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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 27 October 2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Applicant’s claim amendments and arguments in the response filed 26 August 2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-12, 14, 17-19, 21-33, 37 & 39-41 are pending.
Claims 13, 15, 16, 20, 34-36 & 38 are cancelled.
Claim 41 is new.
Claims 5, 7, 21 & 40 are amended.
Claims 25-33 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-12, 14, 17-19, 21-24, 37 & 39-41 are under consideration.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied and constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
New and Maintained Objections/Rejections
Claim Objections
Claims 40 & 41 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 40 & 41 do not have the same line spacing as the rest of the claim set. The majority of the claim set appears to be double spaced while part of claim 40 and all of claim 41 appear to be single spaced. Inconsistent typesetting makes the claims hard to read, precludes efficient examination, and may hinder compact prosecution. Claim 40 also appears to include a different font and/or font size.
Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
Claim 41 recites the composition is initially stable and that a change in the initial pH results in a decrease in the viscosity and a phase separation of the composition. Applicant states that support for the amendment is found at Table 3 on pages 44 and 45 and the paragraph bridging pages 58 and 59 (reply, pg. 14). This is not persuasive. The issue is there is no generic disclosure of the composition being initially stable and that a change in the initial pH results in a decrease in the viscosity and a phase separation of the composition. The teachings found on pgs. 44, 45, 58, & 59 stem from the results achieved with Examples A-C and these formulations are much more narrow than what is claimed by generic claim 1 from which claim 41 directly depends. Examples A-C are species which used only sodium stearoyl glutamate as the “least one anionic surfactant having at least two carboxylate salt groups” in amounts from 0.9-1.7. However, claim 1 is generic to the “at least one anionic surfactant having at least two carboxylate salt groups” and recites this reagent in the broader amounts of “about 0.5 to about 5 wt.%”. Examples A-C used only behenyltrimonium chloride in an amount of 1.2-2.1% with only cetrimonium chloride present as a minor in an amount of < 0.1%. However claim 1, generically recites “least one cationic surfactant or at least one cationizable surfactant or both” in the broader range of “about 0.1 to about 5 wt.%”. The molar ratio of the cationic surfactant to anionic surfactant for Examples A-C. is 0.8-2.26. However, claim 1 recites the much broader range from greater than 1 to about 5: 1. Examples A-C used only used one species of fatty alcohol, i.e. cetearyl alcohol, in the limited range of 4.0-5.8. However, claim 1 is generic to the fatty alcohol and recites the broader amount of about 0.5 to about 10 wt.%. Examples A-C used only one or more of polyhydric and monohydric alcohols in an amount of less than 2%. However, claim 1 is generic to the at least one cosmetically acceptable solvent and does not recite any quantity for it. Examples A-C were aqueous compositions; however claim 1 does not require inclusion water. The pH of Examples A-C ranged from 3.3-4.8, however, claim 1 does not recite any pH range. Claim 41 changes the scope of the disclosure, thereby constituting NEW MATTER.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 24 depends from claim 1. Claim 1 recites that reagents (a)-(d) are present. However, claim 24 omits reagent (a) and only recites that the composition comprise reagents (b)-(d) and optionally, reagents (e)-(g). Because claim 24 omits/no longer requires reagent (a), claim 24 expands claim 1 and fails to further limit it.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues because claim 24 depends from claim 1, and that because claim 1 recites reagent (a), claim 24 incorporates by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers and to recite reagent (a) again in dependent claim 24 would be redundant and superfluous.
This is not persuasive. MPEP 608.01(n) (C) (III) states that in a proper test for dependency, “ for example, if claim 1 recites the combination of elements A, B, C, and D, a claim reciting the structure of claim 1 in which D was omitted or replaced by E would not be a proper dependent claim, even though it placed further limitations on the remaining elements or added still other elements.” In the instant case, Applicant has omitted reagent A from claim 24 and it is not properly dependent.
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 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 1-5, 8-12, 14, 17-19, 23, 24, 37, 40 & 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (KR0123072; Published: 11/13/1997; previously cited).
*All references refer to the English language translation.
**Claim 24 “(e) optionally, from about 0.1 to about 2 wt.% of at least one silicone; and (f) optionally, from about 0.05 to about 2 wt.% of at least one nonionic surfactant ” are interpreted as not present.
***Claim 14 reduces to 1.11: 1 to 5:1; Claim 40 reduces to a ratio of 5:1 to 1:2.
***** Note: Claim 41 is directed to intended use for the hair treatment application delivery system and does not further limit the composition or the delivery system.
With regard to claims 17, 19 & 37, Lee teaches a hair conditioner composition having a pH from 2.0-7.0 (title; abstract). With regard to claims 1 (a), 2, 3, 4 & 40 (a), Lee teaches the composition comprises 0.1-5.0% by weight of the an anionic surfactant which may be sodium lauroyl glutamate and sodium stearoyl glutamate (pg. 3). Lee teaches the anionic surfactant to be an optimizable parameter; when “the amount of the anionic surfactant is less than 0.1%, the stability of the emulsion deteriorates, and if it exceeds 5.0%, the conditioning effect is decreased and the dyeing effect is also reduced” (pg. 3). With regard to claims 1(b), 5, 8, 9, 24(b) & 40 (b), Lee teaches the amount of cationic surfactant is 0.01-1.0% and the cationic surfactant may be cetyl trimethyl ammonium chloride and stearyl trimethyl ammonium chloride (abstract). Lee teaches the amount of cationic surfactant is an optimizable parameter; “[i]f the content of the cationic surfactant is less than 0.01%, the conditioning effect is too weak, if it exceeds 1.0%, there is a disadvantage that the dyeing effect is severely lowered” (pg. 3). With regard to claims 1 ( c), 10, 11, 24 ( c) & 40 (c), Lee teaches the composition comprises 0.1-10.0% by weight fatty alcohol comprising C8-C22 alkyl group which may be cetyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol, cetostearyl alcohol or mixtures thereof (pg. 2 & 6, Lee’s claims). With regard to claims 1, 24 & 40, Lee teaches the fatty alcohol forms the lamellar liquid crystal (i.e. lamellar structure). With respect to the recited ratio of cationic surfactant to anionic surfactant as it pertains to claims 1, 14 & 40, Lee teaches the ratio of cationic surfactant to anionic surfactant ranges between 14:1 to 1:364.8, including 1.35: 1 when cetyltrimethylammonium chloride is selected for the cationic surfactant and sodium stearoyl glutamate is selected for the anionic surfactant in accordance with Lee’s teachings (see document in its entirety). [Math: cetrimonium chloride = 320 g/mol. 0.01/320 = 0.00003125 moles. 1/320 = 0.003125 moles. Sodium stearoyl glutamate = 435.57 g/mol. 0.1/435.57 = 0.00022 moles. 5/435.57 =0.0114 moles. 0.003125 moles cationic surfactant ; 0.0002 moles anionic surfactant = 14:1; 0.00003125 mole cationic surfactant : 0.0114 mol anionic surfactant = 1:364.8]. With regard to claims 1, 14 & 40, in an embodiment, Lee teaches the 1% of a cationic surfactant which may be cetyltrimethylammonium chloride (1/320 = 0.003125 moles) and a preferred amount of 1% an anionic surfactant which may be sodium stearoyl glutamate (1/435.57 – 0.0023 moles), yield a cationic surfactant to anionic surfactant ratio of 1.35: 1 (Math: 0.003125/ 0.0023 = 1.35; pg. 2). With regard to claims 1(d), 12, 24(d) & 40(d), Lee teaches inclusion of solvent for improving the effect of the dye and in the their Examples teaches in the Table of pg.3 of the foreign language document inclusion of propylene glycol. With regard to claim 23, Lee teaches inclusion of the hydrocarbon oil, liquid paraffin, in the compositions of their invention in an amount of 3.0% (Table-pg. 3).
Table -pg. 3 of the foreign language document; Google translate
PNG
media_image1.png
651
757
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While there is not a single example comprising each of the claimed components, the lamellar structure reagents (i.e. at least one anionic surfactant having at least 2 carboxylate salt groups, at least one cationic surfactant, at least one fatty alcohol, and at least one cosmetically acceptable solvent) are included among short lists of reagents in amounts and ratios which overlap with the claimed ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention to combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results.
With regard to the viscosity of the composition, as it pertains to claim 18, Lee’s composition necessarily has a viscosity of equal to or greater than 1 Pa.s because Lee teaches the recited reagents in the recited amounts. “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This assertion is further supported by Lee’s teaching that if the viscosity is linked to the amount of fatty alcohol and if the amount of fatty alcohol exceeds 10%, the viscosity of the composition will be too high (pg. 3).
With regard to the recited values for the at least one anionic surfactant having at least two carboxylate salt groups, at least one cationic surfactant, at least one fatty alcohol, and at least one cosmetically acceptable solvent, hydrocarbon oil, pH, and molar ratio of the at least one cationic surfactant to the at least one anionic surfactant having at least 2 carboxylate salt groups; Lee teaches these parameters with values that overlap or fall within the recited ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 41, Lee teaches the suitability of the recited cationic surfactant (i.e. cetyl trimethyl ammonium chloride and stearyl trimethyl ammonium chloride) and anionic surfactant (i.e. sodium lauroyl glutamate and sodium stearoyl glutamate) for use in their invention. Lee teaches amounts of these reagents and a molar ratio which overlap with Applicant’s recited range. As such, Lee’s composition is expected to have a change in viscosity with a change in pH. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). This assertion is supported by page 20 of the instant specification in which “the combination of the least one anionic surfactant having at least two carboxylate salt groups and of the at least one cationic surfactant in a molar ratio greater than 1 in a composition for treating hair or, resulted in a faster and improved ease of rinsability of the composition when the pH of the composition is increased”. Page 20 of the instant specification further discloses “when the pH of the composition increases, viscosity of the composition significantly decreases”. Following Lee’s preferred embodiments leads to a molar ratio of 1.35:1 when cetyltrimethylammonium chloride is selected for the cationic surfactant and sodium stearoyl glutamate is selected for the anionic surfactant from Lee’s preferred teachings and examples. Further, Lee teaches the compositions of their invention have a pH from 2.0-7.0 (i.e. initial pH). This pH range overlaps with the recited initial pH range.
Claims 6, 7, 22 & 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claims 1-5, 8-12, 14, 17-19, 23, 24, 37, 40 & 41 above, and further in view of Ikeda (WO 2015/198922; Published: 12/30/2015; previously cited).
*All references refer to the English language translation.
In brief, Lee teaches a hair conditioner which comprises lamellar liquid crystals (i.e. a lamellar structure; pg. 3). Lee teaches “[g]enerally, quaternary ammonium salt type cationic surfactants are used in hair rinses or hair conditioners to impart conditioning effects” (pg. 2).
Lee does not teach at least one cationic surfactant is selected from quaternary diammonium or triammonium salts, the amount of quaternary diammonium or triammonium cationic surfactant, that the at least one cationizable surfactant is “selected from compounds of general structure R4-A-R5-B”, or that the composition further comprises at least one nonionic surfactant and its amount.
In the same field of invention hair conditioner, Ikeda teaches a composition which has a lamellar structure or a lamellar phase (pg. 42, ll. 1-5; pg. 42, ll. 35-40). Ikeda in their Example 5 teaches the compositions of their invention comprise sodium stearoyl glutamate (pg. 47-Table 7). With regard to claims 6, 7 & 39, Ikeda teaches an embodiment where the composition of their invention comprises at least one additional surfactant which may be an ionic surfactant which is a cationic surfactant (pg. 24 & 25). With regard to claims 6, 7 & 39, Ikeda teaches inclusion of diquaternary cationic surfactants of the formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
266
623
media_image2.png
Greyscale
which includes quaternium-75 sold under the tradename of FINQUAT CT by FINETEX (pg. 20 & 31-32). With regard to claim 39, Ikeda teaches the amount of additional surfactants, which include cationic surfactants, “may be from 0.01 to 15% by weight, preferably from 0.10 to 10% by weight, and more preferably from 0.50 to 5% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition.” (pg. 39, ll. 15-25). With regard to claim 22, Ikeda teaches the type of nonionic is important with “certain type[s]” impairing the lamellar structures, and stability of the composition (pg. 1, ll. 40-45). With regard to claim 22, Ikeda teaches suitable additional non-ionic surfactants suitable for the invention include sorbitan oleate, sorbitan isostearate, sorbitan palmitate (i.e. sorbitan derivatives; pg. 27, ll. 10-20; pg. 29, ll. 20-25). With regard to claim 22, Ikeda teaches the amount of additional surfactants, which include nonionic surfactants, “may be from 0.01 to 15% by weight, preferably from 0.10 to 10% by weight, and more preferably from 0.50 to 5% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition.” (pg. 39, ll. 15-25).
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.
Here, with regard to claims 6, 7, & 39, at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing to have modified Lee’s hair conditioner by adding 0.05 to 10 wt.% of the additional cationic surfactant, Quaternium-75, as taught by Ikeda because Lee and Ikeda are both directed to hair conditioners having lamellar structures and it is obvious to modify similar compositions in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so with an expectation of success in order to improve conditioning effect of the hair conditioner.
Here, with regard to claim 22, at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing to have modified Lee’s hair conditioner by adding 0.05 to 10 wt.% of additional nonionic surfactants which may be any one of sorbitan oleate, sorbitan isostearate, sorbitan palmitate (i.e. sorbitan derivatives) as suggested by Ikeda because Lee and Ikeda are both directed to hair conditioners having lamellar structures and it is obvious to modify similar compositions in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so with an expectation of success in order to improve composition stability and lamellar structure.
With regard to the amount of the at least one anionic surfactant, cationic surfactant, nonionic surfactant, fatty alcohol, and pH range, the combined teachings of Lee and Ikeda suggest these parameters with values which fall within or overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claims 1-5, 8-12, 14, 17-19, 23, 24, 37, 40 & 41 above, and further in view of Giles (US 2001/0004632; Published: 06/21/2001; previously cited).
The teachings of Lee are described above. In brief, Lee teaches a hair conditioner.
Lee does not teach inclusion of amodimethicone.
In the same field of invention, Giles teaches conditioning hair rinses (i.e. conditioners) comprising lamellar liquid crystal phase ([0001] & [0093]). Giles teaches inclusion of amodimethicone as an additional conditioning agent for hair which is a silicone ([0102]-[0104]). Giles teaches the amount of silicone used is “depends on the level of conditioning desired…” and that the amount of silicone is between 0.5 to 1.5% by weight” [0108].
Here, with regard to claim 21, at least rationale (A) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing to have modified Lee’s hair conditioner by adding 0.5 to 1.5 wt.% of amodimethicone as suggested by Giles because Lee and Giles are both directed to hair conditioners having lamellar liquid crystals and it is obvious to modify similar compositions in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so with an expectation of success in order to provide conditioning to the hair.
With regard to the amount of amodimethicone, the combined teachings of Lee and Giles suggest these parameters with values which fall within or overlap with the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Response to Arguments
Applicant provides a discussion of the background of their invention (reply, pg. 15-16). Applicant reiterates the argument that Lee teaches the anionic surfactant is present in a higher amount than the cationic surfactant (reply, pg. 17). Applicant argues that Lee does not specifically teach 1% cationic surfactant and a preferred amount of 1% of an anionic surfactant (reply, pg. 17).
This is not persuasive. Lee teaches “The anionic surfactant is used…preferably 1.0-3.0% by weight” at page 3 of the Examiner supplied translation. The amount of 1% for the anionic surfactant is taught as preferred. Lee teaches “Cationic surfactants are used in amounts of 0.01-1.0% by weight” at page 3 of the examiner supplied translation and in Lee’s first claim. This is taught as an embodiment of Lee’s invention.
Applicant reiterates the argument that the ratio range of cationic surfactant to anionic surfactant taught by Lee is too broad that it is creates a situation analogous to a species when the prior art discloses a genus (reply, pg. 17-20). Applicant argues Lee fails to discuss the molar ratio of the cationic surfactant to the anionic surfactant having at least two carboxylate salt groups, or recognize that this ratio was a result-effective variable which is the purpose of the claimed/instant invention (reply, pg. 20). Applicant reiterates the argument that one would arbitrarily have to modify the amounts of anionic surfactant and/or cationic surfactant of Lee to arrive at the recited ratios (reply, pg. 20).
This is not persuasive. Lee teaches the anionic surfactant and the cationic surfactant to be optimizable parameters for emulsion stability and dyeing effect. With respect to the recited ratio of cationic surfactant to anionic surfactant, while Lee does teach a ratio range of cationic surfactant to anionic surfactant ranges between 14:1 to 1:364.8, including 1.35: 1 when cetyltrimethylammonium chloride is selected for the cationic surfactant and sodium stearoyl glutamate is selected for the anionic surfactant. Lee even teaches in an embodiment in which the composition comprises 1% of a cationic surfactant which may be cetyltrimethylammonium chloride (1/320 = 0.003125 moles) and a preferred amount of 1% an anionic surfactant which may be sodium stearoyl glutamate (1/435.57 = 0.0023 moles), yield a cationic surfactant to anionic surfactant ratio of 1.35: 1 (Math: 0.003125/ 0.0023 = 1.35; pg. 2).
Applicant reiterates the argument that Lee’s only example has the ratio the cationic surfactant to the anionic surfactant having at least two carboxylate salt groups is 0.0009375/0.00344376 - 0.27 or 1 :3.7 (pg. 21). Applicant reiterates the argument that Lee’s comparative Examples in which 5.0% cationic surfactant did not yield superior results (reply, pg. 20).
This is not persuasive. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In the instant case, Lee teaches the amount of cationic surfactant is linked to the dyeing effect with 1.0% as the upper limit for a suitable amount. The preferred amount of anionic surfactant as taught by Lee is 1.0%, yielding a 1.35:1 molar ratio.
Applicant reiterates the argument that Shapiro represents a more advanced and current understanding of problems and concerns with respect to formulating compositions containing different types of surfactants (reply, pg. 21).
This is not persuasive. Shapiro is not used in the rejection. Further, “[p]rior art is presumed to be operable/enabling” (MPEP 2121. I). Lee teaches the species of surfactants that are suitable for practicing their invention and their amounts.
Applicant reiterates the argument that Lee is concerned with the compositions stability and nothing in Lee suggests a cosmetic composition that is initially stable, but whereby a change in the pH of the composition causes a significant decrease in viscosity and phase separation as that occurs with the present invention (reply, pg. 22). A person of ordinary skill would not have a reasonable expectation of obtaining the result of providing a cosmetic composition that is stable, but whereby a change in the pH of the composition causes a significant decrease in viscosity and phase separation (reply, pg. 22).
This is not persuasive. Again, Lee teaches the suitability of the recited cationic surfactant and anionic surfactant for use in their invention. Lee teaches amounts of these reagents and a molar ratio which overlap with Applicant’s recited range. As such, Lee’s composition is expected to have a change in viscosity with a change in pH. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Lee teaches the compositions of their invention have a pH from 2.0-7.0 (i.e. initial pH). This pH range overlaps with the recited initial pH range.
Further, the as-filed specification does not provide evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of the molar proportions of the recited cationic surfactant to the recited anionic surfactant. By routinely optimizing Lee’s composition to Lee’s teachings, the recited molar ratios can be achieved. “The applicant must show that the particular range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”. “It is well established that, while a change in the proportions of a combination shown to be old, such as is here involved, may be inventive, such changes must be critical as compared with the proportions used in the prior processes, producing a difference in kind rather than degree.”); In re Wells, 56 F.2d 674, 675, 12 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1932). See MPEP 2144. III. A. for showing the criticality of the range. See MPEP § 716.02 - § 716.02(g) for a discussion of criticality and unexpected results.
In the traverse of the rejection of claim 21 under 35 USC 103(a) over Lee and in further view Giles, Applicant argues Giles does not cure Lee’s deficiencies (reply, pg. 23-25). Applicant argues it is improper to find inherency in an unknown or hypothetical composition (reply, pg. 25-27).
This is not persuasive. The teachings of Lee and how they meet the limitations of independent claim 1 is described supra. With regard Applicant’s arguments pertaining to inherency, "[i]n relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows from the teachings of the applied prior art." Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461, 1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (emphasis in original)”. In the instant case, Lee explicitly teaches the recited glutamate surfactant, the recited cationic surfactant, and explicitly teaches the amounts of these reagents as preferred or they are listed as the upper limit of the suitable range and can be readily envisaged.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI K MATTISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5866. The examiner can normally be reached 9-7 (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, David J Blanchard can be reached at 5712720827. 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.
/LORI K MATTISON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/NICOLE P BABSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619