DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This office action is in response to the reply filed 1/6/2026.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 8-9, 14 and 16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 7/25/2025.
Response to Arguments
All of Applicant arguments filed 1/6/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant amendments to the claims were sufficient to overcome the 112(b) rejections previously presented.
Applicant arguments that Chabrillangeas does not teach the claimed polymer mixture as newly amended are persuasive, as such new rejections are presented below which address the newly added limitation.
New 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chabrillangeas (US 2018/0318186), Arditty (US 2012/0093560) and Candau (US 2005/0008588).
Chabrillangeas discloses cosmetic compositions for hair and skin (Abs and [0066]).
Example 3, Composition II, of Chabrillangeas discloses an O/W emulsion comprising:
- 1.5% cetyl alcohol (a solid alcohol of formula R-OH, wherein R is a C16 alkyl group) – reading on instant claims 1(i), 2-3 and 13(i);
- 0.3% of disodium stearoyl glutamate – reading on amino acid surfactant of instant claims 1(ii), 4-6, 13(ii) and 15, wherein Z=C17 linear alkyl group, X=H, n=0, Y=(CH2)2C(O)OM, M=Na;
- 1% polyacryloyldimethyl ammonium taurate (Hostacerin AMPS, an AMPS homopolymer which is crosslinked and neutralized as evidenced by the filed specification page 10) – reading on instant claims 1(iii), 10 and 13(iii) and the elected species;
Regarding claim 11: Example 3 teaches the aqueous phase to make up 82.65% of the composition.
Regarding claim 12: Example 3 teaches the fatty phase to make up 17.35% of the composition.
Chabrillangeas does not teach the inclusion of an optionally crosslinked copolymer of AMPS and polyoxyethylene alkyl methacrylate, however, Chabrillangeas does exemplify compositions comprising Simulgel 600 (i.e. an AMPS copolymer) and Hostacerin AMPS (i.e. AMPS homopolymer).
Arditty teaches cosmetic applications and teaches the use of hydrophilic gelling agents such as AMPS, AMPS and acrylamide copolymers of the Sepigel or Simulgel type and copolymers of AMPS and polyoxyethylene alkyl methacrylate [0188].
Candau teaches cosmetic compositions [0002] which comprise hydrophilic thickeners such as Simulgel 600 and Hostacerin AMPS [0309].
As demonstrated by Arditty and Candau, Simulgel 600, Hostacerin AMPS and copolymer of AMPS and polyoxyethylene alkyl methacrylate are all hydrophilic gelling/thickening agents suitable for use in cosmetic compositions (i.e. art recognized equivalency).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chabrillangeas with those of Candua and Arditty. A skilled artisan would have recognized that Hostacerin AMPS and Simulgel 600 as taught by Chabrillangeas are known in the cosmetics arts to be hydrophilic thickening agents and a skilled artisan would have been motivated to use both a copolymer of APMS and polyoxyethylene alkyl methacrylate in the example 3 of Chabrillangeas as this agent is taught to be equivalent to Hostacerin AMPS and Simulgel 600 and its prima facie obvious to combine two art recognized equivalents each taught individually by the prior art to form a new composition for the same purpose.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chabrillangeas (US 2018/0318186), Arditty (US 2012/0093560) and Candau (US 2005/0008588), as applied to claims 1-6, 10-13 and 15 above, further in view of Simonnet (US 2015/0290109) and EP2335677.
As discussed above, the above references make obvious the limitations of claims 1-6, 10-13 and 15, however, Chabrillangeas does not teach the elected sodium stearoyl glutamate wherein Z=C17 linear alkyl group, X=H, n=0, Y=(CH2)2C(O)OH, M=Na.
Chabrillangeas teaches that emulsifying the co-emulsifying surfactants can be used, these are preferably anionic or nonionic surfactants [0099].
Simonnet teaches composition for application to the hair or skin. These can comprise anionic surfactants which are preferably disodium stearoyl glutamate and sodium stearoyl glutamate, selected from a finite number of options [0381].
EP’677 cosmetic compositions and teaches glutamic acid salts of formula R-CONH-C(COOM)-C2R4-COOM with R being alkyl groups having 8-22 carbons such as stearoyl are emulsifying surfactants. Sodium stearoyl glutamate is preferred [0072-0073], but disodium stearoyl glutamate is embraced.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of the above references with those of Simonnet and EP’677. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute disodium stearoyl glutamate with an equivalent emulsifying anionic surfactant, sodium stearoyl glutamate, as both of these are taught by the prior art to be equivalent surfactants personal care compositions and its prima facie obvious to substitute one equivalent for the other as they are both taught by the prior art to be used for the same purpose.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
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 Jennifer A Berrios whose telephone number is (571)270-7679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 9am-4pm and Friday 9am-3:30pm.
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 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.
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613