DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02 December 2025 has been entered.
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Remarks filed on 02 December 2025.
Claims 1-12, 14, 15 and 17-22 are pending in the current application. Claims 15 and 17-19 remain withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Claims 1-12, 14 and 20-22 are examined on the merits herein.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Claim Interpretation
At issue is the interpretation of the recitation “A non-cellulosic polysaccharide derivative…containing at least one cationic group, with a cationic degree of substitution (DScat)extraction, from about 0.20 to about 0.30”.
Page 3, lines 20-28 of the specification discloses the following description for “cationic group”. “As used herein, the term “cationic groups” refers to positively charged groups and to partially charged groups.
As used herein, the expression “partially charged groups” designates groups which may become positively charged depending of the pH of the formulation. Such groups may also be named “potentially cationic groups”.
As used herein, the term “cationic” means at least partially cationic. Thus, the terms “cationizing agents”, “cationic groups” and “cationic moieties” include ammoniums (which have a positive charge) but also primary, secondary and tertiary amines and their precursors (which can lead to positively charged compounds).
Thus, the claim can be interpreted to encompass a polysaccharide substituted with a primary amine (which can become positively charged, but isn’t necessarily positively charged or cationic); a secondary amine (which can become positively charged, but isn’t necessarily positively charged or cationic); a tertiary amine (which can become positively charged, but isn’t necessarily positively charged); or an ammonium (which is positively charged). The claim as a whole can be interpreted to include any heteroatom containing substituent, since any of them could lead to positively charged compounds.
According to the specification “a cationic degree of substitution (DScat)extraction”, refers to the degree of substitution measured after a cleaning protocol (see p.7, lines 12-28). Measuring and reporting the degree of substitution is routinely used to characterize polymers and polysaccharides. It is understood to represent a physical property of the polymer obtained after an esterification or etherification reaction. A DScat is understood to mean the degree of cationic substitution, meaning the degree to which the polysaccharide is substituted with “cationic” groups. According to the specification, a product obtained that contains positively charged unreacted material will readily be removed by treatment with an acidic methanol wash. This step allows for more accurately measuring the degree of substitution of the polysaccharide (since the unreacted material is no longer present on the NMR spectra). However, it does not require the claimed polysaccharide to have been treated with an acidic methanol wash. And, there is no evidence that an acidic methanol extraction changes or alters the actual degree of substitution of the polysaccharide before the acidic methanol wash. As discussed in the specification, while the apparent (DScat)extraction is lower than the DScat, it is only because they were able to more accurately measure the DScat after removing unreacted starting material (using NMR analysis).
Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render novel or nonobvious an otherwise known invention. See In re Wiseman, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). Granting a patent on the discovery of an unknown but inherent function would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See M.P.E.P. 2145.
Since the Office does not have the facilities for preparing the claimed materials and comparing them with prior art inventions, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980), see MPEP 2112.
Thus, the polymer having a DScat would also necessarily have a (DScat)extraction property if it were also purified the same/similar way as Applicant prior to measuring the DS.
Withdrawn Rejections
Applicant’s statement of common ownership, filed 02 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-8, 10-12, 14 and 20-22 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Bendejacq et al. in view of Luczak et al., has been fully considered and is persuasive.
Applicant has stated “The subject matter cited in Bendejacq was commonly owned by the same entity or was subject to an obligation of assignment to the same entity as the present invention at the time the claimed invention was made.”.
Thus, Bendejacq et al. is disqualified as prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and the rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends “According to the Office Action, (DScat) and (DScat)extraction are the same”, and cites page 4 of the Office Action.
Applicant argues they are entitled to be their own lexicographer, and have specifically defined two terms: (DS-cat) and (DScat)extraction. Applicant argues “if a reference teaches (DScat) but not (DScat)extraction, the reference does not teach (DScat)extraction. Applicant argues the terms are different and not equivalent as defined by Applicant.
The above argument is not found persuasive. Applicant has pointed out paragraphs [0047]-[0049], which teach the (DScat)extraction is more precise.
