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 .
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride in the reply filed on November 17, 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the composition and the method claims are directed to a single inventive concept and can be examined together without imposing a distinct search or examination burden. This is not found persuasive because the common technical invention has been disclosed and suggested in the art, as supported by Wang (WO 2020113484). Therefore the inventive technical feature is not considered a “special” technical feature. The examiner has determined that the application does not comply with Rule 13 for reasons previously stated. Further, the examiner has not set forth any additional or different requirements, just Rule 13. Further, burden consists not only of specific searching intended use or specific method, but also of searching multiple databases for foreign references and literature searches. Burden also resides in the examination of independent claim set for clarity, enablement and double patenting issues. Further, a reference that would anticipate the invention of one group would not necessarily anticipate or even make obvious another group. Finally, the consideration for patentability is different in each case. Thus, it would be an undue burden to examine all of the above inventions in one application and the restriction for examination purposes as indicated above is deemed proper.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 36-38 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 November 17, 2025.
Claims
Claim Objections
Claims 19-35 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 19 recites “vi)” following “iii)”. “vi” should read “iv”, which follows “iii” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 - Anticipation
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 19-26, 31-32 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Scheele et al. (US 20210007954).
Scheele et al. disclose a solid hair cosmetic composition comprising at least one polyhydric alcohol, from about 15 to about 50% by weight of at least one surfactant and at least one polysaccharide (Abstract). The surfactants include anionic, amphoteric, zwitterion and nonionic surfactants, and may be used in mixtures (paragraph 0124). The solid hair cosmetic composition preferably comprises at least one anionic surfactant (paragraph 0125) (meeting instant claim 19 i)). Suitable anionic surfactants include acylsarcosides having about 8 to about 24 C atoms in the acyl group (sarcosinate surfactants) (paragraph 0130); acyltaurides having from about 8 to about 24 C atoms in the acyl group (taurate surfactants) (paragraph 0131); and acyl isethionates having from about 8 to about 24 C atoms in the acyl group (isethionate surfactants) (paragraph 0132) (meeting instant claims 20-21). In one embodiment, the composition comprises from about 10 to about 40% by weight of at least one anionic isethionate surfactant and from about 1.0 to about 10% by weight of at least one anionic taurate surfactant (paragraph 0152) (meeting instant claim 22). Preferred amphoteric surfactants include cocoamidopropyl betaine (an alkyl betaine), which are known and commercially available amphoteric surfactants. Amphoteric surfactants are included in an amount ranging from about 0.75 to about 5% (paragraph 0157-0160). The composition may further comprise from about 0.01 to about 5.00% by weight of at least one cationic polymer, wherein the cationic polymer is preferably at least one cationic polysaccharide polymer obtainable from guar, cassia and/or inulin (meeting instant claim 34-35). The solid hair cosmetic composition comprises, in an amount from about 0.1 to about 20.0% by weight, of at least one polysaccharide (meeting polymeric organic filler of instant claims 31-32). The polysaccharide includes starch and/or modified starch and/or dextrins. The composition comprises up to about 25% water (meeting less than 5% by weight of instant claim 19).
An example comprises 11.15% mixture of sodium methyl cocoyl taurate (anionic surfactant), coconut acid, sodium chloride and water; 0.25% water (meeting less than 5%); 41% glycerin; 2% citric acid (instant claims 19 ii) and 23); 2% sodium lauroyl methyl isethionates and sodium methyl isethionates (anionic surfactants); 1% maltodextrin (a starch that would meet organic filler); 25.5% sodium cocoyl isethionate (anionic surfactant and at least 15% by weight); 5% corn starch (organic filler); hydroxypropyl trimonium inulin (cationic polymer); and 1% sodium bicarbonate (instant claims 19 iii) and 24-26). The amount of citric acid and sodium bicarbonate meet the limitations of the total amount of citric acid and bicarbonate ranges from 1 to 30%.
Therefore Scheele et al. anticipate the instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Obviousness
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
1) Claims 19-26 and 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scheele et al. (US 20210007954).
Scheele et al. disclose a solid hair cosmetic composition comprising at least one polyhydric alcohol, from about 15 to about 50% by weight of at least one surfactant and at least one polysaccharide (Abstract). The surfactants include anionic, amphoteric, zwitterion and nonionic surfactants, and may be used in mixtures (paragraph 0124). The solid hair cosmetic composition preferably comprises at least one anionic surfactant (paragraph 0125) (meeting instant claim 19 i)). Suitable anionic surfactants include acylsarcosides having about 8 to about 24 C atoms in the acyl group (sarcosinate surfactants) (paragraph 0130); acyltaurides having from about 8 to about 24 C atoms in the acyl group (taurate surfactants) (paragraph 0131); and acyl isethionates having from about 8 to about 24 C atoms in the acyl group (isethionate surfactants) (paragraph 0132) (meeting instant claims 20-21). In one embodiment, the composition comprises from about 10 to about 40% by weight of at least one anionic isethionate surfactant and from about 1.0 to about 10% by weight of at least one anionic taurate surfactant (paragraph 0152) (meeting instant claim 22). Preferred amphoteric surfactants include cocoamidopropyl betaine (an alkyl betaine of instant claim 29), which are known and commercially available amphoteric surfactants. Amphoteric surfactants are included in an amount ranging from about 0.75 to about 5% (paragraph 0157-0160) (meeting instant claims 28-30). The composition may further comprise from about 0.01 to about 5.00% by weight of at least one cationic polymer, wherein the cationic polymer is preferably at least one cationic polysaccharide polymer obtainable from guar, cassia and/or inulin (meeting instant claim 34-35). The solid hair cosmetic composition comprises, in an amount from about 0.1 to about 20.0% by weight, of at least one polysaccharide (meeting polymeric organic filler of instant claims 31-33). The polysaccharide includes starch and/or modified starch and/or dextrins. The composition comprises up to about 25% water (meeting less than 5% by weight of instant claim 19).
An example comprises 11.15% mixture of sodium methyl cocoyl taurate (anionic surfactant), coconut acid, sodium chloride and water; 0.25% water (meeting less than 5%); 41% glycerin; 2% citric acid (instant claims 19 ii) and 23); 2% sodium lauroyl methyl isethionates and sodium methyl isethionates (anionic surfactants); 1% maltodextrin (a starch that would meet organic filler); 25.5% sodium cocoyl isethionate (anionic surfactant and at least 15% by weight); 5% corn starch (organic filler); hydroxypropyl trimonium inulin (cationic polymer); and 1% sodium bicarbonate(instant claims 19 iii) and 24-26). The amount of citric acid and sodium bicarbonate meet the limitations of the total amount of citric acid and bicarbonate ranges from 1 to 30%.
It is believed that Scheele et al. anticipate instant claims 19-26, 31-32 and 34-35 as discussed above. However, purely arguendo and for the purposes of this rejection, Scheele et al. differ from the instant claims insofar as they do not specifically disclose less than 5% water.
However, Scheele discloses up to 25% water, which encompasses less than 5% water. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I. Since less than 5% lies inside of up to 25, the range of less than 5% is obvious over Scheele.
In regards to claims 28-30, Scheele et al. disclose using amphoteric surfactants in the composition in an amount ranging from about 0.75 to about 5% by weight. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the instant application to have added an amphoteric surfactant in an amount ranging from 1 to 5% because it is suggested by Scheele et al.
In regards to the amount of amphoteric surfactant, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05, I. The amount recited by the instant claim 1% to 30% overlap the amount disclosed by Scheele et al. of 0.75% to 5%. Therefore, the range is obvious over the range of Scheele et al.
In regards to claim 33, Scheele et al. disclose a polysaccharide may be used in an amount of 20% and the claims recites 20 or greater. Therefore it would have been obvious to have used a polysaccharide in an amount of 20% because it is specifically suggested and disclosed by Scheele et al.
2) Claims 19-29 and 31-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (WO 2020113484, already of record).
Wang discloses a solid cosmetic composition in the form of a tablet or powder comprising at least one solid anionic surfactant (meeting i)), an effervescent system developing gas and a disintegration system. The composition can be used as a cleansing composition for hair and skin (Abstract). The anionic surfactant is chosen from an alkyl sulfate, an alkyl ether carboxylate, an isethionate, an alkyl sulfosuccinate, an alkyl ether sulfate, an alkyl sulfonate, and/or an amino acid based surfactant. A specific sarcosinate is sodium lauroyl sarcosinate and sodium cocoyl sarcosinate meeting acyl sarcosinates (instant claim 21). The anionic surfactant comprises 10% to 30% by weight of the total composition (page 5, lines 6-10). The effervescent system comprises an organic acid, specifically citric acid and sodium bicarbonate and/or carbonate. The organic acid comprises 20 to 45% by weight of the total composition. The sodium bicarbonate and/or carbonate comprises 20 to 45% by weight of the total composition. One or more natural based cationic polymer (s) are contained in an amount of 0.1 to 10.0 %by weight or the total composition. Examples of such polymers are starch, cellulose, or guar molecules (a polysaccharide of instant claim 34(2)). Additionally, further surfactants may be contained, with the proviso that they are available as solids. Suitable examples are surfactants based on the structure of betaine, for example cocoamidopropyl betaine, or surfactants based on one or more glucose residues and an n-alkyl residue, also called alkyl poly glucosides (instant claims 28-29). At least one polymer may be used and includes polyvinylpyrrolidone and vinylpyrrolidone/vinyl acetate copolymers. There is no addition of water to the composition of the present invention; however there may be small amounts of water in the composition of the present invention coming from the raw materials used, which may comprise small amounts of water. The compositions of the invention contain less than 10 %by weight, preferably less than 3 %by weight water, in relation to the total weight of the composition.
An example comprises 16% disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate (instant claims 19 i) and 20-22), 4% guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride (cationic polymer, instant claims 19 vi) and 34-35), 8.5% hydroxypropyl starch phosphate (organic filler, instant claims 31-32), 28% citric acid (instant claims 19 ii and 23), 35% sodium bicarbonate (instant claims iii) 24-25 and 27), and 8.5% sodium carboxymethyl starch (organic filler, instant claims 31-32).
Wang differs from the instant claims insofar as they do not disclose the amount of total of citric acid and bicarbonate ranges from 1 to 30% and 1 to 10% by weight of the total composition.
However, citric acid and bicarbonate form an effervescent system. In general, an effervescent system develops gas, carbon dioxide. Therefore, the effervescent system contains a component generating carbon dioxide and an acid, both reacting with each other in an aqueous phase. In the disclosed invention the carbon dioxide generating component is sodium bicarbonate. This makes the effervescent system a result effective variable. It would have taken no more than the relative skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the amount of citric acid and sodium bicarbonate to range 1 to 30% by weight motivated by the desire to obtain the desired amount of carbon dioxide release. See MPEP 2144.05.
The examples disclose sodium bicarbonate in a higher amount than the citric acid, thereby meeting instant claim 27, which recites a ratio of 1:1 or greater.
In regards to instant claim 33, the amount of starch fillers used in the example was 17%. However, the starch fillers may be used in an amount ranging from 0 to 25% and 9.5 to 20%. Therefore it would have been obvious to incorporate the starch fillers in the compositions in an amount of 20% or greater because 20% is specifically disclosed by Wang.
Claims 19-35 are rejected.
Claims 19-35 are objected.
Claims 36-38 are withdrawn.
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEZAH ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-1071. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-7:30.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/LEZAH ROBERTS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612