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 .
Status of Claims
Amendment filed on 12/05/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claims 11-14 are new.
Claims 1-14 are pending and being examined on merits herein.
Priority
This instant application, filed on 06/29/2023, is a 371 of PCT/US2022/017188, filed on 02/22/2022, which is a CON of 63/153403, filed on 02/25/2021.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
All previous claim Objection(s) / Rejection(s) as set forth in the previous Office action (mailed 09/30/2025) that are not repeated and/or maintained in the instant Office action are withdrawn, in light of applicant’s amendment and remark filed on 12/05/2025.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 is interpreted as an aqueous composition comprising 25 to 99 wt% of an aqueous vehicle, 0.5 to 60 wt% surfactant, and 0.01 to 5 wt% of a structurant comprising a crosslinked cellulose ether containing 0.1 to 1.0 wt% polyether groups based on weight of the crosslinked cellulose ether (all wt% based on total weight of the composition).
The phrases of “personal care rinse off”, “dermatologically acceptable”, “suds enhancing” are interpreted as intended use or property of the composition /component, because they do not structurally contribute to the composition.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (WO2018044576, 03/08/2018, of record 09/30/2025) in view of Schlesiger et al. (US20040127700, 07/01/2004).
Davis throughout the reference teaches a body wash personal care composition preferably selected from shampoos, rinse-off hair conditioners, hair coloring agents, hair styling gels, soaps, body wash formulations, etc. (e.g., [0029]), and preferably it is a body wash formulation [0031] (corresponding to an aqueous personal care rinse off composition in instant claim 1, and composition forms in instant claim 2).
Davis teaches the composition comprising a vehicle, a surfactant, a water-soluble cellulose ether base material substituted with a hydrophobic group having a carbon chain with 8 to 15 carbons (e.g., Claim 1; Abstract; [0015]) (corresponding to aqueous personal care rinse off composition comprising dermatologically acceptable aqueous vehicle, surfactant, and cellulose ether in instant claim 1).
Davis specifies that the composition contains 50 to 99 wt% vehicle, more preferably, 70 to 95 wt%, and most preferably, 75 to 90 wt% vehicle (e.g., [0018]), and preferably, the personal care composition of the present invention, contains 50 to 99 wt% water, more preferably, 70 to 95 wt%, most preferably, 75 to 90 wt% water (e.g., [0019]) (overlapping with 25 to 99 wt%, 40 to 92 wt%, 50 to 90 wt% of aqueous vehicle amount in instant claims 1, 12 and 14 respectively); 0.01 to 35 wt% surfactant, more preferably, 1 to 30 wt%, and still more preferably, 4 to 25 wt%, while most preferably, 10 to 20 wt%) of a surfactant (e.g., [0021] (overlapping with 0.5 to 60 wt%, 5 to 20 wt%, 7 to 15 wt% of surfactant amount in instant claims 1, 12 and 14 respectively); 0.1 to 15 wt%, more preferably 0.25 to 10 wt%, yet more preferably 0.5 to 5 wt%, most preferably, 0.75 to 2 wt% of water-soluble cellulose ether base material substituted with hydrophobic group having a carbon chain (e.g., [0027]) (overlapping with 0.01 to 5 wt%, 0.075 to 2 wt%, or 0.1 to 1.5 wt% of structurant comprising cellulose ether in instant claims 1, 12 and 14 respectively).
Davis teaches that the vehicle is selected from the group consisting of water and aqueous C1-4 alcohol mixtures (e.g., [0015]; [0017]), water-soluble cellulose ether base material is preferably selected from the group consisting of hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, ethyl hydroxyethyl cellulose, methyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, hydroxyethyl methyl cellulose (e.g., [0015]; [0024]) (corresponding to base cellulose ether species in instant claims 6 and 7), surfactant is preferably selected from the group consisting of alkyl polyglucosides ( e.g., lauryl glucoside, coco-glucoside, decyl glucoside), glycinates (e.g., sodium cocoyl glycinate), betaines (e.g., alkyl betaines such as cetyl betaine and amido betaines such as cocamidopropyl betaine ), taurates ( e.g., sodium methyl cocoyl taurate), glutamates (e.g., sodium cocoyl glutamate), sarcosinates (e.g., sodium lauroyl sarcosinate), isethionates (e.g., sodium cocoyl isethionate, sodium lauroyl methyl isethionate), sulfoacetates (e.g., sodium lauryl sulfoacetate), alaninates (e.g., sodium cocoyl alaninate), amphoacetates (e.g., sodium cocoamphoacetate), sulfonates (e.g., sodium C14-16 olefin sulfonate), succinates (e.g., disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate) and mixtures thereof) (e.g., [0015], [0019]) (corresponding to instant claim 8).
Davis teaches the personal care composition further comprises a pH adjusting agent (Claim 4), a biocide (Claim 5), a fragrance (Claim 6), a colorant (Claim 7), a soap (Claim 8), and all of above (Claim 10), or many other optional ingredients, e.g., emollients, silicones, waxes, lubricants, preservatives, antioxidants, chelating agents, humectants, etc. (e.g., [0028]) (corresponding to instant claim 9).
Davis directs personal care systems such as shaving formulations, facial cleansing products, personal lubricating gels, hand soaps, etc. [0002], and refers body washes to offer less skin irritation, improved lather in hard water and leave less residues on the skin and bathroom fixtures when compared with common soaps [0003], therefore, Davis teaches the method of cleaning mammalian (human) skin and care comprising applying the aqueous personal care rinse off composition, and rinsing the aqueous personal composition from skin or hair with water, corresponding to instant claim 10.
Davis teaches the composition surfactant consisting of a mixture of sodium laureth sulfate and cocamidopropyl betaine (e.g., [0004]), corresponding to instant claim 11.
Davis does not teach the suds enhancing structurant comprises crosslinked cellulose ether and the composition comprises such specific structurant at 0.01 to 5 wt%, 0.075 to 2 wt%, or 0.1 to 1.5 wt% as recited in instant claims 1, 12 and 14, and the crosslinked cellulose ether containing 0.1 to 1.0 wt% of polyether groups based on weight of the crosslinked cellulose ether, as recited in instant claim 1. Davis also does not teach the crosslinked cellulose ether is an irreversibly crosslinked cellulose ether as recited in instant claim 3, polyether groups in the irreversibly crosslinked cellulose ether as polyoxyalkylene groups having 2 to 100 oxyalkylene groups as recited in instant claim 4, polyoxyalkylene groups selected from the group consisting of a polyoxyethylene, a polyoxypropylene and combinations thereof as recited in instant claim 5, or the crosslinks contain polyether groups as recited in instant claim 6.
Schlesiger throughout the reference teaches cellulose derivatives having gel-like rheological properties in aqueous solution characterized in that including irreversibly crosslinked cellulose derivative (e.g., Abstract).
Schlesiger teaches that the crosslinked cellulose derivatives are irreversibly crosslinked cellulose ethers (e.g., Claim 1; [0058]; Claim 8; Abstract) (corresponding to instant claim 3), derived from methyl hydroxyethyl cellulose (MHEC, same as hydroxyethyl methylcellulose), methyl hydroxypropyl cellulose (MHPC, same as hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose), and methyl hydroxyethyl hydroxypropyl cellulose (MHEHPC) (e.g., [0058]) (corresponding to base cellulose ether species in instant claim 6) reacting with alkylating agents, such as one or more alkylene oxides (e.g., Claim 1; [0068]; [0075]) (same as more than one oxyethylene, i.e., polyoxyethylene, a polyoxyalkylene when alkyl is ethyl, corresponding to 2 to 100 oxyalkylene groups in instant claim 4), or propylene oxide (e.g., [0075]) (corresponding to polyoxyethylene and polyoxypropylene in instant claim 5; polyether group in crosslinks as recited in instant claim 6), and subsequently or simultaneously the alkalized cellulose is reacted with a crosslinking agent in an amount of 0.0001 to 0.05 eq, where the unit “eq” represents the molar ratio of crosslinking agent relative to the anhydroglucose unit (AGU) of the cellulose used (e.g., Claim 1; Abstract; [0070]), corresponding to the same crosslinking agent range as indicated in instant specification [0039], thus the polyether amount in the preparation in prior art using the same polyoxyalkylene (e.g., polyoxyethylene) and same ceullulose bases would result in the same range 0.1 to 1.0 wt% as instantly claimed in claim 1. Further, Schlesiger teaches that the 1.5 to 2.0 parts by weight of the irreversible crosslinked cellulose ether is present per 100 parts by weight of the aqueous solution (e.g., [0019]), which equals to 1.5 to 2.0 wt%, overlapping with the suds enhancing structurant comprising the crosslinked cellulose ether at amount 0.01 to 5 wt%, 0.075 to 2 wt%, or 0.1 to 1.5 wt% in instant claims 1, 12 and 14 respectively.
In light of claim interpretation, the irreversible crosslinked cellulose ethers taught by prior art has the same structures as instantly claimed with overlapping amounts in the composition, the structurant therefore would have suds enhancing property, or would be capable of achieving such intended use of the component which has been taught by prior art.
It is prima facie obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art prior to filing date to incorporate Schlesiger’s teaching of crosslinked cellulose ether to swap out hydrophobic alkyl substituted cellulose ether in the composition taught by Davis to arrive at current invention. Because Schlesiger demonstrates that using crosslinked cellulose ether, for example, methylhydroxyethyl cellulose or methylhydroxypropyl cellulose, which exhibit a thermal flocculation point in water, offer the opportunity of forming gels in a temperature-dependent manner (e.g., [0011]), not only it has good water retention (e.g., [0013]), but also the cellulose derivatives have a gel-like rheological properties in aqueous solution without addition of other substances or a particular temperature profile being required (e.g., [0014]), and the special irreversibly crosslinked cellulose derivatives surprisingly have met such requirements (e.g., [0024]) having gel-like rheological properties in aqueous solution [0025], and it can be easily reproducible at high yields without complicated steps (e.g., [0017]; [0019]).
These specific features of crosslinked cellulose ether from Schlesiger would have provided motivation for artisans in the field to substitute uncrosslinked cellulose ethers with crosslinked cellulose ethers, to have a reasonable expectation of success in achieving rich and luxurious feelings of the viscous yet not sticky touch in a personal care product, especially Davis uses hydrophobic alkyl group substitution on the cellulose base, which shares the same concept of alkylation on the cellulose ether as Schlesiger, furthermore, Davis also indicates that the features or properties of conventional body washes using polysaccharides such as HPMC, HEC, with surfactants such as sodium laureth sulfate and cocamidopropyl betaine offers less skin irritation, improved lather in hard water conditions and leave less residues on the skin and bathroom fixtures when compared with common soaps (e.g., [0002-0004]), and provides suitable viscosity which improves handing and spreading of the composition and acts as a sensory cue that consumers tend to associate with product efficacy [0005], strongly suggesting that viscosity or gel-like rheological properties are desirable features for personal care products. This renders obviousness as “use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way” or as “applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results”. See MPEP §2143. (I)(C) and (I)(D).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). MPEP §2144.05(I) states that “A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.” See In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For this instance, the weight amounts and polyoxyethlene group numbers overlap prior art. Furthermore, “[i]t would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize additive amount through nothing more than “routine experimentation,” because of a reasonable expectation of success resulting from the optimization for desirable features of intended use of the composition (MPEP §2144.05 (II)). See Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382; In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969).
Claims 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis et al. (WO2018044576, 03/08/2018, of record 09/30/2025) in view of Schlesiger et al. (US20040127700, 07/01/2004), as applied to claims 1-12 and 14 above, further in view of Renock et al. (US20160038393, 02/11/2016).
Davis and Schlesiger teaches an aqueous personal care rinse off composition comprising aqueous vehicle, surfactant, e.g., mixture of sodium laureth sulfate and cocamidopropyl betaine (e.g., Davis, [0004]), and irreversible crosslinked cellulose ether, e.g., HPMC, HEMC reacted with polyethoxylene, as suds enhancing structurant at specific weight ranges overlapping with instantly claimed ranges, wherein the crosslinked cellulose ether containing 0.1 to 1.0 wt% polyether groups based on weight of the crosslinked cellulose ether as applied above to claims 1-12 and 14 in detail, and incorporated herein.
Davis and Schlesiger does not teach surfactant mixture further containing cocamide monoethanolamine as recited in instant claim 13 in addition to sodium laureth sulfate and cocamidopropyl betaine.
Renock throughout the reference teaches hair care shampoo rinse off products that comprises perfume system providing appeal and acceptability of the compositions to consumers (e.g., Abstract; [0001]).
Renock teaches that the composition can comprise sodium laureth sulfate (10.5%), cocamidopropyl betaine (1 % or 1.25%), and cocamide MEA (same as cocamide monoethanolamine) (1% or 1.5%), with water (Table 1, [0102]), and rheology modifier, such as thickeners like polysaccharides, and hydrophobically modified cellulose derivatives (e.g., [0088]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person with ordinary skills in the art prior to filing date to incorporate Renock’s teaching of cocamide monethanolamine into the mixture of sodium laureth sulfate and cocamidopropyl betaine as surfactants for the personal care rinse off composition taught by Davis and Schlesiger to arrive at current invention. Because these compositions share similar components and same purposes to have personal care products with good viscosity and textures for desirable consumer feelings, it would have motivated scientists in the field to select suitable components for reasonable expectation of success. It is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use (MPEP §2144.07). See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks/arguments filed on 12/05/2025 have been fully considered.
In light of applicant’s remarks and claim amendment, the argument regarding Breckwoldt reference has been found persuasive.
New grounds of rejections are presented above. Consequently, the arguments are moot. Please take entire office action presented above as a complete response to the remarks and arguments.
Conclusion
No claim is 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 DONGXIU ZHANG SPIERING whose telephone number is (703)756-4796. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am-5:00pm (Except for Fridays).
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 X. 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.
/DX.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/SUE X LIU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1616