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 .
Applicants' arguments, filed May 16, 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Obviousness (New Rejection)
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.
Claims 19-27 and 29-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (WO 2020113484, already of record) in view of Scheele et al. (US 20210007954).
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 claim 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 claim 19) and 20-22), 4% guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride (cationic polymer, instant claim 19) and 34-35), 8.5% hydroxypropyl starch phosphate (organic filler, instant claims 31-32), 28% citric acid (instant claims 19 and 23), 35% sodium bicarbonate (instant claims 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 or the amount of a secondary surfactant amount.
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 29-30).
Wang et al. disclose additional surfactants may be added to the composition in addition to the anionic surfactant. These include cocoamidopropyl betaine. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing the instant application to have added 0.75 to about 5% of an amphoteric surfactant, such as cocoamidopropyl betaine, to the composition of Wang et al. because it is a suitable amount of surfactant when using in addition to a primary surfactant in a hair care tablet.
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. The amount of the combination in Wang et al. may comprise more than 35%. However, 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 claims, 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.
Conclusion
Claims 19-27 and 29-35 are rejected.
Claims 36-38 are withdrawn.
No claims allowed.
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 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
Prosecution Insights