The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on October 14, 2025.
Claims 1-25 are pending. Claims 9-10, 12-16 and 18-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to nonelected species. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 11, and withdrawn claims: 9-10 and 12-14 are currently amended.
The rejection of claims 3-5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment.
The rejection of claims 1-6, 8, 11, 17, 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodge et al. (US Patent No. 8,216,988) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
The rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hodge as applied to claims 1-6, 8, 11, 17, 24 and 25 above, and further in view of Perlas et al. (US 2016/0096204) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment and arguments therein.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-8, 11, 17 and 24-25 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 26 of copending Application No. 17/624,537 for the reasons set forth in the previous office action.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
a) in line 2 of each of claims 3-5, it is suggested that “crosspolymer” be added after “polyglucoside,” respectively
b) in claim 7, it is suggested that “crosspolymer” be added after “polyglucoside” in
line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 is indefinite in the recital of “ wherein the surfactant blend is a sodium laurylglucoside hydroxypropylsulfonate surfactant, a sodium decylglucoside hydroxypropylsulfonate surfactant, or a sorbitan oleate decylglucoside cross polymer” in lines 1-3 because it is not clear which of the recited surfactants are present in the blend. For prior art purposes, claim 11 is interpreted to mean the surfactant blend is any one of the hydroxypropylsulfonate surfactant, and the sorbitan oleate decylglucoside cross polymer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 17 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Colonial Chem: “Ultra Mild Color Protection Shampoo, Formulation No. 1021,”
1 February 2016 (2016-02-01), XP055731408 (already cited in the IDS dated 03/28/2022), hereinafter “Colonial Chem.”
Regarding claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 17 and 24-25, Colonial Chem teaches an ultra mild color protection shampoo formulation which comprises 36 wt% sodium laurylglucosides hydroxypropylsulfonate (a functionalized, i.e., sulfonated, alkyl polyglucoside component, whose structural formula meets the structure in instant claim 17), 0.50 wt% sorbitan oleate decylglucoside crosspolymer, other surfactants like 24.00 wt% lauramidopropyl betaine, 10.00 wt% disodium cocoamphodiacetate, preservative, fragrance, among others, and balance to 100 wt% water, i.e., solvent (see entire document), wherein the total blend of the sodium laurylglucosides hydroxypropylsulfonate and sorbitan oleate decylglucoside crosspolymer is 36 wt% + 0.5 wt% = 36.5 wt%, hence, the sodium laurylglucosides hydroxypropylsulfonate is 98.8 wt% (36/36.5 x 100) of the blend, and the sorbitan oleate decylglucoside crosspolymer is 1.4 wt% (0.5/36.5 x 100) of the blend. Even though Colonial Chem does not teach a laundry or fabric cleaning, like liquid laundry use of his composition as recited in claim 1 and claim 25, respectively, the two different intended uses are not distinguishable in terms of the composition, see In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324; Ex parte Douros, 163 USPQ 667; and In re Craige, 89 USPQ 393. Hence, Colonial Chem anticipates the claims.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 17 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being anticipated by KR 20170135654 A, hereinafter “KR ‘654.” Please note that the English translation will be used for citation purposes.
Regarding claims 1-2, 7-8 and 25, KR ‘654 teaches a cleansing cosmetic composition comprising 1 to 20 wt% of an alkyl polyglycoside surfactant; 0.1 to 10 wt% of a thickener; and 60-95 wt% of purified water, i.e., solvent, based on the total weight of the composition (see claim 1), wherein the alkyl polyglycoside surfactant is sodium hydroxypropylsulfonate lauryl glucoside crosspolymer (which reads on the sulfonate functionalized alkyl polyglucoside component), sorbitan oleate decyl glucoside crosspolymer, or a mixture thereof (underlining supplied for emphasis; see claim 2). Even though KR ‘654 does not teach a laundry or fabric cleaning, like liquid laundry use of his composition as recited in claim 1 and claim 25, respectively, the two different intended uses are not distinguishable in terms of the composition, see In re Thuau, 57 USPQ 324; Ex parte Douros, 163 USPQ 667; and In re Craige, 89 USPQ 393.
Regarding claims 6 and 24, KR ‘654 further teaches that the cleansing cosmetic composition may additionally contain a moisturizer like glycerin, 1,3-butylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, propylene glycol or sorbitol (see ¶ [0031]-[0032]), which read on solvent.
Regarding claim 17, considering that KR ‘654 teaches sodium hydroxypropylsulfonate lauryl glucoside crosspolymer (see claim 1), the portion “sodium hydroxypropylsulfonate lauryl glucoside” of said crosspolymer reads on the structure of instant claim 17 which recites that “the functionalized alkyl polyglucoside surfactant is a composition that includes the …compound…”
Hence, KR ‘654. anticipates the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colonial Chem as applied to claims 1-3, 6-8, 11, 17 and 24-25 above.
Regarding claim 4, Colonial Chem, as discussed above, teaches an ultra mild color protection shampoo formulation which comprises 36 wt% sodium laurylglucosides hydroxypropylsulfonate (a functionalized, i.e., sulfonated, alkyl polyglucoside and 0.50 wt% sorbitan oleate decylglucoside crosspolymer, among others (see entire document), wherein the total blend of the sodium laurylglucosides hydroxypropylsulfonate and sorbitan oleate decylglucoside crosspolymer is 36 wt% + 0.5 wt% = 36.5 wt%, hence, the sodium laurylglucosides hydroxypropylsulfonate is 98.8 wt% (36/36.5 x 100) of the blend, and the sorbitan oleate decylglucoside crosspolymer is 1.4 wt% (0.5/36.5 x 100) of the blend. Colonial Chem, however, fails to specifically disclose from about 2% to 70% by weight of a nonionic alkyl polyglucoside crosspolymer of the surfactant blend and from about 30% to 98% by weight of a functionalized alkyl polyglucoside component of the surfactant blend.
As the word “about” permits some tolerance (see In re Ayers, 69 USPQ 109, and In re Erickson, 145 USPQ 207), the 1.4 wt% sorbitan oleate decylglucoside crosspolymer and the 98.8 wt% sodium laurylglucosides hydroxypropylsulfonate of Colonial Chem may be considered to read on the lower limit of about 2% by weight of a nonionic alkyl polyglucoside crosspolymer and the upper limit of about 98% by weight of a functionalized alkyl polyglucoside component of the surfactant blend, respectively, as recited in instant claim 4.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR ‘654 as applied to claims 1-2, 6-8, 17 and 24-25 above.
Regarding claims 3-5, KR ‘654, as discussed above, teaches a cleansing cosmetic composition comprising 1 to 20 wt% of an alkyl polyglycoside surfactant (see claim 1), wherein the alkyl polyglycoside surfactant is sodium hydroxypropylsulfonate lauryl glucoside crosspolymer (which reads on the sulfonate functionalized alkyl polyglucoside component), sorbitan oleate decyl glucoside crosspolymer, or a mixture thereof (underlining supplied for emphasis; see claim 2). KR ‘654, however, fails to specifically disclose the proportions of the sodium hydroxypropylsulfonate lauryl glucoside crosspolymer and sorbitan oleate decyl glucoside crosspolymer in the mixture.
Considering that KR ‘654 teaches that the alkyl polyglycoside surfactant is a mixture of sodium hydroxypropylsulfonate lauryl glucoside crosspolymer and sorbitan oleate decyl glucoside crosspolymer, absent criticality, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the proportions of each of the sodium hydroxypropylsulfonate lauryl glucoside crosspolymer and sorbitan oleate decyl glucoside crosspolymer in the mixture to be non-critical, which means that each proportion can vary in a wide range, e.g. 50 wt% sodium hydroxypropylsulfonate lauryl glucoside crosspolymer and 50 wt% sorbitan oleate decyl glucoside crosspolymer, based on the mixture, hence, would overlap those recited. In addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the proportions of the sodium hydroxypropylsulfonate lauryl glucoside crosspolymer and sorbitan oleate decyl glucoside crosspolymer in the mixture through routine experimentation for best results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-8, 11, 17 and 24-25 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The provisional rejection of claims 1-8, 11, 17 and 24-25 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 26 of copending Application No. 17/624,537 is maintained until such time Applicant submits a timely filed terminal disclaimer.
Conclusion
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 LORNA M DOUYON whose telephone number is (571)272-1313. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays; 8:00 AM-4:30 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/LORNA M DOUYON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights