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 .
Status of the Claims
New: 15-21
Examined herein: 1-3, 7-10, 12-21
Priority
Priority to PRO 63/253,362 filed on 10/07/2021 and PCT/US22/77675 filed on 10/6/2022 is
acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/13/2023, 3/14/2023, 4/28/2023,
6/6/2023, 7/26/2023, 9/6/2023, 11/2/2023, 12/6/2023, 7/18/2024, 2/18/2025, 7/9/2025, 9/3/2025, and 2/26/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on 10/6/2022 are accepted.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renock (US 2021/0169765 A1, Published 6/10/2021).
With respect to claim 1 and 14, Renock discloses a composition comprising:
a) 8% of an anionic surfactant (6% of sodium cocoyl isethionate + 2% of sodium lauroyl
sarcosinate);
wherein the anionic surfactants are substantially free of sulfated surfactants;
b) 9.75% of an amphoteric surfactant, lauramidopropyl betaine;
wherein the total amount of surfactant present in the composition is less than 20% (= 17.75%);
wherein the ratio of anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant is less than 2:1 (= 0.8:1);
c) 0.25% of a cationic polymer, polyquaternium-10;
where in the composition has a viscosity of ~5 Pa-s to 20 Pa-s measured at 26. 7°C with a Brookfield R/S Plus Rheometer at 2 s-1. [Renock, Page 17, Example E, 0209]
With respect to claim 3, Renock discloses the anionic surfactants are sodium salts of isethionate and sodium salts of sarcosinates. [Renock, Page 17, Example E]
With respect to claim 7, 8, 20, and 21, Renock discloses the composition further comprises an anti-dandruff agent, zinc pyrithione. [Renock, Page 17, Example E]
With respect to claim 9, Renock discloses the composition is substantially free of silicones. [Renock, Page 17, Example E]
With respect to claim 10, Renock discloses the composition comprises 11 ingredients including an antimicrobial, perfume, and a pH adjusting agent. [Renock, Page 17, Example E]
With respect to claim 16, Renock discloses the cationic polymer is polyquaternium-10. [Renock, Page 17, Example E, 0209]
With respect to claim 19, Renock discloses the ratio of anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant is 0.8:1. [Renock, Page 17, Example E, 0209]
Renock does not disclose explicitly disclose the composition contains no lyotropic liquid crystals and forms lyotropic liquid crystals upon dilution or the composition is isotropic or the cationic polymer has a charge density of 2.3 to 10.0 meq/g. (Claim 1, 14, 17) Renock does not disclose the composition consists of 9 or fewer ingredients. (Claim 10) Renock does not disclose the composition further comprises one or more secondary cationic polymers. (Claim 12)
However, with respect to claim 1, 14, and 17, Renock discloses the polyquatemium-10 present in the aforementioned composition has a charge density of 0.7 meq/g. [Renock, Page 17, Example E and Page 18, Key (13)] Renock further discloses the cationic synthetic polymers that can form lyotropic liquid crystals have a cationic charge density of from ~2 meq/g to ~7 meq/g and a molecular weight of from ~1,000 to ~5,000,000. [Renock, 0131] Renock additionally discloses the cationic synthetic polymers that provide enhanced conditioning and deposition of benefit agents but do not necessarily form lyotropic liquid crystals may have a cationic charge density of from ~0.7 meq/g to ~7 meq/g and a molecular weight of from ~1,000 to ~1,500,000. [Renock, 0132] Moreover, Renock discloses lyotropic liquid crystals are formed by combining synthetic cationic polymers with a relatively high charge density an anionic detersive surfactant component. [Renock, 0130]
With respect to claim 10, Renock discloses antimicrobials, perfume, and pH adjusting agents are optional components of the composition. [Renock, 0166, 0167]
With respect to claim 12, Renock discloses the composition may comprise more than one cationic polymer selected from cationic guar, cationic cellulose, cationic synthetic polymers, or combinations thereof. [Renock, 0066, 0167] Renock further discloses the cationic polymer in combination with an anionic surfactant allows for the formation of a coacervate upon dilution. [Renock, 0039]
Modifying the composition disclosed by Renock by replacing the polyquaternium-10 having a charge density of 0.7 meq/g with polyquaternium-10 having a charge density of ~2.0 meq/g to ~7.0 meq/g results in the composition of claim 1, 14, and 17.
In which case, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP 2112.01(II) In the present case, the composition disclosed by Renock is substantially identical to the chemical structure of instant claim 1 and 14. Therefore, the claimed properties including "the composition contains no lyotropic liquid crystals and forms lyotropic liquid crystals upon dilution" and "the composition is isotropic," are necessarily present in the modified composition of Renock.
Modifying the composition disclosed by Renock by removing the optional components, thereby reducing the number of ingredients to 8, results in the composition of claim 10.
Modifying the composition disclosed by Renock by adding an additional cationic polymer to the composition results in the composition of claim 12.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition disclosed by Renock by replacing the polyquaternium-10 having a charge density of 0.7 meq/g with polyquaternium-10 having a charge density of ~2.0 meq/gm to ~7.0 meq/g and have a reasonable expectation of success. Renock discloses a composition comprising a cationic synthetic polymer, polyquaternium-10 having a charge density of 0.7 meq/g. Renock further discloses the cationic synthetic polymer may have a charge density of from ~2 meq/gm to ~7 meq/gm. In view of this express teaching by Renock, it is reasonable to expect the composition may be modified by replacing the polyquaternium-10 component with polyquaternium-10 having a charge density of ~2.0 meq/g to ~7.0 meq/g. One would have been motivated to do so because it is prima facie obvious to modify references when some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by the modification. MPEP 2144(I-II). In the present case, Renock discloses cationic synthetic polymers having a charge density of from ~2 meq/g to ~7 meq/g can form lyotropic liquid crystals, whereas cationic synthetic polymers having a charge density of from ~0.7 meq/g to ~7 meq/g can provide enhanced conditioning and deposition of benefit agents but do not necessarily form lyotropic liquid crystals. [Renock, 0131-0132] Moreover, Renock discloses that when lyotropic liquid crystals are applied to chemically treated hair, the hair becomes more hydrophobic and more virgin-like in both look and feel. [Renock, 0130] Therefore, one would have been motivated by the expectation that a cationic synthetic polymer having a charge density of from ~2 meq/g to ~7 meq/g would form lyotropic liquid crystals, whereas a charge density of 0.7 meq/g would not necessarily do so. Accordingly, one would expect the formation of said lyotropic liquid crystals to enable the composition disclosed by Renock to advantageously impart a hydrophobic and more virgin-like look and feel to chemically treated hair.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition disclosed by Renock by removing the optional components, thereby reducing the number of ingredients to 8, and have a reasonable expectation of success. Renock discloses a composition comprising 11 ingredients including sodium benzoate, perfume, and citric acid, which is an antimicrobial, perfume, and a pH adjusting agent, respectively. Renock further discloses antimicrobials, perfume, and pH adjusting agents are optional components in the composition. In view of Renock’s teaching that sodium benzoate, perfume, citric acid are optional components that are not essential to the function of the composition, it is reasonable to expect the composition may be modified by removing the optional components. One would have been motivated to do so because the omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. MPEP 2144.04(II)(A). In the instant case, Renock discloses antimicrobials, perfume, and pH adjusting agents are optional components that serve as benefit agents. [Renock, 0166, 0167] Accordingly, the omission of these components and the benefits they impart on the composition is prima facie obvious if said benefits are not desired.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition disclosed by Renock by adding an additional cationic polymer to the composition and have a reasonable expectation of success. Renock discloses a composition comprising a cationic polymer, polyquaternium-10. Renock further discloses the composition may comprise more than one cationic polymer selected from cationic guars, cationic cellulose, cationic synthetic polymers, or combinations thereof. In view of this express teaching by Renock, it is reasonable to expect the composition may be modified by adding an additional cationic polymer. One would have been motivated to do so because it is prima facie obvious to modify references when some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by the modification. MPEP 2144(I-II). In the present case, Renock discloses cationic polymers provide enhanced conditioning and deposition of benefit agents. [Renock, 0132] Therefore, one would have been motivated by the expectation that the aforementioned modification would provide additional enhanced conditioning and deposition of benefit agents.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 7-10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renock, as applied to claim 1, 3, 7-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19-21 above, and further in view of Song (US 2019/0105245 A1, Published 4/11/2019).
With respect to claim 1 and 14, Renock discloses the teachings above.
Renock further discloses the composition is a personal care composition. [Renock, 0001]
Renock does not disclose the composition has a % T value of greater than 80.
However, with respect to claim 2 and 15, Song teaches that shampoo compositions that have a % T value of greater than 80% are preferred by consumers because they are clear or translucent. [Song, 0202]
Modifying the composition disclosed by Renock so that the composition has a % T value of greater than 80 results in the composition of claim 2 and 15.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition disclosed by
Renock so that the composition has a % T value of greater than 80 and have a reasonable expectation of success. Renock discloses a personal care composition. Song discloses several personal care compositions that have a % T value of greater than 80. The disclosure of Song establishes that personal care compositions may achieve a % T value of greater than 80. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Renock and Song suggest that the personal care composition disclosed by Renock may achieve a % T value of greater than 80. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the composition disclosed by Renock may be modified so that it has a % T value of greater than 80. One would have been motivated to do so because it is prima facie obvious to combine references when some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. MPEP 2144(II). In the present case, Song discloses personal care compositions that have a % T value of greater than 80 are preferred by consumers because they are clear or translucent. [Song, 0202] Therefore, one would have been motivated by the expectation that the aforementioned modification would result in a composition that is clear or translucent, and thus preferrable to consumers.
Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renock, as applied to claim 1, 3, 7-10, 12, 14, 16, 17, and 19-21 above, and further in view of Cafasso (What's the proper order to use shampoo and conditioner while bathing, 2020, Healthline).
With respect to claim 1, Renock discloses the teachings above.
Renock does not disclose a method for cleaning hair.
However, with respect to claim 13, Cafasso discloses a method for cleansing hair using shampoo comprising;
a) Providing a shampoo;
b) Dispensing the shampoo composition into a palm;
c) Applying the shampoo onto completely saturated hair and massaging the shampoo across the hair and scalp;
d) Rinsing the shampoo from the hair and scalp completely. [Cafasso, "How to use shampoo and conditioner," Step 1-7]
Combining the composition of Renock with the method of Cafasso results in the method of claim 13 and enables the formation of a lyotropic liquid crystal coacervate, which is deposited on the hair because the composition disclosed by Renock comprises polyquaternium-10 and anionic detersives that form lyotropic liquid crystals upon dilution with water.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the composition of Renock with the method of cleansing hair disclosed by Cafasso and have a reasonable expectation of success. Renock discloses a shampoo and Cafasso discloses a method of cleansing hair using shampoo. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Renock and Cafasso suggest that the method disclosed by Cafasso may be used to cleanse hair with the shampoo disclosed by Renock or the shampoo disclosed by Renock may be used in the method disclosed by Cafasso. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect the shampoo composition disclosed by Renock may be combined with the method for cleansing hair disclosed by Cafasso. One
would have been motivated to do so because it is prima facie obvious to combine references when some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. MPEP 2144(II). In the present case, Renock discloses when lyotropic liquid crystals are applied to chemically treated hair, the hair becomes more hydrophobic and more virgin-like in both look and feel because the lyotropic liquid crystal complex creates a hydrophobic layer or film, which coats the hair fibers and protects the hair. As a result, the hydrophobic layer returns the hair to a generally virgin-like, healthier state. [Renock, 0130] Recall, the composition disclosed by Renock contains no lyotropic liquid crystals and forms lyotropic liquid crystals upon dilution. Cafasso discloses during the method for cleansing hair using shampoo, the shampoo is diluted with water. Therefore, one would have been motivated by the expectation that the aforementioned modification would enable the formation of lyotropic liquid crystals and result in the hair returning to a generally virgin-like, healthier state.
Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 12, 14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2020/0188243 A1, Published 6/18/2020).
With respect to claim 1 and 14, Brown discloses a composition comprising:
a) 10% of an anionic surfactant (6% of sodium isethionate + 4% of sodium sarcosinate);
wherein, the anionic surfactants are substantially free of sulfated surfactants;
b) 9.75% of an amphoteric surfactant, lauramidopropyl betaine;
wherein the total amount of surfactant present in the composition is less than 20% (= 19.75%);
wherein the ratio of anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant is less than 2:1 (= 0.975:1);
c) 0.2% of a cationic polymer, polyquaternium-10,
where in the composition has a viscosity of ~0.001 Pa-s to 20 Pa-s measured at 26.6°C with a Brookfield R/S Plus Rheometer at 2 s-1. [Brown, Page 17, Example 10, 0178]
With respect to claim 3, Brown discloses the anionic surfactants are sodium salts of isethionate and sodium salts of sarcosinates. [Brown, Page 17, Example 10]
With respect to claim 7, 8, 20, and 21, Brown discloses the composition may further comprise an anti-dandruff agent including piroctone olamine or zinc pyrithione. [Brown, 0181-0182]
With respect to claim 9, Brown discloses the composition is substantially free of silicones. [Brown, Page 17, Example 10]
With respect to claim 10, Brown discloses the composition comprises about 8 ingredients. [Brown, Page 17, Example 10]
With respect to claim 16, Brown discloses the cationic polymer is polyquaternium-10. [Brown, Page 17, Example 10]
With respect to claim 19, Brown discloses the ratio of anionic surfactant to amphoteric surfactant is 0.975:1. [Brown, Page 17, Example 10]
Brown does not disclose explicitly disclose the composition contains no lyotropic liquid crystals and forms lyotropic liquid crystals upon dilution or the composition is isotropic or the cationic polymer has a charge density of 2.3 to 10.0 meq/g. (Claim 1, 14, 17) Brown does not disclose the composition further comprises one or more secondary cationic polymers. (Claim 12) Brown does not disclose the cationic polymer is polyquaternium-6. (Claim 18)
However, with respect to claim 1, 14, 17, and 18, Brown discloses the polyquaternium-10 present in the aforementioned composition is LR30M from Dow, which has a charge density of 0.7 meq/g. [Brown, Page 17, Example 10 & Page 18, Key (4)] Brown further discloses the cationic polymer of the composition may be polyquatemium-10 or polyquaternium-6. [Brown, 0067] Moreover, Brown discloses the cationic synthetic polymers that can form lyotropic liquid crystals have a cationic charge density of from ~2 meq/g to ~7 meq/g and a molecular weight of from ~1,000 to ~5,000,000. [Brown, 0138] Brown additionally discloses the cationic synthetic polymers that provide enhanced conditioning and deposition of benefit agents but do not necessarily form lyotropic liquid crystals have a cationic charge density of from ~0.7 meq/g to ~7 meq/g and a molecular weight of from ~1,000 to ~1,500,000. [Brown, 0132] Moreover, Brown discloses lyotropic liquid crystals are formed by combining synthetic cationic polymers with a relatively high charge density an anionic detersive surfactant component. [Brown, 0137]
With respect to claim 12, Brown discloses the composition may comprise more than one cationic polymer selected from cationic guar polymers, cationic cellulose polymers, cationic synthetic homopolymers, cationic synthetic copolymers, or combinations thereof, including a combination of polyquaternium-10 and polyquaternium-6. [Brown, 0067] Brown further discloses the cationic polymer, in combination with an anionic surfactant, allows for the formation of a coacervate upon dilution. [Brown, 0067, 0185]
Modifying the composition disclosed by Brown by replacing the polyquaternium-10 having a charge density of 0.7 meq/g with polyquaternium-10 having a charge density of ~2.0 meq/g to ~7.0 meq/g results in the composition of claim 1, 14, and 17.
Modifying the composition disclosed by Brown by replacing the polyquaternium-10 having a charge density of 0.7 meq/g with polyquaternium-6 having a charge density of ~2.0 meq/g to ~7.0 meq/g results in the composition of claim 1, 14, 17, and 18.
Modifying the composition disclosed by Brown by adding an additional cationic polymer, polyquaternium-6 results in the composition of claim 12.
In which case, "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. MPEP 2112.01(II). In the present case, the composition disclosed by Brown is substantially identical to the chemical structure of instant claim 1 and 14. Therefore, the claimed properties, including "the composition contains no lyotropic liquid crystals and forms lyotropic liquid crystals upon dilution" and "the composition is isotropic," are necessarily present in the modified composition of Brown.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition disclosed by Brown by replacing the polyquaternium-10 having a charge density of 0.7 meq/g with polyquaternium-10 or polyquaternium-6 having a charge density of ~2.0 meq/g to ~7.0 meq/g and have a reasonable expectation of success. Brown discloses a composition comprising a cationic synthetic polymer, polyquaternium-10 having a charge density of 0.7 meq/gm. Brown further discloses that the cationic synthetic polymer may alternatively be polyquaternium-6 and/or have a charge density of from ~2 meq/g to ~7 meq/g. In view of this express teaching by Brown, it is reasonable to expect the composition may be modified by replacing the polyquaternium-10 with polyquaternium-10 or polyquaternium-6 having a charge density of ~2.0 meq/g to ~7.0 meq/g. One would have been motivated to do so because it is prima facie obvious to modify references when some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by the modification. MPEP 2144(I-II). In the present case, Brown discloses cationic synthetic polymers having a charge density of from ~2 meq/g to ~7 meq/g can form lyotropic liquid crystals, whereas cationic synthetic polymers having a charge density of from ~0.7 meq/g to ~7 meq/g can provide enhanced conditioning and deposition of benefit agents but do not necessarily form lyotropic liquid crystals. [Brown, 0138-0139] Moreover, Brown discloses that when lyotropic liquid crystals are applied to chemically treated hair, the hair becomes more hydrophobic and more virgin-like in both look and feel. [Brown, 0137] Therefore, one would have been motivated by the expectation that a cationic synthetic polymer having a charge density of from ~2 meq/g to ~7 meq/g would form lyotropic liquid crystals, whereas a charge density of 0.7 meq/g would not necessarily do so. Accordingly, one would expect the formation of said lyotropic liquid crystals to enable the composition disclosed by Brown to advantageously impart a hydrophobic and more virgin-like look and feel to chemically treated hair.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition disclosed by Brown by adding an additional cationic polymer, polyquaternium-6, to the composition and have a reasonable expectation of success. Brown discloses a composition comprising a cationic polymer, polyquaternium-10. Brown further discloses the composition may comprise more than one cationic polymer including a combination of polyquaternium-10 and polyquaternium-6. In view of this express teaching disclosed by Brown, it is reasonable to expect the composition may be modified by adding polyquaternium-6 to the composition. One would have been motivated to do so because it is prima facie obvious to modify references when some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by the modification. MPEP 2144(I-II). In the present case, Brown discloses cationic polymers provide enhanced conditioning and deposition of benefit agents. [Brown, 0139] Therefore, one would have been motivated by the expectation that the aforementioned modification would provide additional enhanced conditioning and deposition of benefit agents.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/23/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s arguments essentially state the cited references do not teach the claim limitations as amended. Therefore, the rejection over Renock has been modified to address the amended limitations. Moreover, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Brown.
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 KAILA A CRAIG whose telephone number is (703)756-4540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 0800-1600.
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 571-272-0616. 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.
/K.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1618
/Michael G. Hartley/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1618
Prosecution Insights