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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on January 13th, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 15-17, 19-20, and 23 are pending in the application. Claims 4, 9, and 12 have been cancelled.
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, and 13-23 under U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ryklin (WO 2009135007 A1) and Renock (US 20210169765 A1) is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryklin (WO 2009135007 A1) and further in view of Renock (US 20210169765 A1).
With regard to claims 1, 3, 5-8, 10-11, 15-17, 18-20, and 23, Ryklin discloses a liquid cleansing composition, which may be a body wash, shampoo, or liquid hand soap (see Abstract). Ryklin further discloses the composition may comprise one or more primary surfactants and one or more secondary surfactants (see [0028]). Ryklin further teaches the primary surfactant may be anionic at 0.1-70wt% (see [0029]) and further teaches disodium-2-sulfolaurate as an acceptable primary surfactant (see [0030]). Ryklin further discloses 0.1-50wt% of a secondary surfactant, which may be a betaine (see [0031]), and further teaches cocamidopropyl betaine (see Example 14). Ryklin further discloses the composition as having a pH of about 4.0 to about 8.5 (see [0037]). Ryklin further teaches 10-90wt% of water (see [0033]).
With respect to the ratio of amphoteric surfactant to disodium-2-sulfolaurate as 4.5:0.75-3.5-1.5, considering that Ryklin teaches a primary surfactant, which may be disodium-2-sulfolaurate, in the range of 0.1-70wt% as disclosed in [0029]-[0030] and a secondary surfactant, which may be cocamidopropyl betaine, in the range of 0.1-50wt% as disclosed in [0031] and Example 14, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference (e.g. 4.0wt% cocamidopropyl betaine: 1.0wt% disodium-2-sulfolaurate or 4:1) because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Malagari, 182 U.S.P.Q 549; In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). In addition, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", see In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257,191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976; In re Woodruff; 919 F.2d 1575,16USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Further, “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) MPEP 2144.05.
However, Ryklin fails to disclose one or more alkyl glucosides.
Renock discloses a personal care composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Renock further discloses the composition may be a shampoo (see [0003]). Renock further discloses the composition may comprise cocamidopropyl betaine (see [0057]), an anionic surfactant (see [0050]), and decyl glucoside, cocoyl glucoside, and mixtures thereof (see [0061]). Renock further teaches the alkyl glucosides may be in a concentration of 0.25-15wt% (see [0063]).
Both Ryklin and Renock disclose shampoo compositions. Ryklin discloses compositions comprising nonionic surfactants (see [0029]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the decyl glucoside, cocoyl glucoside, and mixtures thereof of Renock in the shampoo composition of Ryklin as Ryklin discloses nonionic surfactants and decyl glucoside and cocoyl glucoside are nonionic surfactants.
Further, Ryklin lists sulfates as suitable anionic surfactants (see [0030]). However, these are merely options and are not necessary. Further, as stated above, Renock further discloses sulfate-free surfactants as less irritating to the scalp (see [0002]).
With regard to claim 2, Ryklin and Renock disclose all of the limitations of claim 1.
However, Ryklin fails to disclose the personal care composition of claim 1, wherein the long chain alkyl C6-C22 anionic surfactant further comprises a surfactant selected from the group consisting of: long chain alkyl sulfonates, long chain alkyl phosphates, long chain alkyl alpha olefin sulfonates, long chain alkyl taurates, long chain alkyl isethionates (SCI), long chain alkyl glyceryl ether sulfonates (AGES), sulfosuccinates, sodium methyl-2 sulfolaurate, sodium lauryl sulfoacetate blend, and combinations thereof.
Renock discloses a personal care composition, an analogous art (see Abstract). Renock further discloses the composition may be a shampoo (see [0003]). Renock further teaches sulfosuccinates as suitable sulfate-free surfactants (see [0050]). Renock further discloses sulfate-free surfactants as less irritating to the scalp (see [0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to utilize the sulfosuccinates of Renock in the shampoo composition of Ryklin for the purpose of reducing irritation, as disclosed by Renock.
With regard to claim 13 and claim 14, Ryklin discloses citric acid as a pH adjusting agent (see [0037]).
With regard to claim 21, Ryklin discloses about 0.1wt% to about 10wt% of a thickener (see [0026]). “About” indicates that the concentration may be higher or lower than 0.1wt%. The instant specifications state that “substantially free” is defined as “less than 0.1wt%” (see [0034]).
With regard to claim 22, Ryklin discloses methyl and propyl paraben and preservatives may be added (see [0036]). “May” means the components are optional. Ryklin further makes no mention of phthalates.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 13th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Example 14 of Ryklin is the closest embodiment of the claimed invention. Further, Applicant argues that this example fails to teach "disodium 2- sulfolaurate (SFA) present in an amount of from 0.5% to 5% by weight, ...the amphoteric surfactant and disodium 2-sulfolaurate (SFA) are present in a weight ratio from 4.5:0.75 to 3.5:1.5; wherein the composition is free of sulfate; and wherein the pH of the composition is between 3.5 and 4.5". Applicant further argues that this embodiment discloses a pH of 7.52/5.62, which is higher than the claimed pH values of 3.5-4.5 as disclosed in claim 1. Applicant further argues that Renock fails to cure the deficiencies of Ryklin.
Applicant is reminded that the entire reference must be considered, not just the examples. As stated above, Ryklin discloses the composition may comprise one or more primary surfactants and one or more secondary surfactants (see [0028]). Ryklin further teaches the primary surfactant may be anionic at 0.1-70wt% (see [0029]) and further teaches disodium-2-sulfolaurate as an acceptable primary surfactant (see [0030]). Ryklin further discloses 0.1-50wt% of a secondary surfactant, which may be a betaine (see [0031]), and further teaches cocamidopropyl betaine (see Example 14). Ryklin further discloses the composition as having a pH of about 4.0 to about 8.5 (see [0037]). Ryklin further teaches 10-90wt% of water (see [0033]).
Applicant further argues unexpected results. However, Applicant only states a concentration range for the disodium 2-sulfolaurate and alkyl glucoside. The concentrations of amphoteric surfactant and water are not disclosed. Specific concentrations are given in the instant specifications. The results, therefore, are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims.
Applicant further argues that their claims do not require a thickener. The instant claims use “comprising” language, meaning other components may be present. Ryklin further teaches the glyceryl caprylate/caprate shows no gelation, which is an undesirable property that can occur with other viscosity-building components (see [0027]).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRITTANY SHARON HARRIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1390. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-5:00.
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.
/B.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761