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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 21st, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on May 21st, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-11, 15-17, and 19-23 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) 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 May 21st, 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 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 that Renock fails to cure the deficiencies of Ryklin. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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.
Applicant further argues that the disclosed composition has high naturality. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “personal care compositions with a naturality index greater than 95%”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant further argues that the disclosed compositions are free of any thickener or polymer needed in the formulation. The compositions of Ryklin and Renock need not contain any thickener or polymer. Renock discloses the composition can comprise a rheology polymer (see [0135]-[0136]). “Can” indicates the rheology polymer is optional.
Applicant further argues unexpected results with regard to achieving the desired level of thickness without thickeners. Applicant further argues that the disclosed compositions are self-thickening. However, Applicant fails to disclose the parameters of the “desired level of thickness”. The instant claims further fail to disclose such parameters. As the composition of Renock may be free of a rheology polymer, it can be concluded that thickeners are not necessary to achieve a desired level of thickness. Renock further teaches the viscosity of the disclosed compositions as greater than about 5000 cps (see Abstract). The instant specifications disclose example compositions having a viscosity of between 3500 cp and 5000 cp. “About 5000 cps” overlaps with the range disclosed in the instant specifications.
Conclusion
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.
/GREGORY R DELCOTTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
/B.S.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights