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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/19/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
The amendment filed on 02/19/2026 is acknowledged. Claim 5 has been withdrawn. Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are under examination in the instant office action.
Rejections withdrawn
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 02/19/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, and 8 over Fossum et al. (US 2018/0142188 A1) from the previous Office Action. 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. 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 6-8 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 wherein clause in the instant claim 1) (paragraph 65) comprising
a surfactant system having no more than three surfactants (paragraph 26) comprising anionic surfactant and amphoteric surfactant (the claimed mixture of anionic detersive surfactant and amphoteric detersive surfactant component a and the wherein clause in the instant claim 1 according to the instant specification paragraph 39) (paragraph 36 and claims 1 and 6);
a cationic deposition aid polymer (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 claims 1 and 7) (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 6.
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 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 (mixture of an anionic surfactant and an amphoteric surfactant and pH of about 4-6.5) are addressed in the modified rejection above (newly underlined).
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 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.
Response to Applicants’ arguments:
Applicants argue that Swazey et al. teach personal care composition for hair and skin while Fossum et al. teach detergent composition which is in the different field of endeavor.
However, this argument is not deemed persuasive. Fossum et al. teach using FDC, xanthan gum, CMC, guar gum in the cleansing composition for fabric, Swazey et al. provide the teaching of the weight ratio among them for surfactant-based products with the benefit of suspension of particulates in surfactant-thickened systems and maintaining good suspension. Surfactant-thickened systems in cleansing composition for hair or skin and surfactant-thickened systems cleansing composition for fabric are not mutually exclusive and there is no indication that a surfactant-thickened systems useful in personal care composition for hair and skin is not useful in detergent composition while there are all-purpose soap products for both bathing and laundry.
Correspondence
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.
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 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