CTNF 17/782,550 CTNF 89069 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-42-04 AIA 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/17/2026 has been entered. Withdrawn Rejections: Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on 03/17/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.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. The application is examined in view of elected Cationic Surfactant (A): a mixture of Palmitamidopropyltrimonium chloride and Cetrimonium chloride; Amphoteric Surfactant (B): a mixture of Lauryl hydroxysultine (appears as typo of Lauryl hydroxysultaine), Lauramidopropyl betaine, and Cocamidopropyl betaine; and Component (C): a mixture of PPG-3 caprylyl ether, Polyglyceryl-3 caprate, (Bisisobutyl PEG-15/amodimethicone) copolymer, Silicone quaternium-22, Erythritol, and Mannitol. Claims 1-8, 10-13 read on the elected species and are under examination. Claim 1-8 and 10-15 are pending, claims 1-8, 10-13 are under examination. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2, 8,10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (US20190307669) in view of Watanabe (JP2017066114) and Tamura et al. (JP2002087942) . For compact prosecution purpose, additional species with (A) is Cetrimonium chloride, (B) is cocoylamidopropylbetaine, (C) is (C1) PEG-fatty alcohol Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01) Roy et al. teaches a composition comprising one or more cationic surfactants, one or more amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactants, one or more silicones, one or more cationic polymers, one or more fatty alcohols and one or more clays. The invention also relates to a cosmetic process for washing keratin fibres using this composition (abstract). The one or more cationic surfactant include Palmitamidopropyltrimethylammonium chloride (Palmitamidopropyltrimonium chloride) and cetyltrimethylammonium chloride (Cetrimonium chloride) at an amount of 0.05% to 10% by weight (page 1, [0029, 0031]; page 2, [0037]; page 4, [0077]). The one or more amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactants include sulfobetaine, (C8 -C20 alkyl)amido(C2-C8 alkyl)betaines , cocoylamidopropylbetaine, and mixtures thereof from 0.05 to 15% (page 4, [0080, 0107, 0109]). The one or more silicones include amino silicones, quaternary ammonium silicone from 0.5 to 15% by weight (page 7, [0171-0172]; page 8, [0197]; page 9, [0219]). Nonionic surfactant such as PEG-fatty alcohol may be present from 0.1 to 10% by weight (page 16, [0376-0377, 0379]) and anionic surfactant less than 5% (page 16, [0380]). The fatty alcohol is C8-C30 alkyl alcohol and present from 0.05% to 15% by weight (page 13, [0317-0326]; claims 1 and 16), and additive from 0.001% to 20% (page 16, [0389-0393]). Watanabe teaches hair cleaning composition (abstract). The composition comprises amphoteric surfactant laurylhydroxysulfobetaine (page 7, 2 nd paragraph). The viscosity at 5ºC is from 1 mPa/s to 200 mPa/s (page 8, 7 th paragraph), and the viscosity at 30ºC is from 11-13 mPa/s or less than 10 mPa/s (last page, tables 1-2). Tamura et al. teaches hair cleaning composition (page 4, [0013]). The viscosity of the cleaning composition at 30ºC is 15 mPa/s or less (page 6, Table 1) . Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02) The difference between the instant application and Roy et al. is that Roy et al. do not expressly teach viscosity. This deficiency in Roy et al. is cured by the teachings of Watanabe and Tamura et al. Finding of prima facie obviousness Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Roy et al. , as suggested by Watanabe and Tamura et al., and produce the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have viscosity at 30ºC from 0.8 mPa/s to 20 mPa/s and at 5ºC from 1.5mPa/s to 50 mPa/s because this is optimization under prior art condition or thorough routing experimentation. MPEP 2144.05. Under guidance from Watanabe teaching hair cleaning with viscosity at 5ºC is from 1 mPa/s to 200 mPa/s and viscosity at 30ºC is from 11-13 mPa/s or less than 10 mPa/s; Tamura et al. teaching hair cleaning composition with viscosity at 30ºC is 15 mPa/s or less; it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have viscosity at 30ºC from 0.8 mPa/s to 20 mPa/s and at 5ºC from 1.5mPa/s to 50 mPa/s and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 1, 8 and 11-12, prior art teaches a hair cleaning composition comprising Cetrimonium chloride (A) at 0.05 to 10%, cocoylamidopropylbetaine (B) at 0.05 to 15%, PEG-fatty alcohol (C1) at 0.1 to 10%; weight of B/A is 1 when each of them is 1%; fatty alcohol is C8-C30 alkyl alcohol and present is 0.05-15%, when fatty alcohol is C8-C11 alkyl alcohol, no higher alcohol having C12-22 carbon is required, this meets the limitation of 0% of higher alcohol having C12-22 carbon; viscosity at 30ºC from 0.8 mPa/s to 20 mPa/s; “used by filling up a non-gas foam discharge container” is intended use, not limiting. Regarding claim 2, when each of A and B is 1%, C1 is 2%, The weight ratio of (A+B)/C1 is 1. Regarding claim 13, Roy et al. teacher anionic surfactant. In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103. From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-8, 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roy et al. (US20190307669) in view of Watanabe (JP2017066114), Tamura et al. (JP2002087942), MASAHIKO (JP2017137254), BISWAS (IN20150148813), Suzuki et al. (US20120276037), Glenn et al. (US20180168948) and Lintner et al. (US20080213198) . Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01) Roy et al., Watanabe and Tamura et al. have already been discussed in the above 103 rejection and are incorporate herein by reference. MASAHIKO teaches hair cleaning composition (abstract). Specific examples of surfactants other than component (A) include cationic surfactants; nonionic surfactants such ascocamide MEA, laureth-3, laureth-16, and PPG-3 caprylyl ether (page 11, 3 rd paragraph). BISWAS teaches cosmetic composition (title). The non-ionic surfactant includes polyglyceryl-3 caprate (page 3, 2 nd paragraph). Suzuki et al. teaches hair cosmetic (abstract). The composition comprises amino-modified silicone such as formula (16) with commercial product Silicone SS-3588 (Bisisobutyl PEG-15/amodimethicone) copolymer) from Dow Corning Toray (page 6, [0102, 0105]; page 7, [0107]); page 12, [0144]). Glenn et al. teaches hair care cosmetic composition (abstract). The composition comprises aminosilicone such as silicone quaternium-22 (page 5-6, [0074]). Lintner et al. teaches cosmetic composition such as hair care and shampoo (page 15, [0151]). The compositions of the present invention may contain a conditioning agent selected from humectants, moisturizers, or skin conditioners. A variety of these materials can be employed and each can be present at a level of from about 0.01% to about 20%, more preferably from about 0.1% to about 10%, and still more preferably from about 0.5% to about 7% by weight of the composition. These materials include, but are not limited to, guanidine; urea; glycolic acid and glycolate salts (e.g. ammonium and quaternary alkyl ammonium); salicylic acid; lactic acid and lactate salts (e.g., ammonium and quaternary alkyl ammonium); aloe vera in any of its variety of forms (e.g., aloe vera gel); polyhydroxy alcohols such as sorbitol, mannitol , xylitol, erythritol , glycerol, hexanetriol, butanetriol, propylene glycol, butylene glycol, hexylene glycol and the like; polyethylene glycols; sugars (e.g., melibiose) and starches; sugar and starch derivatives (e.g., alkoxylated glucose, fructose, glucosamine); hyaluronic acid; lactamide monoethanolamine; acetamide monoethanolamine; panthenol; allantoin; petrolaum and mixtures thereof (page 13, [0134]). Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02) The difference between the instant application and Roy et al. is that Roy et al. do not expressly teach viscosity and the elected species. This deficiency in Roy et al. is cured by the teachings of Watanabe , Tamura et al., MASAHIKO, BISWAS, Suzuki et al., Glenn et al. and Lintner et al. Finding of prima facie obviousness Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Roy et al. , as suggested by Watanabe , Tamura et al., MASAHIKO, BISWAS, Suzuki et al., Glenn et al. and Lintner et al., and produce the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have viscosity at 30ºC from 0.8 mPa/s to 20 mPa/s and at 5ºC from 1.5mPa/s to 50 mPa/s because this is optimization under prior art condition or thorough routing experimentation. MPEP 2144.05. Under guidance from Watanabe teaching hair cleaning with viscosity at 5ºC is from 1 mPa/s to 200 mPa/s and viscosity at 30ºC is from 11-13 mPa/s or less than 10 mPa/s; Tamura et al. teaching hair cleaning composition with viscosity at 30ºC is 15 mPa/s or less; it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have viscosity at 30ºC from 0.8 mPa/s to 20 mPa/s and at 5ºC from 1.5mPa/s to 50 mPa/s and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding Cationic Surfactant (A): a mixture of Palmitamidopropyltrimonium chloride and Cetrimonium chloride; One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the mixture of Palmitamidopropyltrimonium chloride and Cetrimonium chloride as cationic surfactant because Roy et al. teaches one or more cationic surfactant include Palmitamidopropyltrimethylammonium chloride (Palmitamidopropyltrimonium chloride) and cetyltrimethylammonium chloride (Cetrimonium chloride) at an amount of 0.05% to 10% by weight, thus, it is obvious to use the mixture of Palmitamidopropyltrimonium chloride and Cetrimonium chloride as cationic surfactant at an amount of 0.05% to 10% by weight and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding Amphoteric Surfactant (B): a mixture of Lauryl hydroxysultine (appears as typo of Lauryl hydroxysultaine, examined as Lauryl hydroxysultaine), Lauramidopropyl betaine, and Cocamidopropyl betaine; One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the mixture of Lauryl hydroxysultine (appears as typo of Lauryl hydroxysultaine, examined as Lauryl hydroxysultaine), Lauramidopropyl betaine, and Cocamidopropyl betaine as Amphoteric Surfactant because they are suitable Amphoteric Surfactant in hair care composition. MPEP 2144.07. Under guidance from Roy et al. teaching one or more amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactants include sulfobetaine, (C8 -C20 alkyl)amido(C2-C8 alkyl)betaines encompassing Lauramidopropyl betaine as common C12 alkyl amidopropyl betaine, cocoylamidopropylbetaine, and mixtures at 0.05 to 15% by weight; Watanabe teaching hair cleaning composition comprising amphoteric surfactant laurylhydroxysulfobetaine (Lauryl hydroxysultaine), it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to the mixture of Lauryl hydroxysultine (appears as typo of Lauryl hydroxysultaine, examined as Lauryl hydroxysultaine), Lauramidopropyl betaine, and Cocamidopropyl betaine as Amphoteric Surfactant at 0.05 to 15% by weight and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding the mixture of PPG-3 caprylyl ether and Polyglyceryl-3 caprate; One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use mixture of PPG-3 caprylyl ether and Polyglyceryl-3 caprate as nonionic surfactant because they are suitable nonionic surfactant in hair acre composition. Under guidance from Roye et al. teaching nonionic surfactant from 0.1 to 10% by weight; MASAHIKO teaches hair cleaning composition comprising nonionic surfactants PPG-3 caprylyl ether ; BISWAS teaching cosmetic composition comprising non-ionic surfactant includes polyglyceryl-3 caprate ; it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use mixture of PPG-3 caprylyl ether and Polyglyceryl-3 caprate as nonionic surfactant at 0.1 to 10% by weight and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding the mixture of (Bisisobutyl PEG-15/amodimethicone) copolymer and Silicone quaternium-22, One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the mixture of (Bisisobutyl PEG-15/amodimethicone) copolymer and Silicone quaternium-22 as silicone because they are suitable silicone in hair care composition. Under guidance from Roy et al. teaching one or more silicones include amino silicones and quaternary ammonium silicone from 0.5 to 15% by weight; Suzuki et al. teaching hair cosmetic composition comprising amino-modified silicone (Bisisobutyl PEG-15/amodimethicone) copolymer); Glenn et al. teaching hair care cosmetic composition comprising aminosilicone such as silicone quaternium-22; it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the mixture of (Bisisobutyl PEG-15/amodimethicone) copolymer and Silicone quaternium-22 as silicone at 0.5 to 15% by weight and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding the mixture of Erythritol and Mannitol, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include the mixture of Erythritol and Mannitol because they are suitable ingredients in hair care composition. MPEP 2144.07. Under guidance from Lintner et al. teaching hair care composition comprising conditioning agents including the mixture of Erythritol and Mannitol at about 0.1% to about 10%, since it is advantage to have conditioning agent in the hair care composition, it is obvious to include the mixture of Erythritol and Mannitol at 0.1% to 10% and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 11-12, prior arts teach a hair care composition comprising mixture of Palmitamidopropyltrimonium chloride and Cetrimonium chloride as cationic surfactant at an amount of 0.05% to 10% by weight (A); mixture of Lauryl hydroxysultine (appears as typo of Lauryl hydroxysultaine, examined as Lauryl hydroxysultaine), Lauramidopropyl betaine, and Cocamidopropyl betaine as Amphoteric Surfactant at 0.05 to 15% by weight (B); mixture of PPG-3 caprylyl ether and Polyglyceryl-3 caprate as nonionic surfactant at 0.1 to 10% by weight (C1); mixture of (Bisisobutyl PEG-15/amodimethicone) copolymer and Silicone quaternium-22 as silicone at 0.5 to 15% by weight (C2); mixture of Erythritol and Mannitol at 0.1% to 10% (C3); weight of B/A is 1 when each of them is 1%; fatty alcohol is C8-C30 alkyl alcohol and present is 0.05-15%, when fatty alcohol is C8-C11 alkyl alcohol, no higher alcohol having C12-22 carbon is required, this meets the limitation of 0% of higher alcohol having C12-22 carbon; viscosity at 30ºC from 0.8 mPa/s to 20 mPa/s; “used by filling up a non-gas type foam discharge container” is intended use, not limiting. Regarding claim 2, when each of A and B is 1%, C1 is 2%, The weight ratio of (A+B)/C1 is 1. Regarding claim 6, when each of A and B is 1%, each of C2 and C3 is 1%, the ratio of (A)+(B) / (C2)+(C3)=1. Regarding claim 13, Roy et al. teacher anionic surfactant. In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103. From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Response to Argument: Applicants argue that the limitation of higher alcohol of 0% and all related arguments are incorporated herein by reference. In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. As discussed in the above 103 rejection, fatty alcohol is C8-C30 alkyl alcohol and present is 0.05-15%, when fatty alcohol is C8-C11 alkyl alcohol, no higher alcohol having C12-22 carbon is required, this meets the limitation of 0% of higher alcohol having C12-22 carbon, and there is no step of optimization of content of fatty alcohol to establish the obvious rejection. Regarding that Roy teaching fatty alcohol having C12-22 in preferable embodiment, is argued that prior art teaching Is not limited to preferred embodiment. MPEP 2123, A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Laboratories , 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989). PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale 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.”. Therefore, the 103 rejection is still proper. Applicants argue about unexpected results regarding high alcohol in example 1-26 and 28-29 as well as comparative examples. In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. The comparison between and comparative example would not lead to criticality of absence of higher alcohol, because those examples and comparative examples have different combination of components a, b and C as well as their range, it is unclear whether the difference of performance is caused by presence of higher alcohol or not. Thus, no unexpected results has been established, and the 103 rejection is still proper. Applicants argue that (B)/(A) ratio of 0.5 to 5. In response to this argument; this is not persuasive. MPEP 716.02(d), To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range. In re Hill, 284 F.2d 955, 128 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1960). Since applicants do not have sufficient number of tests in and out of ratio of 0.5 to 5, no criticality of claimed range has been established, and the 103 rejection is still proper. MPEP 2141 III states: “The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts.” Respectfully, after weighing all the evidence, the Examiner has reached a determination that the instant claims are not patentable in view of the preponderance of evidence and consideration of all the facts which is more convincing than the evidence which has been offered in opposition to it . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1-8, 10-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-6, 8-10 and 13-17 of copending Application No. 17784569 in view of Roy et al. (US20190307669), Watanabe (JP2017066114), Tamura et al. (JP2002087942) and Lintner et al. (US20080213198). The reference application teaches hair cosmetic composition comprising cationic, nonionic and amphoteric surfactant (claim 4) , in view of Roy et al. teaching amino-silicon as well as weight ratio of different surfactant, Watanabe and Tamura et al. teaching viscosity, Lintner et al. teaching sugar alcohol mannitol, it is obvious to produce applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-8, 10-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10335358 in view of Roy et al. (US20190307669), Watanabe (JP2017066114), Tamura et al. (JP2002087942) and Lintner et al. (US20080213198). The reference patent teaches hair cosmetic composition comprising cationic, nonionic and amphoteric surfactant (claim 10) , in view of Roy et al. teaching amino-silicon as well as weight ratio of different surfactant, Watanabe and Tamura et al. teaching viscosity, Lintner et al. teaching sugar alcohol mannitol, it is obvious to produce applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-8, 10-13 and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 8518423 in view of Roy et al. (US20190307669), Watanabe (JP2017066114), Tamura et al. (JP2002087942) and Lintner et al. (US20080213198). The reference patent teaches hair cosmetic composition comprising cationic, nonionic and amphoteric surfactant (claims 1 and 11) , in view of Roy et al. teaching amino-silicon as well as weight ratio of different surfactant, Watanabe and Tamura et al. teaching viscosity, Lintner et al. teaching sugar alcohol mannitol, it is obvious to produce applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success . Response to Argument: Applicants argue the same as 103 rejection. In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. Since the same argument is not sufficient to overcome the 103 rejection, this argument is not sufficient to overcome the double patent rejection, either. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANFENG SONG. Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. 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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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. /JIANFENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 2 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 3 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 4 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 5 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 6 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 7 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 8 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 9 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 10 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 11 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 12 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 13 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 14 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 15 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 16 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 17 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 17/782,550 Page 18 Art Unit: 1613
Prosecution Insights