Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-22 are pending. Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are canceled. Claims 1, 3, 6, 16-17 and 21 are amended. Claims included in the prosecution are claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-22.
Acknowledgement of Receipt
The certified English language priority document filed 06/24/2026 is acknowledged. The claim amendments filed 08/13/2025; remarks filed 06/18/2026, 06/24/2026 are acknowledged.
(2) Response to Argument
Applicant's request for reconsideration of the finality of the rejection of the last Office action is persuasive and, therefore, the finality of that action is withdrawn.
WITHDRAWN REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 13-17 and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Kaga et al. (US 20220313591 A1) is withdrawn.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meiring et al. (WO 2020114793 A1), Lu et al. (WO 2017144317 A1) and Schulz et al. (WO 2019034490 A1) is withdrawn.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 12-17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meiring et al. (WO 2020114793 A1) in view of Manuszak-Guerrini (US 5981737 A) evidenced by Marinho (Cellulose: A comprehensive review of its properties and applications. Sustainable Chemistry for the Environment 11 (2025) 100283 pages 1-8) and Daly et al. (US 2010/0255044 A1)
Meiring is directed to a cosmetic oil-in-water emulsion containing glycolipids and an oil-in-water emulsion with rhamnolipids (abstract, description, pg. 1, claims 1-2). Rhamnolipids can be purchased from Evonik under the trade name RHEANCE ONE (pg. 2, middle of pg.). The objective is to provide a stable, surfactant-containing emulsion using non-irritant surfactants (pg. 2, para. 3).
Meiring does not mention siloxane to meet the “wherein the medium is free of siloxane” limitation in the last line of claim 1.
Meiring discloses oil-in-water emulsions containing rhamnolipids in a concentration of 0.1 to 3% by weight, based on the total weight of the emulsion particularly if the emulsifiers are selected from the group containing surfactants (page 2, paragraphs 7-8, claim 3). Here the teachings of Meiring meet the “the medium comprises 0.1 % by weight to 30% by weight of a rhamnolipid” limitation of claim 1.
Meiring teaches 0.1 to 5% by weight of an emulsifier of the oil-in-water emulsion (page 3, paragraph 1, claim 5), 0.5 to 4% by weigh of fatty alcohol (page 3, at the bottom). Meiring discloses embodiments which have preparations with biopolymers, e.g., cellulose derivatives (page 4, paragraph 8, see also claim 13). While Meiring does not mention quaternized ingredients, the cellulose derivatives per se are not all necessarily quaternized. Thus, the “wherein the at least one substance comprises a quaternized substance” limitation is not met by Meiring.
However, Manuszak-Guerrini discloses water-soluble quaternary ammonium cellulosic derivatives of controlled charge density (abstract, claim 1). These derivatives are useful in cosmetic preparations, such as hair and skin formulations, for example hair conditioners (abstract). These quaternized cellulosic derivatives are useful as emulsifiers, or additives in hair or skin formulation to improve binding of ingredient to keratin (abstract). The derivatives may be present between about 1% and about 20% by weight but preferably about 5% (column 21, line 33) to read on the 0.05% by weight to 5% by weight of the at least one substance of claim 1.
Manuszak-Guerrini provides shampoo formulations (column 21, lines 51-65). The formulations useful for hair care comprising an aqueous solution of the cellulose derivative are to comprise less than 30% by weight volatile organic compounds (VOC’s) (claim 2). Only in the context of hairspray, in which the novel polymer may be incorporated, is silicone mentioned since that type of hair product typically has plasticizers for film flexibility and glossing agents (column 21, line 11). Manuszak-Guerrini does not mention siloxane.
It would have been obvious to substitute the cellulose derivative of Meiring with the specific the quaternary ammonium cellulosic derivative of Manuszak-Guerrini to the rhamnolipid emulsion of Meiring with expected success. Manuszak-Guerrini teaches that the novel diquats allow good theological control of cosmetic formulations, while using less polymer and less VOCs (column 16, line 56) to suggest cost savings and benefits to the environment which comports with the eco-friendliness of the rhamnolipids of Meiring.
Regarding claim 2 (i.e., polymer), claim 3 (i.e., carbohydrate), and claim 6, Manuszak-Guerrini discloses their invention pertains to polymers that are useful in cosmetic preparations, particularly to cationic cellulose derivatives of controlled charge density that are useful in hair care preparations (column 1, line 8). As evidenced by Marinho, cellulose is a complex carbohydrate (abstract).
Regarding claims 7, 8, and 13, the example preparations in Meiring are used as impregnation medium for cleaning wipes (pg. 5, para. 3) but this is not to say the application thereof is limited to the applying to the surface of the skin and/or hair. Manuszak-Guerrini discloses that the novel polymers have improved temperature stability, improved interactions with surfactants (such as in shampoos), improved binding to keratin, and improved mechanical properties (column 4, lines 52-55).
Regarding claim 12 (i.e., pH 3.5 to 9.0), and claim 19 (i.e., 4.4 to 6.6), the oil-in-water emulsion of Meiring is characterized in that the preparation has a pH of 4.2 to 7.5 (claim 6) to overlap with the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 14, Manuszak-Guerrini shows the diquaternary ammonium groups of a formula with permanently protonated nitrogen (claim 7).
Regarding claim 15, as mentioned above, Meiring teaches oil-in-water emulsions (claims 1-2).
Regarding claim 16 (i.e., rhamnolipid 1-12%), as mentioned above, Meiring teaches a concentration of 0.1 to 3% by weight (claim 3) to fall within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 17 (i.e., the at least one substance 0.15-1.5%), as mentioned above, Manuszak-Guerrini teaches a presence between about 1% and about 20% by weight (column 21, line 33) to overlap the claimed range.
Regarding claim 20 (i.e., surface is hair), as mentioned above, Manuszak-Guerrini provides shampoo formulations (column 21, lines 51-65) .
Regarding claim 21 (i.e., -3.6 mV or more negative), while zeta potential is not taught in Meiring and Manuszak-Guerrini, MPEP § 2112.01 states that if a composition is physically the same, it must have the same properties. Thus, value recited in claim 21 is presumed to be present in any composition that meets the structural requirements of the claims. Further, as evidenced by Daly et al., zeta potential is a well-known measurement in the art ([0038]) that can be changed from negative to positive or, at least, reduces the negative potential of the hair surface to low values by applying (i.e., depositing) a net positively charged (i.e., cationic) compound to a keratin-containing substrate, such as, for example, human hair ([0046]).
Regarding claim 22, Meiring discloses testing using other surfactants with rhamnolipids, specifically the incorporation of coco glyceride and decyl glycoside (page 5, see Comparative tests).
Claims 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Meiring et al. (WO 2020114793 A1) in view of Manuszak-Guerrini (US 5981737 A) as applied to the claims above, further in view of Lu et al. (WO 2017144317 A1) and Schulz et al. (WO 2019034490 A1). Citations are taken from the machine translated documents provided.
Meiring does not mention mono- or di- rhamnolipids.
Lu discloses an invention that relates to ester derivatives of rhamnolipids of formula (I) as nonionic surfactants, formulations containing same, and the use thereof (abstract). Lu aims to provide substances which cause a soft skin feeling after shaving and formulations thereof may impart an ability to eliminate unwanted skin odors (pg. 2, middle and last para.). Lu provides a process that is mild and gentle that avoids destroying the desired sugar structure (pg. 3, para. 1, see example 1 preparation of di- and example 2 preparation of mono-).
Lu does not mention siloxanes.
Lu teaches the formulations of the rhamnolipid ester are in an amount of 0.05 wt.% to 40 wt.%, based on the total formulation (pg. 6, para. 8). Formulations contain, in addition to the rhamnolipid esters, at least one further surfactant, e.g., anionic, nonionic, cationic and/or amphoteric surfactants and from an application point of view, preference is given to mixtures of anionic and nonionic surfactants (pg. 6, para. 9). The total surfactant content of the aqueous formulation is from 5 to 60% by weight based on the total formulation (pg. 6, para. 9). The term "aqueous formulation" is to be understood as meaning a formulation which contains at least 5% by weight of water, based on the total composition under consideration (pg. 6, para. 7). The "pH" is defined as the value measured for corresponding substance at 25°C (pg. 4, last para.).
Lu discloses that rhamnolipid esters are selected from diRLC10C10-ester, diC8C10-ester, diRLC10C12-ester, diRLC10C12: 1-ester and monoRLC10C10 ester (pg. 4, middle of the page). Lu teaches and suggests that depending on the application, such mixture compositions contain more weight percent mono rhamnolipid ester than di-rhamnolipid ester or (examiner’s emphasis) more weight percent di-rhamnolipid ester as mono rhamnolipid ester, wherein the weight percentages refer to all mono- and di-rhamnolipid esters contained in the mixture composition (pg. 5, para. 1).
Lu teaches that the mixture compositions may contain, for example, more than 60% by weight, in particular more than 80% by weight, or even more than 95% by weight, di-rhamnolipid ester, or else, for example, more than 60% by weight, in particular more than 80% by weight, or even more than 95% by weight, of mono-rhamnolipid esters, the percentages by weight being based on all mono- and di-rhamnolipid esters present in the mixture composition (pg. 5, para. 2).
Regarding claims 11 and 18, the 60% di- taught above suggests a ratio of di- to mono- (60:40) and a ratio of di- to mono- (95:5) which are close to those claimed. Lu provides an example formulation showing rhamnolipid esters (Examples 3 and 4). Example 4 is made by taking di-rhamnolipid from Example 1; the proven yield was less than 5% (pg. 12).
Schulz is provided to show obviousness of the claimed ratios.
Schulz teaches that the washing power of surfactants can be essentially achieved by the use of a rhamnolipid mixture composed of 35 wt% to 45 wt% of C10C10 mono-rhamnolipid and 55 wt% to 65 wt% of C10C10 di-rhamnolipid (abstract, claim 1). Specifically, the rhamnolipid mixture disclosed is of from 35% by weight to 45% by weight of 3-({3-[(6-deoxy-aL-mannopyranosyl)oxy]decanoyl}oxy)decanoic acid and/or its sodium, potassium, ammonium, alkylammonium and/or hydroxyalkyl ammonium salt (C10C10-mono rhamnolipid) and 55% by weight to 65% by weight of 3-[(3-{[6-deoxy-2-0- (6-deoxy-aL mannopyranosyl)-al-mannopyranosyl] oxy}decanoyl) oxy] decanoic acid and/or its sodium, potassium, ammonium, alkylammonium and/or hydroxyalkyl ammonium (C10C10-di rhamnolipid) (pg. 3, para. 3).
Schulz cites a prior art reference in which the weight ratio of di-rhamnolipid to mono-rhamnolipid is greater than 51:49, to read on instant claim 11. Schulz cites another reference where rhamnolipid mixtures contain 51% by weight to 95% by weight of a certain di-rhamnolipid and 0.5% by weight to 9% by weight of a certain mono-rhamnolipid in which the weight ratio of di-rhamnolipid to mono-rhamnolipid is greater than 91:9 (pg. 2, para. 2), to read on the recited di- to mono- used is greater that 98:2 ratio of instant claim 18.
And also, Schulz teaches that the active ingredients of these formulations are quaternary ammonium compounds (pg. 5, para. 5-6, see “esterquats”). The rhamnolipid mixture also contains at least 3, in particular at least 4 other surfactants (see claim 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, ahead of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine and apply the mono- and di- rhamnolipids taught by Lu and Schulz in the oil-in-water emulsion composition taught by Meiring in view of Manuszak-Guerrini with expected results. One would be motivated to do so for several reasons. Adjusting concentrations of mono- and di- rhamnolipids can achieve a desired feel as demonstrated by Lu. Schulz discovered that employing certain rhamnolipids with an adjusted ratio of mono rhamnolipid to di-rhamnolipid achieved superior washing performance (pg. 3, para. 3). A composition Schulz also obtained a softer feel (pg. 5, para. 5). As such, these teachings would contribute to the art, without a clear showing of evidence to the contrary.
For the foregoing reasons the instant claims are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art.
c
Conclusion
All claims under consideration remain rejected; no claims are allowed. Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no case, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karen A. Ketcham whose telephone number is (571)270-5896. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/Karen A Ketcham/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
