyl betaine) and 2.0% sodium chloride (pg. 37). With regard to claims 1 & 3, the alkyl betaines are present in a combined amount of 3.2 %. As evidenced by Hewlings, palmitic acid is a C16:0 fatty acid (i.e. cetyl) found in coconut oil (pg. 4-Figure 1). With regard to claim 1 ( D) & 20 ( D), Dong teaches water is present in an amount to balance the composition to a total of 100% and only 14% of the reagents are accounted for in Table 9, as such teaching water in an amount of 86%. With regard to claims 1, 5, 13 & 20, Dong teaches the weight ratio of (i) to (ii) in Table 9, Example 51 is 2.75: 1. With regard to claims 1, 9 & 22, Dong in Table 9, Example 51 teaches the composition is sulfate free and has a viscosity of 3,510 cps at 25 °C. With regard to claim 4, Dong in Table 9, Example 51 teaches the combined amounts (i) and (ii) is 12%. With regard to claims 10 & 22, Dong in Table 9, Example 51 teaches the composition is free of silicone. With regard to claims 1 & 20, Dong teaches the pH of the composition is alternatively between about 5.0 to about 6.0 [0052]. With regard to claims 14 & 18, more broadly, Dong teaches the hydrotropic surfactant, which may be alpha olefin sulfonate, may most preferably be present in an amount of about 3.5 to about 15% and in Example 7 teaches inclusion of the hydrotropic surfactant in an amount of 10% ([0017] & [0018]). With regard to claims 14 & 18, Dong in Table 4, Example 31-33 teaches the amount of hydrotropic surfactant to be 10 % actives (pg. 31). With regard to claims 14 & 18, more broadly, Dong teaches inclusion of an alkyl betaine in an amount from about 2 % to about 20% by actives weight ([0038]). With regard to claims 14 & 18, it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have to have modified Dong’s example 51 formulation by adjusting the amount of the sodium (C14-16) alpha olefin sulfonate to be 10% as suggested by Dong’s Example 31-33 and preferred teachings and adjusted the combined amount of cetyl dimethyl betaine and coco dimethyl betaine to be 2% [yielding a 5:1 ratio] because active sodium (C14-16) alpha olefin sulfonate is a hydrotropic surfactant suitable for use in practicing the invention and this amount of hydrotropic surfactant is suitable as taught by Dong; cetyl dimethyl and coco dimethyl betaine are surfactants suitable for practicing the invention and Dong teaches this amount as suitable for practicing their invention. With regard to claim 20, Dong teaches the composition of their invention comprises at least one alkyl betaine and in Examples 62 & 63 exemplify coco dimethyl betaine (cocobetaine) as the sole alkyl betaine in combination with a hydrotropic surfactants, water and salt ([0038]; Table 11- pg. 39). It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Dong’s Example 51 formulation by removing the cetyl dimethyl betaine and adjusting the amount of coco dimethyl betaine to be 3.2% active because Dong teaches the formulation of their invention comprise at least one alkyl betaine and exemplify coco dimethyl betaine as the sole alkyl betaine in Example 62 & 63. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to save on reagent costs by limiting the variety of reagents present in the composition. Dong teaches inclusion of antimicrobials including the polyquaternium series used in hand soap [0050].
Dong does not teach inclusion of 0.05 to 0.5% of a cationic polymer or that the cationic polymer is selected from Polyquaternium 10, the polyquaternium 10’s molecular weight or charge density.
In the same field of invention of hand soaps, with regard to claims 1 ( B), 20 ( B) & 22, Zhu teaches an aqueous composition comprising 0.02-10% wt. of a germicidally effective amount of a quaternary ammonium surfactant compound which may be Polyquaternium 10 which also has the added benefit of skin conditioning (abstract; [0034], [0059]).
In the same field of invention, PQ-10 teaches polyquaternium 10 imparts viscosity to the final product (pg. 7). PQ-10 teaches the molecular weight of polyquaternium 10 affects formulation viscosity and deposition (Table 1-pg. 11). With regard to claim 7, PQ-10 teaches polyquaternium 10 “usually exhibits medium to high molecular weight (MW) values ranging from 4.0 × 105 g/mol to 9.0 × 105 g/mol” (pg. 5). With regard to claim 7, PQ-10 teaches “cationic DS for personal care grade PQ-10 generally ranges from 0.7–1.25 meq/g” (pg. 5).
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.
Here at least rationale (G) in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified Dong’s Example 51 formulation by adding 0.02-10% wt. of polyquaternium-10 with a molecular weight ranging from 4.0 × 105 g/mol to 9.0 × 105 g/mol and charge density of 0.7–1.25 meq/g as suggested by the combined teachings of Zhu and PQ-10 because Dong teaches inclusion of polyquaternium compounds that are used in hand soaps and polyquaternium-10 is used in hand soaps in an amount of 0.02-10% wt as taught by Zhu, with molecular weight ranging from 4.0 × 105 g/mol to 9.0 × 105 g/mol and charge density of 0.7–1.25 meq/g being what is usual molecular weights and charge densities for personal care formulations as taught by PQ-10. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to provide skin emolliency and thickening with a polyquaternium polymer art recognized as suitable for use in hand soaps using molecular weights and charge densities suitable for personal care compositions.
With regard to the recited amount of sodium α olefin sulfonate anionic surfactant; alkyl betaine amphoteric surfactant/cocobetaine; cationic polymer/polyquaternium-10; inorganic electrolyte/sodium chloride; ratio of sodium α olefin sulfonate anionic surfactant to alkyl betaine; pH; the combined amount of sodium α olefin sulfonate anionic surfactant and alkyl betaine amphoteric surfactant; and viscosity, the combined teachings of Dong, Zhu and PQ-10 suggest these parameters with values which overlap or fall within the recited ranges. 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).
With regard to claim 17, the composition suggested by the combined teachings of Dong, Zhu and PQ-10 necessarily has a viscosity from 4,000 to 12,000 mPa.s when measured using a Brookfield V2 viscometer with spindle RTV5 for 1 minute at 20 rpm and 30°C because the combined teachings of Dong, Zhu and PQ-10 teach the recited reagents in the recited amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This assertion is supported by Dong’s teaching the “most preferred viscosity range is between 3,500 and 15,000 cps” (Dong-[0034]) and PQ-10’s teaching that polyquaternium 10 imparts viscosity to the final product (PQ-10; pg. 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant summarizes the Examiner’s rejection and the teachings of the referenced prior art (reply, pg. 10-11; Declaration, paragraphs 5-6). Applicant disagrees with the Examiner’s position that it would be obvious to modify Dong’s Example 51 composition by removing cetyl dimethyl betaine and adjusting the amount of the remaining coco dimethyl betaine to be 3.2% active as suggested by the teachings of Dong’s Examples 62 and 63 because the anionic surfactants in Examples 62 and 63 are from a different structural class than Example 51 (reply, pg. 11; Declaration, paragraph 7). Applicant argues Example 51 is materially different from Examples 62 and 63 with Examples 62 and 63 containing two anionic surfactants (reply, pg. 11-12; Declaration, paragraphs 9-12). Applicant argues differences in surfactant structural classes impact the ability of the surfactant to co-micellise and pack with others, and for wormlike micelles for building viscosity (reply, pg. 12; Declaration, paragraph 12). Applicant argues the amphoteric surfactant system matters with Dong’s Example 51 containing a mixture of cetyl dimethyl betaine and coco dimethyl betaine, whereas Example 52 contains cocamidopropyl betaine. This difference in amphoteric surfactant changes a formulation having a viscosity of 3,510 cP at 25°C in Example 51 to a water-thin liquid ( 1 cP) in Example 52 (reply, pg. 12; Declaration, paragraph 13).
This is not persuasive. Dong teaches suitable surfactant required for their invention are hydrotropic surfactants which are alpha sulfonated fatty acids, an ester thereof, a salt of said acid or said ester or a combination thereof (Dong’s claim 1). The sodium C14-16 olefin of Dong’s Example 51 is a hydrotropic surfactant. The sodium sulfonated methyl C14-18 ester, sodium sulfonated methyl C12-18 ester, disodium sulfonated C14-18 fatty acid and disodium sulfonated C12-18 fatty acid taught by Dong in Examples 62 and 63 are also hydrotropic surfactants. They all fall under Dong’s class of hydrotropic surfactants. There is an expectation of success in the Examiner proposed modification because Dong teaches at least one hydrotropic surfactant is suitable for practicing the invention in their claim 1. Next, Dong requires “at least one alkyl betaine” to practice the invention (emphasis added; Dong’s claim 1). Coco dimethyl betaine is an alkyl betaine. The cocoamidopropyl betaine that Applicant argues is not an alkyl betaine and is not encompassed by Dong’s invention (Dong-claim 1).
Applicant argues that removal of cetyl dimethyl betaine would be expected to reduce viscosity of the composition because it is a long alkyl chain betaine (reply, page 12; Declaration, paragraph 14).
This is not persuasive. Dong in their claim 1 teaches the suitability of at least one alkyl betaine and in Examples 62 and 63 teaches the use of cocobetaine alone.
Applicant argues PQ-10 would not be expected to restore viscosity within the claimed range because it is a skin a skin emollient and significant quantities would be expected to be needed to restore viscosity (reply, pg. 12-13; Declaration, paragraph 15).
This is not persuasive. Applicant presents no evidence that significant quantities are needed to support their allegation. In contrast, the Examiner points to the teachings of PQ-10 in which it is art recognized that polyquaternium 10 (PQ-10) imparts viscosity to the final product (PQ-10-pg. 7).
Applicant argues that Dong’s viscosity data were measured at a lower temperature and would not have the recited viscosity at 30°C (reply, pg. 13-14; Declaration, paragraphs 16-19). Applicant in their declaration measured Example Formulation A at 25°C and 30°C to show that viscosity of the formulation decreased when the temperature increased to 30°C (reply, pg. 13; Declaration, paragraphs 16-19). Dr. Oriou concludes that Dong's reported viscosity for Example 51 at 25°C does not establish that Example 51 would meet the claimed viscosity range when measured at 30°C (reply, pg. 13; Declaration, paragraphs 16-19).
This is not persuasive. Dr. Oriou’s Example Formulation A is not representative to the claimed invention or Dong’s Example 51. Dr. Oriou’s Example Formulation A uses sodium laureth sulfate (not the claimed alpha olefin sulfonate). As such Dr. Oriou’s Example Formulation A is not sulfate free as required by the instant claims. Dr. Oriou’s Example Formulation A used the amphoteric surfactant cocoamidopropyl betaine, yet the instant claims recite a cocobetaine or lauryl (C12) betaine. Cocamidopropyl betaine is not recited by the instant claims. In other words, Dr. Oriou’s measurements were not performed with the closest prior. The closest prior art is Dong’s Example 51. An affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 must compare the claimed subject matter with the closest prior art to be effective to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Burckel, 592 F.2d 1175, 201 USPQ 67 (CCPA 1979). "A comparison of the claimed invention with the disclosure of each cited reference to determine the number of claim limitations in common with each reference, bearing in mind the relative importance of particular limitations, will usually yield the closest single prior art reference." In re Merchant, 575 F.2d 865, 868, 197 USPQ 785, 787 (CCPA 1978) (emphasis in original). Where the comparison is not identical with the reference disclosure, deviations therefrom should be explained, In re Finley, 174 F.2d 130, 81 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1949), and if not explained should be noted and evaluated, and if significant, explanation should be required. In re Armstrong, 280 F.2d 132, 126 USPQ 281 (CCPA 1960) (deviations from example were inconsequential).
Dong teaches the viscosity of their invention is 3,510 cps at 25 °C and further teaches the “most preferred viscosity range is between 3,500 and 15,000 cps” (Dong-[0034]; Dong- Table 9). The composition suggested by the prior art teachings also comprise PQ-10 which is art recognized as imparting viscosity to the final product (PQ-10; pg. 7). Lastly, the composition suggested by the combined teachings Dong, Zhu and PQ-10 necessarily has a viscosity from 4,000 to 12,000 mPa.s when measured using a Brookfield V2 viscometer with spindle RTV5 for 1 minute at 20 rpm and 30°C because the combined teachings of Dong, Zhu and PQ-10 teach the recited reagents in the recited amounts. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Applicant requests examination of the full scope of the claims and rejoinder of the withdrawn claims (reply, pg. 14-15).
This is not persuasive as patentable subject material has not yet been identified.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-9, 13, 14 & 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9, 12, 13, 15 & 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,969,495 (Published: 04/30/2024; hereinafter the ‘495) in view of Heide (WO 2012/168126; Published: 2012-12-13; previously cited). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims and the ‘495 patent both recite a sulfate-free composition comprising (A) (i) from 3 to 13 wt% of an alpha olefin sulphonate of formula (I), (ii) from 1 to 6% of an alkyl betaine of general formula II in which R2 is C12 or coco derived, (B) from 0.05 to 0.9 wt. % a cationic conditioning polymer/cationic polymer which may be polyquaternium-10, inorganic electrolyte from 1 to 3% wt %, and a preservative including “sodium benzoate…” In both the instant application and ‘495 patent, the weight ratio of (i) to (ii)is recited to be from 1:1 to 6:1. The instant application and the ‘495 patent recite the pH of the composition is from 3 to 6.5. The instant application and the ‘495 patent have a viscosity in overlapping ranges in which the ‘495 patent recites the viscosity is from 3,500 to 15,000 mPa*s. The ‘495 patent does not recite that the inorganic electrolyte is a metal chloride. The teachings of Heide are described above. In brief, Heidi teaches sodium chloride is an electrolyte which thickens cleansers which may be shampoos. It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the ‘495 patent by substituting the generically taught electrolyte with sodium chloride (i.e. metal chlorides) because both the ‘495 patent and Heide are directed towards cleansers which may be shampoos. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success in order to thicken the cleanser/shampoo with an inorganic electrolyte art recognized as suitable. The pending claims are therefore an obvious variant of the conflicting, patented claims in view of the prior art.
Claims 1-9, 13, 14 & 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 & 16-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,403,084 (Published: 09/02/2025; hereinafter the ‘084) in view of Heide (WO 2012/168126; Published: 2012-12-13; previously cited) and Johnson (US 2013/0089586; Published: 04/11/2013). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims and the ‘084 patent both recite a sulfate-free composition comprising (A) (i) from 3 to 13 wt% of an alpha olefin sulphonate of formula (I), (ii) from 1 to 6% of an alkyl betaine of general formula II in which R2 is C12 or coco derived (encompassing cocobetaine), (B) a cationic conditioning polymer/cationic polymer in an amount of 0.15 to 0.2%, and inorganic electrolyte” and water (i.e. aqueous composition). In both the instant application and ‘084 patent, the weight ratio of (i) to (ii)is recited to be from 1:1 to 6:1. The instant application and the ‘084 patent recite the pH of the composition is from 3 to 6.5. The instant application and the ‘084 patent have a viscosity in overlapping ranges in which the ‘084 patent recites the viscosity is from 3,500 to 15,000 mPa*s. The ‘084 patent does not recite that the inorganic electrolyte is a metal chloride or the molecular weight of the guar hydroxypropyl trimethylammonium chloride. The teachings of Heide are described above. In brief, Heidi teaches sodium chloride is an electrolyte which thickens cleansers which may be shampoos. Johnson teaches a method of achieving improved hair feel using a shampoo composition comprising guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride with a charge density of 0.8 meq/g and a molecular weight of 500,000 g/mol and sodium chloride (title; [0135]; Table spanning pg. 13-14). It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the ‘084 patent by substituting the generically taught electrolyte with sodium chloride (i.e. metal chlorides) and adding guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride with a charge density of 0.8 meq/g and a molecular weight of 500,000 g/mol as taught by Johnson because the ‘084 patent, Heide and Johnson are directed towards cleansers which may be shampoos. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success in order to thicken the cleanser/shampoo with an inorganic electrolyte art recognized as suitable and improve the feel of hair through inclusion of guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride with a charge density of 0.8 meq/g and a molecular weight of 500,000 g/mol. The pending claims are therefore an obvious variant of the conflicting, patented claims in view of the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s representative makes no arguments pertaining to the outstanding double patenting rejections.
Conclusions
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI K MATTISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5866. The examiner can normally be reached 9-7 (M-F).
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 J Blanchard can be reached at 5712720827. 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.
/LORI K MATTISON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/NICOLE P BABSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights