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 .
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.
Claim Status
Applicant’s preliminary amendment of 03/29/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 1 and 3-8 are amended, and claims 9-15 are new. Claims 1-15 are currently pending.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/JP2021/035747 filed on 09/29/2021 and claims foreign priority to JP2020-164645 filed on 09/30/2020 as reflected in the filing receipt dated on 08/24/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 03/29/2023, 03/14/2024, 12/23/2024, 04/11/2025, and 04/18/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on 08/04/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the Office has failed to meet the burden necessary in order to sustain the requirement for restriction.
Specifically, Applicant argues that (1) the Examiner has not provided any indication that the content of the claims were interpreted in light of the description was considered in making the assertion of a lack of unity and therefore has not met the burden necessary to support the assertion, (2) there is a technical relationship between Groups I-III that involves the same special technical feature, and (3) search of all the claims would not impose a serious burden on the Office. This is not found persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments regarding unity of invention and a special technical feature: While Applicant does not specifically point out the Examiner’s supposed error in interpreting the claims or how the Office has failed to show that groups I-III do not share a special technical feature, these arguments are not found persuasive. As noted by Applicant, unity of invention only exists wherein there is a technical relationship among the claimed inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features, wherein ‘special technical features’ are those technical features that define a contribution which each of the inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. As discussed in the Office action dated 06/09/2025 in view of Yoshikawa et al. (CN104603251A; 05/16/2015; IDS of 04/11/2025) and in further detail in the prior art rejections below in view of Doi et al. (US20140076344A1; published: 03/20/2014; PTO-892 of instant action), the technical feature of a hair cleansing composition comprising: (A) an internal olefin sulfonic acids having 16 carbon atoms or salt thereof, obtained by sulfonation of a raw material olefin having 16 carbon atoms and having an average double bond position of 3.9-postion or more and 4.5-position or less; and (B) an anionic surfactant other than component (A), wherein a mass ratio of a content of the component (A) to a content of the component (B), (A)/(B), is 0.01 or more and 100 or less does not make a contribution over the prior art and, therefore, is not a special technical feature. Thus, Groups I-III lack unity of invention.
In response to Applicant’s argument that the Office has failed to show that the search and examination of all pending claims would constitute a serious burden, this argument is not found persuasive. In national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371, a showing of lack of unity under 37 CFR §1.475 is required for proper restriction of claims, and such a showing has been made. See MPEP 1893.03(d). There is no requirement that the Examiner must show that the search and examination of all pending claims would constitute a serious burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application. Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 08/04/2025. Accordingly, claims 1-13 are being examined on the merits herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein a mass ratio of a content of the component (A) to a content of the component (B), (A)/(B), is…”. The use of the article “a” when referring to the mass ratio and the content of each component makes it unclear whether (1) more than a mass ratio and more than one concentration of each component is present within the hair cleansing composition or (2) only one mass ratio and one concentration of each component is present. If the intended interpretation is the latter, which the Examiner is using for the purposes of compact prosecution in the prior art rejections below, the Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “wherein the mass ratio of the component (A) to the component (B), (A)/(B), is...”. Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, as they fail to resolve the ambiguity in question.
Claims 1 and 11 recite the limitation “mass ratio…(A)/(B)…” followed by the recitation of a range comprising singular values rather than a range comprising defined ratios of (A)/(B). The claim is indefinite because it does not define exactly what concentrations of component (A) relative to component (B) are permitted. For example, from 1/100 to 100/1. Claims 2-13 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1, as they fail to resolve the ambiguity in question.
Claims 3-5, 10, and 12 recite the limitation “a content of an internal olefin sulfonic acid…” The use of the article “a” when referring to the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid makes it unclear whether (1) more than one concentration of internal olefin sulfonic acid having a sulfonate group at the designated position is present within the component (A) or (2) only one concentration internal olefin sulfonic acid having a sulfonate group at the designated position is present in the component (A). If the intended interpretation is the latter, which the Examiner is using for the purposes of compact prosecution in the prior art rejections below, the Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “wherein the content of the internal olefin sulfonic acid…”.
Claims 6 and 8 recite the limitation “a content of the component…based on a total mass of the composition”. The use of the article “a” when referring to the content of component and the total mass makes it unclear whether (1) more than one concentration of the component is present within the hair cleansing composition and more than one variation of what Applicant considers “total mass” is possible to obtain or (2) only one concentration of the component is present and only one total mass is obtained. If the intended interpretation is the latter, which the Examiner is using for the purposes of compact prosecution in the prior art rejections below, the Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “wherein the concentration of the component…based on the total mass of the composition”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “a mass ratio of a content of a hydroxy form…to a content of an olefin form…”. The use of the article “a” when referring to the mass ratio and the content of each form of the internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof makes it unclear whether (1) more than mass ratio and more than one concentration of each form is present within the component (A) or (2) only one mass ratio and one concentration of each form is present within the component (A). If the intended interpretation is the latter, which the Examiner is using for the purposes of compact prosecution in the prior art rejections below, the Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “wherein the mass ratio of a hydroxy form…to an olefin form...”.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “wherein an average double bond position…”. Because claim 9 depends from claim 1, which already recites “an average double bond position”, the use of the article “an” when referring to the average double bond position makes it unclear whether (1) more than one average double bond position is obtainable in the raw material olefin or (2) the recitation is intended to be a narrower limitation of the average double bond position recited in claim 1. If the intended interpretation is the latter, which the Examiner is using for the purposes of compact prosecution in the prior art rejections below, the Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “wherein the average double bond position…”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “in which a mass ratio of the content of the component (A) to a total amount of the internal olefin sulfonic acids or salts thereof, (A)/(total amount of internal olefin sulfonic acids or salts thereof), is…”. The use of the article “a” when referring to the mass ratio and the total amount of internal olefin sulfonic acids or salts thereof makes it unclear whether (1) more than mass ratio is present within the hair cleansing composition and more than one variation of what Applicant considers “total amount of internal olefinic sulfonic acid or salts thereof” is possible to obtain or (2) only one mass ratio is present and one only one total amount of internal olefinic sulfonic acid or salts thereof is obtained. If the intended interpretation is the latter, which the Examiner is using for the purposes of compact prosecution in the prior art rejections below, the Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “in which the mass ratio of the component (A) to the total amount of the internal olefin sulfonic acids or salts thereof, (A)/(total amount of internal olefinic sulfonic acids or salts thereof), is…”.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “mass ratio…(A)/(total amount of internal olefinic sulfonic acids or salts thereof), is…” followed by the recitation of a range comprising singular values rather than a range comprising defined ratios of (A)/(total amount of internal olefin sulfonic acids or salts thereof). The claim is indefinite because it does not define exactly what concentrations of component (A) relative to the total amount of the internal olefin sulfonic acids or salts thereof are permitted. For example, from 95/100 to 100/1.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doi et al. (US20140076344A1; published: 03/20/2014; PTO-892 of instant action).
Doi teaches a cleansing composition for skin or hair comprising: (A) an internal olefin sulfonate having 12 or more and 24 or less carbon atoms; and (B) an anionic surfactant (Claim 1). The component (B) is preferably an anionic surfactant having one carboxylic acid group or an anionic surfactant having a sulfonic acid group (Paragraph 0047).
In at least 7 exemplary embodiments (Page 13, Table 3, Examples 13-19), a cleansing composition for hair comprises: 4.8% internal olefin sulfonate (3) and 1.2% internal olefin sulfonate (4); wherein “%” means “% by mass” (Paragraph 0110).
Doi teaches that internal olefin sulfonate (3), which corresponds to Production Example 3 (Paragraph 0134 and Table 1), is a sodium internal olefin sulfonic acid having 16 carbon atoms obtained by sulfonation of a raw material olefin having 16 carbons and a the following double bond distribution: C-1 position, 0.5% by mass; C-2 position, 16.5% by mass; C-3 position, 15.4% by mass; C-4 position, 16.4% by mass; C-5 position, 17 .2% by mass; C-6 position, 14.2% by mass; and C-7 and 8 positions, 19.8% by mass in total (Paragraph 0126, Production Example B). Such distribution results in an average double bond position of approximately 4.55 to 4.75 (calculated by Examiner), depending on the actual distribution of the double bonds at the C-7 and 8 positions. Internal olefin sulfonate (3) meets all limitations of the component (A) recited in instant claim 1, except that its average double bond position closely approaches rather than overlaps the instantly claimed range.
Doi teaches that internal olefin sulfonate (4), which corresponds to Production Example 4 (Paragraph 0135 and Table 1), is a sodium internal olefin sulfonic acid having 18 carbon atoms obtained by sulfonation of a raw material olefin having 18 carbons (Paragraph 0125, Production Example A). Because internal olefin sulfonate (4) is an anionic surfactant other than component (A), it reads on the component (B) recited in instant claims 1, 2, and 13.
The mass ratio of internal olefin sulfonate (3) to internal olefin sulfonate (4) is 4, which lies within and thus renders obvious the ratio recited in instant claims 1 and 11.
Regarding instant claim 6, the amount of internal sulfonate (3) in Examples 13-19 lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range.
Regarding instant claim 7, the mass ratio of hydroxy form to olefin form of internal olefin sulfonate is 80/20 (Page 12, Table 1, Production Example 3), which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range.
Regarding instant claim 8, the amount of internal olefin sulfonate (4) in Examples 13-19 lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range.
Regarding instant claim 12, Doi teaches that the content of an internal olefin sulfonate in which the sulfonate group is present at the C-1 position in the component (A)—in this case internal olefin sulfonate (3)—is preferably 3.0% by mass or less, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range.
However, Doi does not expressly teach that internal olefin sulfonate (3) has an average double bond position within the ranges recited in instant claims 1 and 9, the content of internal olefin sulfonate (3) having sulfonate groups at the specific positions recited in instant claims 3-5 and 10, or the mass ratio of internal olefin sulfonate (3) to a total amount of the internal olefin sulfonic acids or salts thereof recited in instant claim 13.
Regarding the average double bond position recited in instant claims 1 and 9, Doi teaches that from the viewpoint of foamability, it is preferable that the content of an internal olefin sulfonate in which the sulfonate group is present at the C-2 position of the carbon chain is low, while the content of an internal olefin sulfonate in which the sulfonate group is present further inside is high in the component (A) (Paragraph 0027). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Doi (for example, any of Examples 13-19) by adjusting the content of raw material olefin having a double bond at more internal positions in order to optimize the desired chemical behavior and properties of the cleansing composition, such as foamability, as taught by Doi. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the hair washing composition of Doi as proposed because the reference teaches that it is preferable that the content of the internal olefin sulfonate in which the sulfonic acid group is located at a more internal position, such as those within the instantly claimed average bond position range, is higher. 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, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). NOTE: MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding instant claims 3-5 and 10, while Doi does not expressly disclose the content of internal olefin sulfonate (3) having sulfonate groups at the 1-position, the 2-position, the 3-position, or the 4-position, Doi teaches that the position at which the sulfonate group is present depends on the position of a double bond in the raw material internal olefin, and the content of an internal olefin sulfonate in which the sulfonate group is present at the C-2 position is roughly consistent with the content of the raw material internal olefin in which the double bond is present at the C-2 position (Paragraph 0030). Based on the logic of Doi presented above and the double bond distribution of internal olefin sulfonate (3), one of ordinary skill in the art would determine that the content of an internal olefin sulfonic acid including a sulfonate group at a 1-position or more and a 4-position or less is approximately 48.8% by mass (calculated by Examiner), which lies within and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 3. The content of an internal olefin sulfonic acid including a sulfonate group at a 2-position is approximately 16.5% by mass, which lies within and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 4. The content of an internal olefin sulfonic acid including a sulfonate group at a 3-position is approximately 15.4% by mass, which lies within and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 5. The content of an internal olefin sulfonic acid including a sulfonate group at a 4-position is approximately 16.4% by mass, which lies within and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 10.
Regarding instant claim 13, the mass ratio of the internal olefin sulfonate (3) to the total amount of internal sulfonic acids in the composition of Doi is 0.8 (calculated by Examiner). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition of Doi by adjusting the content of internal olefin sulfonate (3) relative to the content of internal olefin sulfonate (4) through routine optimization, which would in turn affect the mass ratio of internal olefin sulfonate (3) to the total amount of internal sulfonic acids or salts thereof, in order to achieve a desired rinse feel, impart a desired combing property and softness to the hair, impart a refreshing feeling to the skin, and/or reduce irritation to skin, as taught by Doi (Paragraph 0062). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect success in modifying the composition of Doi as proposed because the reference teaches that any mass ratio of component (A) to component (B) within the range of 0.01 to 100 is suitable for achieving the above properties of the cleansing composition (Paragraph 0062). 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, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). NOTE: MPEP 2144.05.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/849,780 in view of Doi et al. (US20140076344A1; published: 03/20/2014; PTO-892 of instant action).
App. ‘780 claim 1 recites a hair cleansing composition comprising: (A) an internal olefin sulfonic acid having 16 carbon atoms or a salt thereof obtained by sulfonation of a raw material olefin having 16 carbon atoms and having an average double bond position of from the 3.9 position or more to the 4.4 position or less; and (B) one or more hydroxy group-containing compounds; wherein the mass ratio of a content of the component (B) to a content of the component (A) is from 0.005 to 0.45 or less. Component (A) reads on the same recited in instant claim 1, and the average double bond position overlaps and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 9. App. ‘780 claims 3 and 11 recite that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or a salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 1-position to the 4-position in the component (A) is from 40 mass% to 75 mass%, which reads on instant claim 3. App. ‘780 claims 4, 12, and 13 recite that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 2-position of the component (A) is from 10 mass% to 35 mass%, which reads on instant claim 4. App. ‘780 claims 5 and 14-16 recite that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 3-position in the component (A) is from 5 mass% to 30 mass%, which reads on instant claim 5. App. ‘780 claim 8 recites that the content of component (A) is from 0.01 mass% to 30 mass%, which reads on instant claim 6. App. ‘780 claims 2, 6, 9-10, and 17-20 recite limitations that are not excluded by the instant claim language.
The claims of App. ‘780 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘780 do not recite that the composition comprises an anionic surfactant other than the component (A) in the mass ratio recited in instant claim 1, or the further limitations of instant claims 2, 7, 8, and 10-13.
The teachings of Doi are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding instant claims 1, 2, and 11, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hair cleansing composition recited in the claims of App. ‘780 by further including the internal olefin sulfonate (4) of Doi as an anionic surfactant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add internal olefin sulfonate (4) such that the ratio of component (A) to internal olefin sulfonate (4) is 0.01 to 10, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed ranges, because Doi teaches that any ratio within this range is suitable for achieving a desired rinse feel, impart a desired combing property and softness to the hair, impart a refreshing feeling to the skin, and/or reduce irritation to skin (Doi, Paragraph 0062).
Regarding instant claim 7, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hair cleansing composition taught by the combination of App. ‘780 claims and Doi by adjusting the mass ratio of the content of the hydroxy form of component (A) to the olefin form of component (A) within the range of 50/50 to 100/0, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, because Doi teaches that any ratio within this range is suitable for improving productivity and reducing impurities within the cleansing composition (Doi, Paragraph 0032).
Regarding instant claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hair cleansing composition taught by the combination of App. ‘780 claims and Doi by adjusting the content of internal olefin sulfonate (4) within the range of 0.01 mass% to 30 mass%, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, because Doi teaches that any amount within this range is suitable for improving combing property of the hair during rinsing, imparting the softness to the hair, and imparting a refreshing feeling to the skin (Doi, Paragraph 0061).
Regarding instant claim 10, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hair cleansing composition taught by the combination of App. ‘780 claims and Doi by adjusting the content of raw material olefin having a double bond at more internal positions, such as the 4-position, in order to optimize the desired chemical behavior and properties of the cleansing composition, such as foamability, as taught by Doi. Doi expressly encourages a high total content of an internal olefin in which the double bond is present further inside than the C-3 position (Doi, Paragraph 0039).
Regarding instant claim 12, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hair cleansing composition taught by the combination of App. ‘780 claims and Doi by adjusting the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid having a sulfonate group at the 1-position in the component (A) within the range of 2.5 mass% or less, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, because Doi teaches any content within this range improves lathering, foam quality, rinse feel, softness, and skin feel (Doi, Paragraph 0038).
Regarding instant claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the hair cleansing composition taught by the combination of App. ‘780 claims and Doi by adjusting the content of the component (A) relative to the content of internal olefin sulfonate (4) through routine optimization, which would in turn affect the mass ratio of the component (A) to the total amount of internal sulfonic acids or salts thereof, in order to achieve a desired rinse feel, impart a desired combing property and softness to the hair, impart a refreshing feeling to the skin, and/or reduce irritation to skin, as taught by Doi (Paragraph 0062). One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect success in modifying the composition of Doi as proposed because the reference teaches that any mass ratio of component (A) to component (B) within the range of 0.01 to 100 is suitable for achieving the above properties of the cleansing composition (Paragraph 0062). 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, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). NOTE: MPEP 2144.05.
One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect success in modifying the composition recited in the claims of App. ‘780 with the teachings of Doi as proposed because all components, concentrations, and parameters are known in the art to be useful in eliciting desired effects in compositions intended for cleansing the hair.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/849,628 in view of Doi et al. (US20140076344A1; published: 03/20/2014; PTO-892 of instant action).
App. ‘628 claim 1 recites a hair cleansing composition comprising: (A) an internal olefin sulfonic acid having 16 carbon atoms or a salt thereof obtained by sulfonation of a raw material olefin having 16 carbon atoms and having an average double bond position of from the 3.9 position or more to the 4.4 position or less; and (B) an organic acid; wherein the mass ratio of a content of the component (B) to a content of the component (A) is from 0.005 to 0.25 or less. Component (A) reads on the same recited in instant claim 1, and the average double bond position overlaps and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 9. App. ‘628 claims 3 and 10 recite that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or a salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 1-position to the 4-position in the component (A) is from 40 mass% to 75 mass%, which reads on instant claim 3. App. ‘628 claims 4, 11, and 12 recite that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 2-position of the component (A) is from 10 mass% to 35 mass%, which reads on instant claim 4. App. ‘628 claims 5 and 13-15 recite that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 3-position in the component (A) is from 5 mass% to 30 mass%, which reads on instant claim 5. App. ‘628 claims 7 and 20 recite that the mass ratio of the hydroxy form to the olefin form of the internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof in the component (A) is from 50/50 to 100/0, which reads on instant claim 7. App. ‘628 claim 8 recites that the content of component (A) is from 0.01 mass% to 30 mass%, which reads on instant claim 6. App. ‘628 claims 2, 6, 9, and 16-19 recite limitations that are not excluded by the instant claim language.
The claims of App. ‘628 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/849,780 in view of Doi et al. (US20140076344A1; published: 03/20/2014; PTO-892 of instant action), which is discussed in detail above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of copending Application No. 18/247,097 in view of Doi et al. (US20140076344A1; published: 03/20/2014; PTO-892 of instant action).
App. ‘097 claim 1 recites a hair cleansing composition comprising: (A) an internal olefin sulfonic acid having 16 carbon atoms or a salt thereof obtained by sulfonation of a raw material olefin having 16 carbon atoms and having an average double bond position of from the 3.9 position or more to the 4.5 position or less; and (B) a cationic polymer; wherein the mass ratio of a content of the component (A) to a content of the component (B) is 1 or more and 500 or less. Component (A) reads on the same recited in instant claim 1. App. ‘097 claim 2 recites that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or a salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 1-position to the 4-position in the component (A) is from 40 mass% to 75 mass%, which reads on instant claim 3. App. ‘097 claim 3 recites that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 2-position of the component (A) is from 10 mass% to 35 mass%, which reads on instant claim 4. App. ‘097 claim 4 recites that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 3-position in the component (A) is from 5 mass% to 30 mass%, which reads on instant claim 5. App. ‘097 claim 5 recites that the content of component (A) is from 0.01 mass% to 30 mass%, which reads on instant claim 6. App. ‘097 claim 6 recites that the mass ratio of the hydroxy form to the olefin form of the internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof in the component (A) is from 50/50 to 100/0, which reads on instant claim 7. App. ‘097 claim 9 recites that the average double bond position in the raw material olefin having 16 carbon atoms is 4.0-position to 4.4-position, which substantially overlaps and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 9. App. ‘097 claim 10 recites that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid including a sulfonate group at a 4-position or a salt thereof is 15 mass% or more and 30% mass or less in the component (A), which reads on instant claim 10. App. ‘097 claim 12 recites that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid including a sulfonate group at a 1-position or a salt thereof is less than 3.0 mass% in the component (A), which reads on instant claim 12. App. ‘097 claim 13 recites that the mass ratio of component (A) to a total amount of the internal olefin sulfonic acids or salts thereof is 0.95 or more, which reads on the same limitation of instant claim 13. App. ‘097 claims 8, 11, and 14-15 recite limitations that are not excluded by the instant claim language.
The claims of App. ‘097 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/849,780 in view of Doi et al. (US20140076344A1; published: 03/20/2014; PTO-892 of instant action), which is discussed in detail above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/247,098 in view of Doi et al. (US20140076344A1; published: 03/20/2014; PTO-892 of instant action).
App. ‘098 claim 1 recites a hair cleansing composition comprising: (A) an internal olefin sulfonic acid having 16 carbon atoms or a salt thereof obtained by sulfonation of a raw material olefin having 16 carbon atoms and having an average double bond position of from the 3.9 position or more to the 4.5 position or less; (B) an amphoteric surfactant; and (C) a nonionic surfactant; wherein the mass ratio of a content of the component (A) to a content of the component (B) is 1 or more and 50 or less. Component (A) reads on the same recited in instant claim 1. App. ‘098 claim 7 recites that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or a salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 1-position to the 4-position in the component (A) is from 40 mass% to 75 mass%, which reads on instant claim 3. App. ‘098 claim 8 recites that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 2-position of the component (A) is from 10 mass% to 35 mass%, which reads on instant claim 4. App. ‘098 claim 9 recites that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 3-position in the component (A) is from 5 mass% to 30 mass%, which reads on instant claim 5. App. ‘098 claim 10 recites that the content of component (A) is from 0.01 mass% to 30 mass%, which reads on instant claim 6. App. ‘098 claim 11 recites that the mass ratio of the hydroxy form to the olefin form of the internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof in the component (A) is from 50/50 to 100/0, which reads on instant claim 7. App. ‘098 claim 13 recites that the average double bond position in the raw material olefin having 16 carbon atoms is 4.0-position to 4.4-position, which substantially overlaps and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 9. App. ‘098 claim 14 recites that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid including a sulfonate group at a 4-position or a salt thereof is 15 mass% or more and 30% mass or less in the component (A), which reads on instant claim 10. App. ‘098 claim 16 recites that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid including a sulfonate group at a 1-position or a salt thereof is less than 3.0 mass% in the component (A), which reads on instant claim 12. App. ‘097 claim 17 recites that the mass ratio of component (A) to a total amount of the internal olefin sulfonic acids or salts thereof is 0.95 or more, which reads on the same limitation of instant claim 13. App. ‘098 claims 2-6, 12, 15, and 18-19 recite limitations that are not excluded by the instant claim language.
The claims of App. ‘098 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/849,780 in view of Doi et al. (US20140076344A1; published: 03/20/2014; PTO-892 of instant action), which is discussed in detail above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 18/849,656 in view of Doi et al. (US20140076344A1; published: 03/20/2014; PTO-892 of instant action).
App. ‘656 claim 1 recites a hair cleansing composition comprising: (A) 1 mass% to 8 mass% of an aromatic sulfonic acid or salt thereof; and (B) an internal olefin sulfonic acid having 16 carbon atoms or a salt thereof obtained by sulfonation of a raw material olefin having 16 carbon atoms and having an average double bond position of 3.9-position to 4.4-position. Component (B) reads on the component (A) recited in instant claim 1, the amount of component (B) lies within and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 6, and the average double bond position overlaps and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 9. App. ‘656 claim 3 recites that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or a salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 1-position to the 4-position in the component (B) is from 40 mass% to 75 mass%, which reads on instant claim 3. App. ‘656 claim 4 recites that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 2-position of the component (B) is from 10 mass% to 35 mass%, which reads on instant claim 4. App. ‘656 claim 5 recites that the content of internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof including a sulfonate group at the 3-position in the component (B) is from 5 mass% to 30 mass%, which reads on instant claim 5. App. ‘656 claim 6 recites that the mass ratio of the hydroxy form to the olefin form of the internal olefin sulfonic acid or salt thereof in the component (B) is from 50/50 to 100/0, which reads on instant claim 7. App. ‘656 claims 2 and 7 recite limitations that are not excluded by the instant claim language.
The claims of App. ‘656 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/849,780 in view of Doi et al. (US20140076344A1; published: 03/20/2014; PTO-892 of instant action), which is discussed in detail above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CLINKSCALES WISTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM ET, Friday 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/SARAH C WISTNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights