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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/1/2025 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Examined herein: 1-3, 7-10, and 12-14
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, and 9/3/2025 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.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-3, 7-10 and 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and 14, which removes the limitation “…wherein the composition has a viscosity of 7 Pa-s to 10 Pa-s according to the Cone/Plate Viscosity Measurement Test Method,” thereby rendering the rejection moot. [Remarks 11/14/2025, Page 6]
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 7-9, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) over Renock is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 and 14, which now recites additional limitations and Applicant’s persuasive arguments that Renock does not teach this limitation. [Remarks 11/14/2025, Page 6-7]
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over Brown (‘066) is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s persuasive arguments that the reference is not available as prior art under 102(a)(2) based on the 102(b)(2)(C) exception. [Remarks 11/14/2025, Page 7]
The rejection of claims 1-3 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) over Brown (‘065) is hereby withdrawn in view of Applicant’s persuasive arguments that the reference is not available as prior art under 102(a)(2) based on the 102(b)(2)(C) exception. [Remarks 11/14/2025, Page 7]
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, and 14 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:
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;
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), and
0.25% of a cationic polymer, polyquaternium-10,
wherein 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 selected from sodium salts of isethionate and sodium salts of sarcosinates. [Renock, Page 17, Example E]
With respect to claim 7-8, 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]
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 that the cationic polymer has a charge density of 2.0 to 10.0 meq/g. (Claim 1) Moreover, 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, "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 instant case, the composition disclosed by Renock is substantially identical to the chemical structure of instant claim 1 and 14. Therefore, the properties that Applicant claims, 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 disclosure of Renock.
Furthermore, with respect to claim 1, Renock discloses the Polyquatemium-10 in the aforementioned composition has a 1.8 Mil molecular weight, a 0.7 charge density, and is from Dow. [Renock, Page 17, Example E and Page 18, Key, 13] These specifications closely match the JR-30M polymer available from Dow. Renock additionally discloses the Polyquaternium-10 may be selected from any LR, JR, or KG series of polymers available from Dow/Amerchol Corp including JR-30M, KG-30M, JP, and LR-400. [Renock, 0133] KG-30M has a charge density of 2.0 meq/g.
Additionally, 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 polymers, cationic cellulose polymers, cationic synthetic copolymers, or combinations thereof. [Renock, 0066, 0167] Renock further discloses the cationic polymer(s), in combination with anionic surfactant(s) allow for the formation of a coacervate upon dilution. [Renock, 0039]
Modifying the composition disclosed by Renock by replacing the polyquaternium-10 product with KG-30M (charge density - 2.0 meq/g), results in the composition of claim 1.
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 product with KG-30M and have a reasonable expectation of success. Renock discloses a composition comprising polyquaternium-10, which has a 1.8 Mil molecular weight, a 0.7 charge density, and is from Dow. These specifications closely match the JR-30M polymer available from Dow. Renock further discloses the polyquaternium-10 may be selected from any LR, JR, or KG series of polymers available from Dow/Amerchol Corp including KG-30M. Thus, in view of this express teaching by Renock, it is reasonable to expect the composition disclosed by Renock may be modified by replacing the polyquaternium-10 product with KG-30M. One would have been motivated to do so because the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious. In the instant case, Renock discloses the polyquaternium-10 may be selected from any LR, JR, or KG series of polymers available from Dow/Amerchol Corp including KG-30M. So, the selection of KG-30M based on its suitability as a polyquaternium-10 polymer available from Dow for its intended use as a cationic cellulose polymer in the composition disclosed by Renock is prima facie obvious.
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 discloses antimicrobials, perfume, and pH adjusting agents are optional components in the composition. So, Renock discloses a composition comprising sodium benzoate, perfume, citric acid, but further discloses the optional components are not essential to the function of the composition. In view of this teaching by Renock, it is reasonable to expect the composition may be modified by removing the optional components, thereby reducing the number of ingredients to 8. 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. In the instant case, Renock discloses antimicrobials, perfume, and pH adjusting agents are optional components that serve as benefit agents. [Renock, 0166, 0167] So, the omission of the antimicrobial, perfume, and pH adjusting agent, and subsequently the benefits they impart on the composition, is 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. However, Renock discloses the composition may comprise more than one cationic polymer selected from cationic guar polymers, cationic cellulose polymers, cationic synthetic copolymers, or combinations thereof. Thus, in view of this express teaching disclosed by Renock, it is reasonable to expect the composition disclosed by Renock may be modified by adding an additional cationic polymer 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 their combination. In the instant case, Renock discloses cationic polymers provide enhanced conditioning and deposition of benefit agents. [Renock, 0132] Thus, one would have been motivated by the expectation that the aforementioned modification would provide enhanced conditioning and deposition of benefit agents.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renock, as applied to claim 1, 3, 7-10, 12, and 14 above, and further in view of Song (US 2019/0105245 A1, Published 4/11/2019).
With respect to claim 1, Renock discloses the teachings above.
Renock further discloses the composition is a personal care composition. [0001]
Renock does not disclose the composition has a % T value of greater than 80.
However, with respect to claim 2, Song discloses that shampoo compositions that have a % T value of greater than 80, rendering them clear or translucent, and can be dispensed from an aerosol or mechanical foamer are preferred by consumers. [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.
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 and 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. Thus, the combined teachings of Renock and Song suggest 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. In the instant case, Renock discloses the composition may be dispensed from an aerosol foam dispenser. [Renock, 0197, 0202] Song discloses that compositions that have a % T value of greater than 80, rendering them clear or translucent, and can be dispensed from an aerosol or mechanical foamer are preferred by consumers. [Song, 0202] Therefore, one would have been motivated by the expectation that the aforementioned modification would result in a composition that can be dispensed from an aerosol or mechanical foamer and is clear or translucent, and thus preferrable to consumers.
Claims 1, 3, 7-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Renock, as applied to claim 1, 3, 7-10, 12, and 14 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 enable the formation of a lyotropic liquid crystal coacervate that is deposited on the hair because the composition disclosed by Renock comprises polyquaternium-6 and anionic detersives, which 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. Thus, the combined teachings of Renock and Cafasso suggest the method disclosed by Cafasso may be used to cleanse hair using 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. In the instant 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, much like the natural F-layer protects the hair. 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. Thus, 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/14/2025, with respect to the rejections of all claims under 35 U.S.C 102 (a)(1) and/or 102 (a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Applicant’s argument essentially states that the references do not teach the claim limitations as amended or are not available as prior art based on the 102(b)(2)(C) exception. [Remarks 11/14/2025, Page 6-7] Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the references cited above.
Oath/Declaration
The declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 11/14/2025 is sufficient to overcome the rejection of claim 1-3 and 14 over Brown (‘065 and ‘066) based upon 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). Applicant essentially states that Brown (‘065 and ‘066) is not available as prior art under 102(a)(2) based on the 102(b)(2)(C) exception. This argument is persuasive and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
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