DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed August 17, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (Maintained)
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 21-27 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 anhydrous (the water content is less than 5% by weight, [0040]), solid compositions comprising an isethionic acid derivative (sodium cocoyl isethionate), a glutamic acid derivative (sodium lauroyl glutamate), an amphoteric surfactant and fillers, such as starch [Abstract] [0068] [0076] [0210]-[0227] [0303]-[0314]. The compositions are in the form of a powder [0032] and used for cleansing hair [0001] [0026]. 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]. 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]. The amphoteric surfactant is present in an amount of between 0.5 % and 40 % by weight of the composition [0134]. The fillers, such as starch, are present in an amount of 20-80 wt.% [0207] [0210]-[0227].
Segalen-Guiraud does not disclose at least one cationic guar gums in an amount of 0.1 to 2% by weight.
Streuli discloses compositions for the hair with a cationic galactomannan polymer (“cationically modified polygalactomannans derived from guar gum are particularly useful” [0040]; guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is used in the working examples [pg. 16-21]) 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]. Streuli teaches that the composition can be formulated in various deliverable forms, such as a solid [0056].
Since Segalen-Guiraud generally teaches compositions for the hair, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a cationic guar gum in an amount of 0.1 to 2% by weight, within the teachings of Segalen-Guiraud, because Streuli teaches this amount of cationic guar gum (such as guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride) in compositions for the hair. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use a cationic guar gum, because Streuli teaches that the cationic galactomannan polymers provide rheological properties to a composition and desirable properties to hair [0003], act as a conditioning polymer or thickening agent in treatment delivery to hair [0008], and increase foam enhancement, stiffness, humidity resistance, durability of hold, low slip, and curl maintenance in a composition for hair [0012] [pg. 16-24].
Regarding 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]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed. Furthermore, 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].
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues at pg. 8-10 that Streuli places its cationic guar gum in aqueous compositions, and therefore, does not disclose or suggest the ingredient in a composition in which “the total amount of water in the solid composition ranges from 0-5% by weight relative to the total weight of the solid composition” and that while Streuli states that the composition may take the form of a solid stick, that statement does not signify a composition where the water content is 0-5% by weight.
The Examiner disagrees. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Segalen-Guiraud discloses anhydrous (the water content is less than 5% by weight, [0040]), solid compositions that are used for cleansing hair [0001] [0026]. Streuli discloses compositions for the hair with a cationic guar gum [abstract] [0013] [0040] [pg. 16-21] and teaches its benefits in hair compositions. One would be motivated to include the cationic guar gum in the compositions for the hair taught by Segalen-Guiraud as discussed above.
Applicant argues at pg. 9 that the standard for obvious is not that a cited reference must include teachings that forbid/hinder the use of a proposed combination of components before applicant can establish that the proposed combination lacks motivation for someone of skill in the art to implement and, therefore, there is not motivation to combine the references.
The Examiner disagrees because the applicant has not established that the proposed combination lacks motivation for someone of skill in the art to implement. The Examiner has established a clear motivation for the inclusion of a cationic guar gum, as taught by Streuli, in the teachings of Segalen-Guiraud. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use a cationic guar gum because Streuli teaches that cationic galactomannan polymers (such as guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride) provide rheological properties to a composition and desirable properties to hair [0003], act as a conditioning polymer or thickening agent in treatment delivery to hair [0008], and increase foam enhancement, stiffness, humidity resistance, durability of hold, low slip, and curl maintenance in a composition for hair [0012] [pg. 16-24].
Claims 18-19 and 21-27 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 Wang (WO 2020/113484 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Segalen-Guiraud discloses anhydrous (the water content is less than 5% by weight, [0040]), solid compositions comprising an isethionic acid derivative (sodium cocoyl isethionate), a glutamic acid derivative (sodium lauroyl glutamate), an amphoteric surfactant and fillers, such as starch [Abstract] [0068] [0076] [0210]-[0227] [0303]-[0314]. The compositions are in the form of a powder [0032] and used for cleansing hair [0001] [0026]. 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]. 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]. The amphoteric surfactant is present in an amount of between 0.5 % and 40 % by weight of the composition [0134]. The fillers, such as starch, are present in an amount of 20-80 wt.% [0207] [0210]-[0227].
Segalen-Guiraud does not disclose at least one cationic guar gum in an amount of 0.1 to 2% by weight.
Wang discloses solid compositions in the form of a powder for the hair (abstract; pg. 11-14) with a natural cationic polymer (guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride is disclosed at pg. 8, paragraph 2 and is used in the working examples, pg. 11-14). The natural cationic polymer is disclosed in an amount of 0.1 to 10% by weight of the composition (pg. 7, paragraph 6- pg. 8, paragraph 2). The amount of water in the compositions is preferably less than 3 wt.% (Claim 3). Wang teaches that the natural cationic polymer (such as guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride) acts as a conditioning agent in the composition to improve the combability, structure, and shine of hair (pg. 7, paragraph 6).
Since Segalen-Guiraud generally teaches solid compositions for the hair, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include a cationic guar gum in an amount of 0.1 to 10% by weight, within the teachings of Segalen-Guiraud, because Wang teaches this amount of natural cationic polymer (such as guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride) in solid compositions for the hair. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use a cationic guar gum, such as guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride, because Wang teaches that it acts as a conditioning agent in the composition to improve the combability, structure, and shine of hair (pg. 7, paragraph 6).
Regarding 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]. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as previously discussed. Furthermore, 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].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/17/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Segalen-Guiraud and Wang are directed to materially different product forms and usage protocols.
The Examiner disagrees. Segalen-Guiraud discloses anhydrous (the water content is less than 5% by weight, [0040]), solid compositions for the hair [Abstract] [0303]-[0314]. Similarly, Wang discloses solid, anhydrous (“the water content is less than 3% by weight”, claim 3) compositions for the hair (abstract) (pg. 11-14). Therefore, they have similar product forms (solid, anhydrous) and usage protocols (application to hair).
Applicant also argues at pg. 11 that the office action has not shown motivation for one of skill in the art to combine Segalen-Guiraud with Wang and has provided no basis for why a person of skill would have a reasonable expectation of success.
The Examiner disagrees. An ordinarily skilled artisan would be motivated to use a cationic guar gum, such as guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride, because Wang teaches that it is a natural cationic polymer which act as conditioning agents in the composition to improve the combability, structure, and shine of hair (pg. 7, paragraph 6). An ordinarily skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in including the cationic guar gum taught by Wang, within the teachings of Segalen-Guiraud because both disclosures are directed to solid, anhydrous compositions for the hair.
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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights