DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Application
Receipt of Applicants’ Remarks and Appeal Brief filed on 02/24/2026 is acknowledged. Prosecution is being reopened pursuant to MPEP § 1207.04 based on the Appeal Brief filed February 24, 2026. The Examiner has determined that a new ground of rejection based on newly cited prior art is appropriate and that the application should be returned to pre-appeal prosecution status. The new rejection set forth below is based on different prior art references than those applied in the Final Office Action filed February 26, 2025, and constitutes a new ground of rejection. The previous rejection of claims 18-29 and 34-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ando in view of Minou, Lee, and Mathonneau is hereby withdrawn. The present Office Action is non-final.
Claims 18-29 and 34-37 are pending.
Claims 1-17 have been previously cancelled. Claims 30-33 are withdrawn as directed to non-elected subject matter.
Claims 18, 20-22, 24, 26, 35 and 37 are amended filed 01/29/2025.
Claims 18-29, and 34-37 are pending and under examination in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 02/24/2026 is acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statement. Please see the attached copy of PTO-1449.
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.
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 18-29 and 34-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mathonneau et al. (WO 2017/037187 A1) (“Mathonneau”) as primary reference, in view of D’Arras et al. (WO 2016/092188 A1, published June 16, 2016, with priority date of December 7, 2015 of French application FR 14/61665 via PCT/FR2015/053342; hereinafter “D’Arras”) (English translation provided by WIPO), Ando et al. (WO 2015/122371 A1) (“Ando”) and further in view of Wells et al. (US 6930078 B2) (“Wells”).
Scope and Content of the Prior Art
Mathonneau teaches a cleansing and conditioning composition for human keratin fibers, in particular hair, comprising one or more anionic surfactants (, two or more nonionic surfactants, one or more amphoteric surfactants, and one or more cationic polymers, wherein the composition relates to a method of cleansing and conditioning steps thereof (abstract; page 3, lines 9-13). Mathonneau specifically teaches that the composition improves the cosmetic properties imparted to keratin fibers, in particular to hair, preferably sensitized hair, including improved disentangling, suppleness, and feel of the hair without a build-up effect (page 3, lines 9-13). A panel of five experts compared the feel and ease of disentangling on wet hair of locks treated with compositions A to G relative to those treated with comparative compositions, and all experts noted a better cosmetic quality of the feel and better ease of disentangling (page 25, lines 6-11). Mathonneau expressly teaches the composition that are free of silicones. Specifically, none of Mathonneau’s working examples A through G (page 23, Table 1 through page 25) include any silicone compound as a component, and the composition is not described as requiring silicone anywhere in the disclosure. Mathonneau is accordingly directed to silicone-free cleansing and conditioning compositions.
Regarding component (i) of claim 18, Mathonneau teaches anionic surfactants chosen from polyoxyalkylenated alkylamido ether carboxylic acids (page 7, lines 10-25), which correspond to the polyoxyalkylenated alkyl(amido)ether carboxylic acids and/or salts thereof of instant component (i). The amounts disclosed by Mathonneau encompass the claimed range of 1% to 10% by weight.
Regarding component (iii) of claim 18, Mathonneau teaches alkyl(poly)glycoside nonionic surfactants as one of the two or more required nonionic surfactants (page 19, lines 5-20), in amounts overlapping the claimed range of 0.2% to 10% by weight.
Regarding component (iv) of claim 18, Mathonneau teaches amphoteric surfactants including (C8-C20)alkylbetaines and (C8-C20)alkylamido(C3-C8)alkylbetaines, including cocamidopropyl betaine (page 20, lines 10-30), in amounts ranging from 1% to 20% by weight (page 21, lines 5-10), overlapping the claimed range of 3% to 10%.
Regarding component (v) of claim 18, Mathonneau teaches cationic polymers including cationic polysaccharides, homopolymers or copolymers of dialkyldiallylammonium salts, and amphoteric polymers (page 24, lines 5-35; page 25, lines 1-15), in amounts ranging from 0.01% to 5% by weight (page 25, lines 20-30), overlapping the claimed range of 0.05% to 2%.
Regarding claim 28, Mathonneau broadly discloses a wide range of cationic polymer types including cationic polysaccharides such as cationic guar and cationic cellulose derivatives (page 31, lines 21-43), which are well-known in the art to have cationic charge densities below 4 meq/g. For example, guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride (Jaguar C13S) has a degree of substitution of approximately 0.13 and a charge density well below 4 meq/g. Mathonneau further teaches that charge density is a function of the molar proportion of cationic monomer units and can be adjusted by routine selection of monomer ratios (page 13, lines 19-34). Accordingly, the cationic polymer types disclosed in Mathonneau encompass both polymers having charge density greater than and less than or equal to 4 meq/g, and selection of a polymer with charge density ≤ 4 meq/g is within the routine skill of the art.
Mathonneau does not expressly exemplify non-sulfated anionic surfactants chosen specifically from C6-C24 olefin sulfonates (component (ii)), nor does Mathonneau expressly disclose a composition simultaneously comprising both component (i) and component (ii) as the exclusive anionic surfactants. Mathonneau is selected as the primary reference because it most completely discloses the five-component conditioning framework, the specific polymer classes, the silicone-free embodiments, and the conditioning benefits including disentangling and suppleness that correspond to the claimed invention as a whole.
D’Arras is applied as the secondary reference for its specific and explicit teaching of the combination of olefin sulfonates with alkylamido ether carboxylic acid co-surfactants in sulfate-free hair cleansing systems. D’Arras (WO 2016/092188 A1, published June 16, 2016, priority date December 7, 2015) teaches a cosmetic composition comprising at least one linear α-olefin sulfonate as a non-sulfated anionic surfactant, at least one anionic surfactant other than the α-olefin sulfonate chosen from alkylamido ether carboxylic acids or salts thereof, and at least one additional surfactant chosen from amphoteric surfactants, nonionic surfactants, or mixtures thereof, wherein the composition does not comprise any anionic surfactants comprising sulfate groups (claim 1 of D’Arras). D’Arras expressly discusses the relative amounts of surfactant components as affecting foam quality and cleansing performance (last 10 pages before claims, examples 4-7). Mathonneau similarly discusses the effect of amphoteric surfactant level on conditioning performance and feel (pages 20-25). Because both references teach that these component levels independently affect the same performance properties — foam, mildness, and conditioning — their ratio is necessarily a result-effective variable within the meaning of In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (C.C.P.A. 1977), and optimization thereof is routine. Specifically, D’Arras teaches combining linear α-olefin sulfonates having alkyl chains of C6-C30, in particular C8-C28 carbon atoms, with polyoxyalkylenated alkylamido ether carboxylic acids as the anionic co-surfactant, which correspond directly to components (ii) and (i) of the instant claims, respectively. D’Arras further teaches that this combination, together with additional amphoteric and/or nonionic surfactants, is directed to cosmetic treatment of keratin fibers including cleansing and conditioning of hair. D’Arras teaches amounts of α-olefin sulfonate of from 1% to 20% by weight (abstract), overlapping the claimed range for component (ii) of 3% to 10%, and teaches the weight ratio of α-olefin sulfonate to the other anionic surfactant ranging from about 1.5 to about 12. D’Arras further teaches that alkyl(poly)glycosides are preferred nonionic surfactants for use in combination with the α-olefin sulfonate system, overlapping the requirement of component (iii), and teaches amphoteric surfactants including cocamidopropyl betaine in combination with the α-olefin sulfonate anionic system. Furthermore, D’Arras expressly teaches a composition comprising α-olefin sulfonate and alkylamido ether carboxylic acid “wherein the composition does not comprise any anionic surfactants comprising sulfate groups” (claim 1 of D’Arras), thereby establishing a two-anionic-surfactant system limited to exactly the species of components (i) and (ii). The skilled artisan applying D’Arras’s anionic surfactant pairing to Mathonneau’s five-component framework would have naturally excluded additional anionic surfactants, consistent with D’Arras’s explicit teaching of a sulfate-free system using only these two anionic classes.
Ando (WO 2015/122371) teaches a cleansing composition comprising polyoxyalkylenated alkylamido ether carboxylic acids as anionic surfactant (¶ 0027, claim 4), alkyl(poly)glycosides as nonionic surfactant (abstract, ¶ 0045, claim 1), at least one amphoteric surfactant (¶ 0009, ¶ 0045, claims 1, 8, 9), and amphoteric polymers (¶ 0059) and/or cationic polymers (¶ 0055), wherein the composition optionally does not contain silicone (¶ 0051). Ando is cited to confirm that the five-component combination of components (i)-(v) in the claimed amounts, in a silicone-free shampoo composition, is art-recognized as providing excellent cleansing, foaming, and conditioning properties (¶ 0047; page 25).
Differences Between Prior Art and the Claims
The combination of Mathonneau, D’Arras, and Ando teaches or suggests all limitations of independent claims 18 and 37. The primary difference between the prior art and the claims is the simultaneous presence of (a) component (i) polyoxyalkylenated alkyl(amido)ether carboxylic acids and (b) component (ii) C6-C24 olefin sulfonates as the two anionic surfactants, together with (c) the weight ratio of amphoteric surfactants (iv) to non-sulfated anionic surfactants (ii) of ≥ 0.5, in a silicone-free composition also containing alkyl(poly)glycoside nonionic surfactants and amphoteric or cationic polymers.
Prima Facie Obviousness and Motivation to Combine
It would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the compositions of Mathonneau — which teach all claim components except the specific identity of the anionic surfactant of component (ii) — to incorporate C6-C24 olefin sulfonates as non-sulfated anionic surfactant component (ii) in combination with the polyoxyalkylenated alkylamido ether carboxylic acid anionic surfactant of component (i), as taught by D’Arras, to arrive at the claimed compositions and methods. D’Arras teaches that α-olefin sulfonates provide strong detergency and foam in sulfate-free systems, while alkylamido ether carboxylates contribute mildness and compatibility. A skilled formulator seeking to improve the balance of cleansing efficiency, foam quality, and conditioning performance in Mathonneau’s compositions would have been motivated to adopt this known, complementary anionic surfactant system. Mathonneau itself acknowledges that achieving effective cleansing without sulfate-based surfactants is a recognized formulation challenge (page 3, lines 9-13). D’Arras directly addresses this same challenge by identifying α-olefin sulfonates paired with alkylamido ether carboxylates as a known sulfate-free anionic solution (claim 1; col. 2). One of ordinary skill would have turned to D’Arras’s specific anionic pairing as an art-recognized answer to precisely the gap in Mathonneau’s framework.
Such substitution of one known surfactant system for another known, functionally equivalent system constitutes the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Ando further evidences that compositions including components (i)–(v) in similar ranges were conventionally used to achieve the claimed performance attributes, reinforcing a reasonable expectation of success.
Further motivation to combine are below:
First, Mathonneau and D’Arras share the same field of endeavor — sulfate-free cosmetic compositions for cleansing and conditioning keratin fibers — and address the same technical problem of achieving effective cleansing, foam generation, and conditioning in the absence of sulfate-based surfactants. Both references are directed to the same technical problem and the same end use, and each reference explicitly recognizes the desirability of sulfate-free, silicone-reduced compositions for hair care. The combination of these teachings would predictably yield a composition providing both the cleansing and foaming benefits described in D’Arras and the conditioning benefits described in Mathonneau, with a reasonable expectation of success, because all components are individually known and art-recognized shampoo surfactants whose combination follows from the explicit teachings of both references.
Second, D’Arras specifically establishes that the combination of linear α-olefin sulfonates with polyoxyalkylenated alkylamido ether carboxylic acid co-surfactants, together with alkyl(poly)glycoside nonionic and amphoteric surfactants, provides beneficial cleansing and conditioning properties for hair — which is precisely the same purpose sought by the instant application. A skilled formulator seeking to build a five-component sulfate-free conditioning shampoo on Mathonneau’s framework would have had clear reason to turn to D’Arras’s teaching that olefin sulfonate paired with alkylamido ether carboxylate constitutes an effective sulfate-free anionic surfactant system. D’Arras’s specific anionic pairing as a direct solution to Mathonneau’s gap is obvious
Third, Ando is further relied upon to confirm that the five-component combination of components (i)-(v) in the claimed amounts, in a silicone-free shampoo composition, is art-recognized as providing the cleansing, foaming, and conditioning properties disclosed in the instant application. Ando’s teaching that formulations within these component ranges provide “excellent foam-forming properties” and “good hair smoothness” (¶ 0047; page 25, entire page) establishes that a skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation that the claimed compositions would function as intended.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Mathonneau’s established five-component cleansing and conditioning framework with the specific α-olefin sulfonate/carboxylate anionic surfactant pairing of D’Arras, with a reasonable expectation of success, because: (a) all components are known and art-recognized shampoo surfactants; (b) D’Arras establishes that the olefin sulfonate/carboxylate combination is itself effective for hair cleansing; and (c) Mathonneau establishes the five-component framework for achieving conditioning benefits. The combination of these teachings would predictably yield a composition providing both the cleansing benefits described in D’Arras and the conditioning benefits described in Mathonneau.
Regarding the weight ratio limitation of claim 18 (amphoteric surfactants (iv) to non-sulfated anionic surfactants (ii) ≥ 0.5), the claimed ratio is the natural and result effective variable optimization of combining the component ranges disclosed in the prior art. Mathonneau teaches component (iv) amphoteric surfactants in amounts of 3% to 8% by weight (page 21, lines 5-10), which corresponds to and overlaps the claimed range of 3% to 10%. D’Arras teaches component (ii) α-olefin sulfonate amounts of 0.1% to 30%, and when narrowed to the claimed range of component (ii) of 3% to 10%, a skilled artisan selecting equal or greater amounts of amphoteric surfactant relative to olefin sulfonate — as Mathonneau’s conditioning-focused framework naturally produces — the relative amounts of amphoteric and anionic surfactants are recognized as result-effective variables affecting foam, mildness, and conditioning. It would have been obvious to select relative amounts within the disclosed ranges, including those yielding a ratio ≥ 0.5, as a matter of routine optimization arrive at a weight ratio of ≥ 0.5. For example, a composition having 5% amphoteric surfactant (within Mathonneau’s disclosed range) and 5% olefin sulfonate (within D’Arras’s disclosed range) yields a ratio of exactly 1.0, which satisfies the ≥ 0.5 limitation. A composition having 6% amphoteric surfactant and 4% olefin sulfonate yields a ratio of 1.5. The weight ratio is therefore not an independently inventive parameter but rather an inevitable consequence of combining the component amounts taught in the prior art. Furthermore, the relative amounts of amphoteric and anionic surfactants in shampoo formulations are well-recognized result-effective variables in the art, and optimization of such ratios to achieve desired foam quality, conditioning, and cleansing properties is routine. See MPEP § 2141.02(V); In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618 (C.C.P.A. 1977). The prior art’s recognition that amphoteric surfactant levels and anionic surfactant levels each independently affect foam quality and conditioning (D’Arras, col. 2; Mathonneau, pages 20-25) confirms that their ratio is a parameter within the ordinary formulation optimization skill of the art (See MPEP § 2144.05; In re Peterson; In re Antonie).
Regarding the silicone-free limitation of claim 18, Mathonneau’s working examples A-G (page 23-25) do not include any silicone compound, establishing that the five-component framework functions as intended without silicone. Ando ¶ 0051 further confirms that silicone is an optional component in such compositions, i.e., the composition may be entirely silicone-free. Consumer demand for silicone-free personal care products was well-established in the art prior to the priority date. Specifically, silicone-free formulations were art-recognized prior to the priority date based on Mathonneau’s own silicone-free working examples. It would therefore have been obvious to formulate the combined composition without silicone.
Predictability in the Art.
The claimed invention involves combining known classes of surfactants and conditioning agents whose functional roles in personal care formulations are well understood. The art demonstrates that such systems are highly predictable, as anionic surfactants primarily provide cleansing, amphoteric surfactants contribute to mildness and foam stabilization, nonionic surfactants enhance solubilization and mildness, and polymers impart conditioning benefits.
The selection and adjustment of these components and their relative concentrations to achieve desired performance characteristics is a routine activity of formulators. Accordingly, the claimed composition represents the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
Regarding claims 19 and 23, both Mathonneau and D’Arras teach polyoxyalkylenated alkylamido ether carboxylic acids of formula (1) R1-(OC2H4)n-OCH2COOA (Mathonneau, page 7-9; D’Arras, col. 4-5) and alkyl(poly)glycosides of formula R1O-(R2O)t-(G)v (Mathonneau, page 19; D’Arras, col. 8-9), meeting the structural limitations of claims 19 and 23.
Regarding claim 20, Ando and Mathonneau each teach the total amount of component (i) anionic surfactants in ranges (1% to 10%, 1.5% to 10%, respectively) overlapping and encompassing the claimed range of 1.5% to 10%. Claim 20 is obvious for the same reasons as claim 18.
Regarding claim 21, D’Arras specifically teaches C12-C20 olefin sulfonates as preferred embodiments (col. 3-4), overlapping the claimed C12-C20 limitation of claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, D’Arras teaches amounts of α-olefin sulfonate of 1% to 20% (abstract) overlapping the claimed 4% to 10% range. Claim 22 is obvious for the same reasons as claim 18.
Regarding claim 24, Mathonneau and D’Arras each teach nonionic surfactant amounts that overlap the claimed 0.5% to 8% range.
Regarding claim 25, Mathonneau teaches the full Markush group of amphoteric surfactants recited in claim 25, including all betaine and sulfobetaine subgenera (page 20-22).
Regarding claim 26, Mathonneau teaches amphoteric surfactant amounts of 1% to 20%, overlapping the claimed 4% to 10% range.
Regarding claim 27, the weight ratio of amphoteric surfactants to non-sulfated anionic surfactants ranging from 0.5 to 3.0 would result from the routine optimization of the known result-effective variables as discussed above for claim 18.
Regarding claim 28, the cationic charge density of ≤ 4 meq/g is achievable by routine selection of monomer ratios within the broad polymer classes taught by Mathonneau, as discussed above. Mathonneau’s disclosure that charge density is determinable by structure and molar proportions (page 13, lines 19-34) confirms that this parameter is well within routine optimization. Mathonneau teaches cationic polysaccharides broadly, and it is well-known in the personal care art that cationic guar has a charge density well below 4 meq/g (see Wells (US 6930078 B2; col. 28, line 46; claim 5).
Regarding claim 29, Mathonneau teaches the full Markush group of polymers recited in claim 29, including homopolymers and copolymers derived from acrylic or methacrylic esters, cationic polysaccharides, cyclopolymers of alkyldiallylammonium, quaternary diammonium polymers, and amphoteric polymers (pages 24-36 of Mathonneau). Each polymer subclass recited in claim 29 is specifically disclosed in Mathonneau.
Regarding claim 34, Mathonneau teaches cationic polysaccharides, homopolymers and copolymers of dimethyldiallylammonium salts, and amphoteric polymers (page 31, line 21; page 33, lines 14-15; pages 30-36 generally), meeting the polymer limitations of claim 34.
Regarding claim 35, Mathonneau teaches polymer amounts of 0.01% to 5%, overlapping the claimed 0.1% to 2% range.
Regarding claim 36, Mathonneau teaches water in amounts of 40% to 95% (page 55, lines 1-6), overlapping and encompassing the claimed 50% to 95% range.
Regarding claim 37, the method claim of treating keratin materials comprising applying the composition of claim 18, rinsing, and optionally drying, is rendered obvious by the combined teachings for the same reasons as claim 18. Mathonneau specifically teaches the method of cleansing and conditioning comprising application to keratin materials, optional leave-on time, rinsing, and drying steps (abstract; page 1, lines 5-39; claim 20).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE MACH whose telephone number is (571)272-2755. The examiner can normally be reached 0800 - 1700 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, Robert A Wax can be reached at 571-272-0323. 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.
/ANDRE MACH/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights