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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
Status of claims
The amendment filed on 06/10/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 6 and 7 have been canceled, claim 5 has been withdrawn, and new claims 9-11 have been added. Claims 1-4 and 8-11 are under examination in the instant office action.
Rejections withdrawn
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 06/10/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Rejections maintained
The following rejections of the claims are maintained for reasons of record and the following. New claim 11 is included and the rejections are modified based on amendments.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 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 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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:
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, 2, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fossum et al. (US 2017/0335247 A1).
Fossum et al. teach liquid detergent compositions having a pH of 6-9 (the 3rd wherein clause in the instant claim 1) (paragraph 65) comprising
about 10-20% by weight of a surfactant system having no more than three surfactants comprising anionic surfactant and about 0-20% by weight of other surfactant including amphoteric surfactant (total about 10-40% by weight of anionic surfactant and amphoteric surfactant, the claimed 5-40% by weight of mixture of anionic detersive surfactant and amphoteric detersive surfactant component a and the 2nd wherein clause in the instant claim 1) (paragraph 26-28 and 36 and claims 1 and 6);
≤0.1% by weight of a cationic deposition aid polymer including cationic hydroxyethyl cellulose (hydroxyethyl cellulose being a plant-derived polymer → cationic hydroxyethyl cellulose = a cationic derived natural polymer, the claimed component b in the instant claim 1) (paragraph 99);
about 1-5% by weight of a silicone for providing feel/softness benefits to fabrics (silicone conditioning agent, component c in the instant claim 1) (paragraph 100); and
about 0.01-5% by weight of a naturally derived and/or synthetic polymeric structurant including fermentation derived cellulose (FDC, component d in the instant claim 1), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), guar gum, and xanthan gum (the instant claim 2) (paragraph 103).
With respect to the art rejection above, it is noted that the reference does not teach that the composition can be used in the manner instantly claimed, the limitation [skin or hair cleansing] in the instant claim 1 and [2-in-1 shampoo formulation] in instant claim 8; however, the intended use of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting.
Fossum et al. do not teach the same weight percentage of FDC in the instant claim 1.
This deficiency is cured by the rationale that a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the range of a claimed composition lies inside the range disclosed in the prior art, such as in the instant rejection.
The claimed range of FDC is 0.5-5% by weight and the range of FDC taught in the prior art is about 0.01-5% by weight and therefor, includes the claimed range.
Fossum et al. do not teach the same weight percentage of cationic polymer in the instant claim 1.
This deficiency is cured by the rationale that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.
The claimed range of cationic polymer is 0.25-1% by weight and the range of FDC taught in the prior art is ≤0.1% by weight and therefor, includes the claimed range while about 0.1-3% by weight of cationic polymer is disclosed being suitable in the instant specification (paragraph 9 and 10). Thus, the criticality of the now claimed 0.25-1% over ≤0.1% taught by Fossum et al. is not established.
Fossum et al. do not teach the same pH in the instant claim 1.
This deficiency is cured by the rationale that a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the range of a claimed composition overlaps with the range disclosed in the prior art, such as in the instant rejection.
The claimed range of pH is about 4-6.5 and the range of pH taught in the prior art is 6-9 and therefor, overlaps with the claimed range. Furthermore, pH about 4-10.5 is disclosed as suitable in the instant specification, thus, the claimed pH about 4-6.5 over pH 6-9 taught by Fossum et al.is not established.
Response to Applicants’ arguments:
Applicant’s arguments based on the amendments are addressed in the modified rejection above (newly underlined).
Claims 1-4, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fossum et al. (US 2017/0335247 A1) in view of Swazey et al. (US 9,045,716 B2).
The teachings of Fossum et al. are discussed above and applied in the same manner.
Fossum et al. do not teach the weight ratios of FDC : xanthan gum : CMC and FDC : guar gum : CMC in the instant claims 3 and 4.
This deficiency is cured by Swazey et al. who teach surfactant-thickened systems for surfactant-based products such as body washes, etc., with the benefit of suspension of particulates in surfactant-thickened systems and maintaining good suspension; wherein the surfactant-thickened systems comprise bacterially-derived microfibrous cellulose (FDC according to the instant specification paragraph 5: Sphingomonas, a bacteria, ferment extract) prepared by microbial fermentation with no cellular debris (the claimed fermentation derived cellulosic material) for transparent solutions at typical use levels (abstract and column 1, line 6 through column 2, line 11); wherein the FDC is utilized together with xanthan gum and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) with a weight ratio of 6:3:1 (the instant claim 3) and together with guar gum and CMC with a weight ratio of 3:1:1 (the instant claim 4) (column 2, line 41-64 and claims 18, 19, and 23).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in Fossum et al. and Swazey et al. to specify the claimed weight ratio of FDC, xanthan gum, CMC, guar gum in the composition taught by Fossum et al. being 6:3:1 for FDC : xanthan gum : CMC and 3:1:1 for FDC : guar gum : CMC. FDC being utilized together with xanthan gum and CMC with a weight ratio of 6:3:1 and together with guar gum and CMC with a weight ratio of 3:1:1 was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for specifying it flows from its having been used in the prior art, and from its being recognized in the prior art as useful for the same purpose.
Fossum et al. do not teach the amphoteric surfactant including cocamidopropyl betain in the instant claim 11.
This deficiency is cured by Swazey et al. whose teachings are discussed above and applied in the same mannerand the surfactant in surfactant-thickened systems for surfactant-based products including sodium cocamidopropyl betain (example 1 and claims 1 and 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in Fossum et al. and Swazey et al. to specify the amphoteric surfactant taught by Fossum et al. including cocamidopropyl betain. Amphoteric surfactant surfactant-based products such as body washes, etc., including cocamidopropyl betain was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for specifying it flows from its having been used in the prior art, and from its being recognized in the prior art as useful for the same purpose.
Response to Applicants’ arguments:
Argument regarding the 103 rejection is basically the same as the above rejection, thus the response discussed above applies here as well and is not persuasive for reason discussed above.
New ground of rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment
The new claims necessitate the following new ground of rejection.
Claims 1, 2, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fossum et al. (US 2017/0335247 A1) in view of Erazo-Majewicz et al. (US 2006/0046943 A1).
The teachings of Fossum et al. are discussed above and applied in the same manner.
Fossum et al. do not teach the cationic polymer in the instant claims 9 and 10.
This deficiency is cured by Erazo-Majewicz et al. who teach household care such as laundry detergent and personal care such as cleanse the hair compositions (paragraph 21 and 31 and claims 1, 34, and 36) comprising functional polymers such as cationic hydroxyethyl cellulose and cationic polysaccharides including guar hydroxypropyl trimethyl ammonium chloride (a cationic guar gum derivative) (paragraph 57 and 58).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in Fossum et al. and Erazo-Majewicz et al. to replace cationic hydroxyethyl cellulose in the composition taught by Fossum et al. with guar hydroxypropyl trimethyl ammonium chloride. Both cationic hydroxyethyl cellulose and guar hydroxypropyl trimethyl ammonium chloride being suitable functional polymers in household care such as laundry detergent and personal care such as cleanse the hair compositions was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for replace cationic hydroxyethyl cellulose in the composition taught by Fossum et al. with guar hydroxypropyl trimethyl ammonium chloride flows from both having been used in the prior art, and from both being recognized in the prior art as useful for the same purpose.
Response to Applicants’ arguments:
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 06/10/2026, have been fully considered but they are moot in view of new ground of rejections.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is 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 event, 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 HONG YU whose telephone number is (571)270-1328. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ali Soroush can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONG YU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614
