DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed December 29, 2025, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (New, Necessitated by Amendment)
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 18-19 and 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being as being obvious over Segalen-Guiraud et al. (FR 3068243 A1 with a foreign translation provided by US 2021/0137800 A1) in view of Streuli et al. (WO 2019/191747 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Segalen-Guiraud discloses an anhydrous (the water content is less than 5% by weight, [0040]), solid composition comprising an isethionic acid derivative (sodium cocoyl isethionate), a glutamic acid derivative (sodium lauroyl glutamate), an amphoteric surfactant and fillers [Abstract] [0068] [0076] [0303]-[0314]. The composition is used for cleansing hair [0001] [0026].
Segalen-Guiraud does not disclose at least one cationic polysaccharide, such as cationic galactomannan gums in an amount of 0.1 to 2% by weight.
Streuli discloses a composition for the hair with a cationic galactomannan gum (e.g., guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride) in an amount of 0.1 to 2% by weight [abstract] [0013] [0040] [pg. 16-21]. Streuli teaches that the cationic galactomannan polymer provides rheological properties to a composition and desirable properties to hair [0003], acts as a conditioning polymer or thickening agent in treatment delivery to hair [0008], and increases foam enhancement, stiffness, humidity resistance, durability of hold, low slip, and curl maintenance in a composition for hair [0012] [pg. 16-24].
Since Segalen-Guiraud generally teaches a composition for the hair, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a cationic galactomannan gum, in an amount of 0.1 to 2% by weight, within the teachings of Segalen-Guiraud, because Streuli teaches this amount of cationic galactomannan gum in a composition for the hair. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use a cationic galactomannan gum, because Streuli teaches that the cationic galactomannan polymer provides rheological properties to a composition and desirable properties to hair [0003], acts as a conditioning polymer or thickening agent in treatment delivery to hair [0008], and increases foam enhancement, stiffness, humidity resistance, durability of hold, low slip, and curl maintenance in a composition for hair [0012] [pg. 16-24].
In regards to the amounts of the components, 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 A.
Claims 19 and 21 are rendered prima facie obvious because Segalen-Guiraud discloses the isethionic acid derivative, sodium cocoyl isethionate [0068] [0303]-[0314].
Claim 22 is rendered prima facie obvious because Segalen-Guiraud discloses the isethionic acid derivative, such as sodium cocoyl isethionate, is present in an amount of 1-60 wt.% relative to the total weight of the composition [0068]-[0069]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claims 23-24 are rendered prima facie obvious because Segalen-Guiraud discloses the glutamic acid derivative, sodium lauroyl glutamate [0076] [0303]-[0314].
Claim 25 is rendered prima facie obvious because Segalen-Guiraud discloses the glutamic acid derivative, such as sodium lauroyl glutamate, is present in an amount of 1-60 wt.% relative to the total weight of the composition [0076] [0080]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Claim 26 is rendered prima facie obvious because Segalen-Guiraud discloses the glutamic acid derivative, such as sodium lauroyl glutamate, is present in an amount of 1-60 wt.% relative to the total weight of the composition [0076] [0080] and the isethionic acid derivative, such as sodium cocoyl isethionate, is present in an amount of 1-60 wt.% relative to the total weight of the composition [0068]-[0069]. 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. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). In this case, the general conditions of the amount of sodium lauroyl glutamate and sodium cocoyl isethionate have been taught by the prior art; as such, it would not have been inventive for the skilled artisan to have discovered the optimum ratio via routine experimentation.
Claim 27 is rendered prima facie obvious because Segalen-Guiraud discloses amphoteric surfactants such as alkyl (C8-C22) betaines [0132].
Claims 28-29 are rendered prima facie obvious because Segalen-Guiraud discloses the polymeric, organic fillers, starches [0210]-[0227].
Claims 30 and 31 are rendered prima facie obvious because Segalen-Guiraud discloses the filler is present in an amount of 20-80 wt.% [0207]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection (Segalen-Guiraud in view of Streuli) does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, but will be addressed insofar as they apply to the new ground of rejection.
Applicant argues at pg. 10 that in the present application, compositions that contain a cationic galactomannan gum or a cationic cellulose within the claimed concentration range exhibit improved foam characteristics and hair performance when compared to compositions that differ only by the absence of the cationic polysaccharide. The Examiner is directed to Example 4 which the applicant states “shows that a composition containing a cationic galactomannan gum produces foam that is more abundant, creamier, and more stable and also results in improved hair suppleness, relative to a composition lacking the cationic polysaccharide”.
The Examiner has fully reviewed and considered Example 4 of the as filed specification. The inventive composition includes 10.2 wt.% sodium cocoyl isethionate, 23 wt.% sodium lauroyl glutamate, 10 wt.% cocamidopropyl betaine, 0.6 wt.% hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride, 5 wt.% magnesium stearate, 3.75 wt.% sodium bicarbonate, 1.25 wt.% citric acid, 1.8 wt.% sodium chloride, 3.5 wt.% fragrance, with the remaining being corn starch. This is compared to a composition with the components in the same amounts expect additional corn starch and lacking the hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride. The results show that the inventive composition (with 0.6 wt.% hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride) generates a better foam, is more abundant, creamier, and presents a better hold than the foam obtained with the comparative composition (pg. 58).
However, these results do not appear to be unexpected over the prior art.
Streuli discloses compositions for the hair with the cationic galactomannan gum, guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride, in an amount of 0.1 to 2% by weight [abstract] [0013] [0040] [pg. 16-21]. Streuli teaches that the compositions with the catatonically modified galactomannan have enhanced curl formation and maintenance, durability of hold, and improvements in foam bloom and stabilization [0008] [0014] [0020]-[0021] [0057] [pg. 16-24]. Cationically modified galactomannans are also known to act as conditioning polymers and thickening agents [0003] [0008]. Therefore, the beneficial properties of cationic galactomannan gum for foaming enhancement, better hold, and as a conditioning and thickening agent are known in the art, i.e., one could reasonably infer that the results proffered do not appear to be “unexpected” given the prior art teachings.
Finally, assuming purely arguendo that unexpected results have been established, (the Examiner does not believe at this time that they have), the claims would still not be “commensurate in scope” with the showing. See MPEP § 716.02(d). The Applicant has allegedly demonstrated “improved” foaming, creaminess, and hold, but even if this is so then it would only have been shown for with the specific combination and amounts of particular components (i.e., the specific surfactants and hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride as the cationic polysaccharide). It is unclear that a comparative composition containing these specific components and in these specific percentages would be reasonably representative of compositions containing other surfactants, fillers, and polysaccharides etc. and in differing amounts, falling within the broader scope currently claimed.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 12/29/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18/255,651, 18/255,662, and 18/255,656 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ashlee E Wertz whose telephone number is (571)270-7663. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 5 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, 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.
/ASHLEE E WERTZ/Examiner , Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612