Extraction as discussed in the specification, is merely a purification method Applicant has employed prior to measuring a property of the polymer. It does not change the property inherent in the polymer itself. Applicant has not provided any evidence the polymer itself has changed, is structurally distinct or has different functional properties due to the purification step.
Note that “(DScat)extraction” is merely considered to be a property of a polysaccharide that was purified prior to measuring the degree of substitution of the cationic groups. It has been settled that the claiming of an unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art method will not make the claim patentable.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). "When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433. Since the Office does not have the facilities for preparing the claimed materials and comparing them with prior art inventions, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art.
Applicant has shown measuring the DScat after an extraction process simply increases the precision of the measurement. It does not affect the structure of the product itself.
Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render novel or nonobvious an otherwise known invention. See In re Wiseman, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). Granting a patent on the discovery of an unknown but inherent function would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See M.P.E.P. 2145.
Additionally, the claims do not actually require any product-by-process language, such as extracting the “non-cellulosic polysaccharide derivative”.
Finally, even if the claim were amended to require product-by-process limitations, purifying a substance is routine in the chemical arts.
The rejections are hereby maintained.
With respect to Wielinga in view of Yeh, Applicant contends that while the prior art teach a DScat, neither Wielinga nor Yeh teach a (DScat)extraction, i.e. the cationic degree of substituted measured after the acidic methanol extraction.
Applicant argues their method of extraction uses acidified methanol (i.e. methanol with HCl), while Wielinga uses isopropanol by itself, and then uses glacial acetic acid, not to remove any impurities, but to neutralize the caustic solution. Thus, Applicant argues the method used by Wielinga is different than the present Specification
The above arguments are not found persuasive, because (DScat)extraction is a property of the product, and is latent to the product, regardless of whether it was recognized by the prior art.
Second, the Specification discloses the role of the acid is to remove unreacted positively charged material, thereby improving the precision of the measured DScat. Even if Wielinga does not recognize the acid removes unreacted positively charged material, this will necessarily occur upon washing the product with glacial acetic acid.
Wielinga teaches exposing the reaction mixture to atmospheric oxygen for 45 min at 65 °C, and subsequently washing it with 85% isopropanol and 25 mL of 99% by weight glacial acetic acid. The MW and DS were measured after obtaining the product.
Thus, the DScat described by Wielinga et al. is instructional with respect to (DScat)extraction, because the cationically modified guar of Wielinga was also washed/extracted with acid before the DScat was measured.
Since the Office does not have the facilities for preparing the claimed materials and comparing them with prior art inventions, the burden is shifted to Applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980), see MPEP 2112.
Thus, the DScat measured by Wielinga is necessarily the same or similar to (DScat)extraction because it were purified the same/similar way as Applicant prior to measuring the DS.
And, even if the DScat measured by Wielinga is not the same as the (DScat)extraction presently claimed, it is still an inherent property of the polysaccharide, which has been prepared in the same/similar way as the polysaccharides presently claimed.
Furthermore, while acid extraction may lower the apparent DScat, the actual DScat of the polysaccharide does not change. Cationically modified guar having a DScat would be expected to also have a lower apparent DScat when measured after an acid methanol wash, because the acid removes unreacted positively charged reactants. The structure of the cationically modified non-cellulosic polysaccharide is unchanged.
Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render novel or nonobvious an otherwise known invention. See In re Wiseman, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). Granting a patent on the discovery of an unknown but inherent function would remove from the public that which is in the public domain by virtue of its inclusion in, or obviousness from, the prior art. In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 21 USPQ2d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1991). See M.P.E.P. 2145.
Applicant contends one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to select a MW range of 100,000 g/mol to 1,000,000 g/mol from Wielinga teaching 50,000 g/mol to 3,000,000 g/mol and Yeh teaching a MW of about 1,500,000 g/mol.
According to MPEP 2144.05, section I, “A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case.”.
The combination of Wielinga et al. and Yeh et al. suggest cationically modified guar can have an operable molecular weight range for use as a thickener in shampoos. This range is broadly 50,000 g/mol to 3,000,000 g/mol, wherein 1,500,000 g/mol is also preferred. The ranges substantially overlap with the claimed ranges.
Applicant contends the claimed polymers possess unexpected results. Applicant has compared polymers 1 and 3 with Jaguar® C500 and Jaguar® C14.
Polymer 1 has a MW of 333,000 g/mol, a (DScat)extraction of 0.25, a charge density of 1.25 meq/g. It was present in a shampoo composition at a concentration of 0.8%. It resulted in 0.11 J wet combing work in set 1; 0.16 J wet combing work in set 2; and 0.23 J wet combing work in set 4 (table 1). Polymer 1 had a 37.1% silicone deposition yield in set 1; set 2 and set 4 (Table 2).
Polymer 3 has a MW of 305,000 g/mol, a (DScat)extraction of 0.23, a charge density of 1.17 meq/g. It was present in a shampoo composition at a concentration of 0.8%. It resulted in 0.13 J wet combing work in set 2; and 0.17 J wet combing work in set 3 (Table 1). Polymer 3 had a 35.3% silicone deposition yield in set 2 and set 3 (Table 2).
Jaguar® C500 has a MW of 389,000 g/mol, a (DScat)extraction of 0.13, a charge density of 0.72 meq/g. It was present in a shampoo concentration of 0.8%. And it resulted in 0.32 J wet combing work in set 1 (Table 1). It had a silicone deposition yield of 16.9% in set 1 (Table 2).
Jaguar® C14 has a MW of 2,000,000 g/mol, a (DScat)extraction of 0.13, a charge density of 0.72 meq/g. It was present in a shampoo concentration of 0.8%. And it resulted in 0.24 J wet combing work in set 2; and 0.37 J wet combing work in set 4.
Applicant argues the they have provided numerous tests showing the inventive polymers have surprising results compared to the prior art. And that the results of polymers 1 and 3 are sufficient to show that one of ordinary skill in the art could ascertain a trend in the exemplified data.
The above arguments are not found persuasive. The present claims encompass any non-cellulosic polysaccharide, including anionically charged polysaccharides which can be substituted with any group. The claims do not even require the cationic group to be cationically charged, per the definitions provided in the specification. Thus, the structure of the substituted groups are at best limited to those having a heteroatom which could become positively charged.
Applicant contends Tables 1 and 2 include four inventive polymers, not one.
No polysaccharides other than guar-based polysaccharide was tested. No other “cationic” group beside hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride was tested. Furthermore, the only DS tested outside the claimed range is example 1B, wherein the guar polysaccharide has a DS of 0.13.
Given the breadth of possible polysaccharides and substitutions encompassed by the present claims, it would be impossible for one of ordinary skill in the art to ascertain a trend from a single type of polysaccharide, having one substitution (hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride), a molecular weight of around 300,000 g/mol, and apply it to any non-cellulosic polysaccharide, having any substitution, and any derivative thereof, and a molecular weight trending up towards 1,000,000 g/mol. This is especially true since “cationic groups” as claimed are not even limited to groups having an actual cationic charge.
The breadth of the present claims includes any “non-cellulosic polysaccharide”, substituted with any cationic group. Furthermore, testing a single DS and a single MW outside of the claimed range is not sufficient to demonstrate criticality of a claimed range, particularly when the prior art teach cationic substituted guar having a DS that overlaps with the instant DS, and a MW that substantially overlaps with the instant MW. .
Thus, the evidence in the examples is also not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention and does not demonstrate criticality of a claimed range of the ingredients in the claimed composition. See MPEP § 716.02(d). Therefore, the evidence presented in specification herein is not seen to be clear and convincing in support the nonobviousness of the instant claimed invention over the prior art.
The rejections are hereby maintained.
Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-12, 14, 20 and 21 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wielinga et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2001/0051140, cited in previous Office Action) in view of Yeh (US Patent No. 5,387,675, cited in previous Office Action).
Wielinga et al. teach a clear, aqueous cosmetic formulation for use on the hair to be rinsed away, wherein the composition comprises hydroxypropyltrimethyl ammonium chloride guar, obtained from 2,3-epoxypropyltrimethyl ammonium chloride, and silicon (claim 20). The method of Wielinga et al. is intended to prepare highly pure transparent guar, having varying viscosity, higher solubility, and low protein content, which is useful as a thickening agent (para [0001], [0042]; claim 13). After reacting 2,3-epoxypropyltrimethyl ammonium chloride with the alkaline-treated guar, the mixture was suspended in 85% isopropanol under nitrogen at 65 °C for 40 minutes (para [0161]). The mixture was then exposed to atmospheric oxygen for 45 min at 65 °C, and subsequently washed with 85% isopropanol and 25 mL of 99% by weight glacial acetic acid (para [0162-163]). The product was filtered and dried (para [0164]). The hydroxypropyltrimethyl ammonium substituted guar has a molecular weight (MW) of 50,000 to 3,000,000 Daltons, and a substitution degree (DS) of 0.01 to about 0.4, preferably 0.05 to 0.25 (claim 21). The composition also has utility as a conditioning shampoo (claim 22).
The molecular weight and cationic degree of substitution taught by Wielinga et al. encompass or overlap with the ranges recited in the present claims.
Yeh teaches hydroxypropyl trialkyl ammonium chloride guar (claims 1-9 and 11), having a degree of substitution ranging from 0.02 to about 0.50 (claim 10). Yeh teaches guar has a molecular weight of about 1,500,000 Daltons (column 5, lines 18-19). Yeh teaches the modified cationic hydrophobic guar has multiple uses as thickeners and are particularly useful in personal care products (abstract).
See the section on Claim Interpretation above for how “cationic group” and “(DScat)extraction”.
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to optimize the DScat and MW of the hydroxypropyltrimethyl ammonium chloride guar in an effort to further optimize viscosity and solubility of the guar derivative for use in shampoos.
One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the MW and DS of the guar of Wielinga et al. to further optimize viscosity and solubility of the guar derivative for use in shampoos. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to optimize the MW and DS of the guar of Wielinga et al. by looking to the teaching of Yeh et al., because both references are in the field of personal care products using cationic modified guar with similar cationic groups, similar/overlapping MW and DS. Thus, the combination of references demonstrate working ranges for developing guar as a thickening agent for personal care products including shampoos.
With respect to the DScat and (DScat)extraction, Wielinga et al. teach washing prepared hydroxypropyltrimethyl ammonium chloride guar with acid and isopropanol, and then measuring the DScat. Thus, while the solvent described by Wielinga et al. is isopropanol (versus methanol as discussed in the present specification), the solvent is not expected to alter the actual DScat. The presently claimed (DScat)extraction is broadly and reasonably interpreted to include the DScat described by Wielinga et al. because the cationically modified guar of Wielinga was also washed/extracted with acid. Furthermore, acid extraction does not change the actual DScat, only the apparent DS. Thus, the DScat measured by Wielinga is necessarily the same or similar to (DScat)extraction because it were purified the same/similar way as Applicant prior to measuring the DS.
The teaching of a guar having a DScat by Yeh et al. is also relevant because it is a property of the guar that is similar to (DScat)extraction, except that it may or may not have been purified or whose DS is not as precise as after acid extraction. It still provides guidance to one of ordinary skill in the art to a relevant working range of guar useful as a thickener in cosmetic compositions like shampoos.
Wielinga et al. teach the DScat of the guar ranges from a substitution degree of 0.01 to about 0.4, preferably 0.05 to 0.25 (claim 21). The upper limit of 0.25 lies within the range recited in present claim 1, 8 and 9. And Yeh et al. teach a range of 0.02 to about 0.50. Thus, the range taught by the prior art as a whole significantly overlaps with the degree of substitution recited in the present claims.
With respect to MW, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to optimize the upper range of the MW of guar to about 1,500,000 Daltons because it lies within the range taught by Wielinga et al., and Yeh teaches guar has a molecular weight of about 1,500,000 Daltons. Wielinga et al. also teach a preferential decreasing trend in the upper range of the molecular weight from 50,000-8,000,000 Daltons to 50,000-3,000,000 Daltons. According to MPEP 2144.05, section I, “A range can be disclosed in multiple prior art references instead of in a single prior art reference depending on the specific facts of the case.”.
The lower limit taught by the prior art is only 50,000 Da below the lower limit of the claimed range. Thus, a molecular weight of 1,500,000 Daltons or 50,000-1,500,000 as suggested by the combination of references significantly encompasses the molecular weight ranges recited in the instant claims.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the combined teaching of the prior art.
Claims 1-12, 14, 20 and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wielinga et al. (cited above) in view of Yeh et al. (cited above) as applied to claims 1-12, 14, 20 and 21 above, and further in view of Luczak et al. (US Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0029929, cited in previous Office Action).
Wielinga et al. teach as discussed above.
Wielinga et al. do not expressly disclose an antidandruff agent (present claim 22).
Yeh et al. teach as discussed above.
Luczak et al. teach a personal care composition comprising guar substituted with 2,3-epoxypropyltrimethylammonium chloride (para [0032-0033]). The composition can include anti-dandruff agents, silicone and formulated for the hair as a shampoo (para [0078]-[0080], abstract).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to include an antidandruff agent with the hydroxypropyltrimethyl ammonium chloride guar.
According to MPEP 2144.06: “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
Luczak et al. teach a shampoo composition comprising the combination of silicone and anti-dandruff agents with guar substituted with hydroxypropyltrimethyl ammonium chloride. Thus, it would have been obvious to combine silicone and anti-dandruff agents together with the cationic guar of Wielinga et al. because these components have already been taught together in the same field of endeavor of preparing shampoo compositions.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the combined teaching of the prior art.
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 1-12, 14 and 20-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 9,624,455 in view of Yeh et al. (cited above) and Wielinga et al. (cited above). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the ‘455 Patent include a cationic guar derivative, having a molecular weight between 50,000 Da and 800,000 Da (claim 1) or between 200,000 and 600,000 Da (claim 2). The guar derivative has a degree of cationic substitution of 0.01 and 0.4 (claim 3), or 0.03 and 0.3 (claim 4). The cationic group includes trimethylammonium groups (claim 14).
The ’455 Patent defines “degree of cationic substitution” of 0.03 to 0.3 (of claim 4) includes “(DScat)extraction” (see col. 2-3, esp col.3:11-13).
The claims of the ‘455 Patent disclose guar can be substituted with a trimethylammonium group, but does not expressly disclose hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium (present claim 5). The claims of the ‘455 Patent do not expressly disclose the formulation as a shampoo or hair composition (present claims 11, 12, 14 and 20-22).
Yeh et al. and Wielinga et al. teach as discussed above.
The skilled artisan would have been motivated to prepare hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium guar because Yeh et al. teach it can be used in a variety of applications. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to formulate it in a hair composition because Yeh et al. teach using guar in industrial uses like the ‘455 Patent, as well as personal care products. Wielinga et al. demonstrate using the same guar as Yeh et al. in hair compositions like shampoos.
It would have been obvious to optimize the molecular weight and DS of hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium guar for the reasons discussed above.
Thus, the claims of the present application are prima facie obvious over the claims of the ‘455 Patent in view of Yeh et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding unexpected results are not found persuasive for the reasons discussed above.
Applicant contends the ‘455 Patent is directed to methods for eliminating, limiting or preventing the spotting and/or film phenomena in an automatic dishwasher.
The above arguments are not found persuasive, particularly since present claims 1-11 are not limited to any utility. Additionally, Yeh et al. teach these polysaccharides have multiple known utilities, including those of the ‘455 Patent and hair care compositions.
The rejection is hereby maintained.
Conclusion
In view of the rejections to the pending claims set forth above, no claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAHAR A CRAIGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1326. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: Noon-8pm ET.
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at 571-272-3311. 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.
/BAHAR CRAIGO/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1699