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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, and the species listed below in the reply filed on 10/9/2025 is acknowledged.
The following species of dextran was elected by Applicant:
PNG
media_image1.png
128
988
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
450
946
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/9/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “antimicrobial agent/preservative” and “protein/amino acid.” A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation antimicrobial, and the claim also recites preservatives which is the narrower statement of the limitation and recites the broad recitation amino acid, and the claim also recites proteins which is the narrower statement of the limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 9 recites “hair waving/straightening agent” it is unclear of the “/” is intended to refer to “and,” “or,” and “and/or”.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2000159642, Brand (US 2010/0093584), University of Cambridge (2011) and Pawar (2008). While JP’642 is cited on the 8/2/2023 IDS, the examiner is providing a copy of the machine translation relied upon below. Brand is also cited on the 8/2/2023 IDS.
JP’642 discloses a shampooing composition forming a stable emulsion dispersion system (reading on dermatologically acceptable carrier) including a silicone derivative (reading on dermatologically acceptable silicone) and a linear cationic polymer of formula I. JP’642 teaches the cationic polymer to have conditioning effects, as such a composition comprising this compound can be reasonably considered to be a hair conditioner (Abstract and [0006 and 0021]).
JP’642 notes that a silicone derivative paired with a linear cationic high molecular weight compound having the chemical formula (1) as shown below can exert a synergistic effect, making it possible to emulsify and disperse the silicone derivative very stably [0005]:
PNG
media_image3.png
213
694
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein R represents a hydrogen atom, a hydroxy lower alkyl group, or chemical formula (2) as shown below:
PNG
media_image4.png
151
293
media_image4.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 represents a hydrogen atom or a lower alkyl group and R2, R3, and R4 represent a lower alkyl group; at least one R is a quaternary nitrogen-containing group represented by Formula (2), and n is a positive number of 20 – 30,000 [0012-0014].
The
PNG
media_image5.png
60
128
media_image5.png
Greyscale
above reads on the claim X divalent linking group as elected when R’ is H. Claim 2 of JP’642 limits “lower alkyl” to be C1-C4 alkyl groups and JP’642 teaches trimethylammoniopropyl as a suitable groups, thus it’s obvious to formulate a quaternary ammonium group wherein R1 is H and R2, R3 and R4 are methyl, which reads on the claimed formula IIa wherein R5 is H and R2 are methyl.
Regarding the molecular weight of the dextran, Example 6, Table 2 contains raw material dextran having a molecular weight of about 100,000 and a nitrogen content of approximately 1.7%. While Table 2 does not explicitly disclose that the molecular weight unit of the raw material dextran corresponds to Daltons, claim 1 recites weight average molecular weights represented as “MW” in Daltons. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the molecular weights represent weight average molecular weights, as evidenced by University of Cambridge, which states that weight average molecular weight, MW, rather than number average molecular weight, MN, is the most relevant average for molecules with high molecular weight.
However, JP’642 does not teach the dextran polymer to have a combination of quaternary ammonium groups of formula IIa and IIIa and does not teach the dextran to have 90-98mol% of glucose units connect by α-D-1,6 linkages, 2-10% of glucose structural units connected by α-1,3-linkages and less than 0.1% of β-1,4-linkages.
Brand discloses cleansing compositions for use in personal care formulations comprising non-cellulosic cationically modified polysaccharides and anionic surfactants as essential ingredients.
Brand teaches the non-cellulosic cationically modified polysaccharides can be a dextran with a Mw ranging from 200,000-1,000,000 in which cationic modifications comprise a mixture of at least two quaternary ammonium groups having a different combination of alkyl substituents which are covalently attached to the polysaccharide backbone via an ether, ester or urethane linkage [0012, 0020, 0030, 0032]. The first quaternary ammonium groups has an alkyl chain of 1 carbon, while the 2nd group preferably has 12, 18 or 22 carbons [0023-0025]. Examples 6-7 and 9-11 of Brand use a combination of hydroxypropyldimethyldodecylammonium (C12) and hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium (C1). Brand teaches the cationically modified polysaccharides provide conditioning and deposition benefits which are greater than the conditioning benefits of the same polymers which carry only one type of quaternary ammonium groups ([0013-0019] and working examples). Brand teaches the each cationic substituent on the polysaccharide to have a cationic degree of substitution of 0.0001- about 3 [0020]., which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.01-0.03.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of JP’642 with those of Brand. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate the cationically modified dextran of JP’642 to comprise at least two quaternary ammonium groups (i.e. JP’642 formula (2)), with different alkyl substitutions, one trimethyl and one dimethyldodecylammonium (reading on formula IIIa and IIa wherein R4 is C12 alkyl group, R2 is methyl, R3 is methyl and R5 is H as recited by instant claims 5-7), with the degree of cationic substitutions as taught by Brand, as Brand teaches that the use of 2 distinct quaternary ammonium groups results in greater conditioning benefits than those that comprise only one group. One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as both JP’642 and Brand teach hair composition which provide cleansing and conditioning comprising cationically modified dextran having quaternary ammonium substitutions and JP’642 teaches that at least one quaternary ammonium group is formulated with lower alkyls, such as methyl.
JP’642 teaches the dextran to comprise α-1,6 glucoside bonds.
Pawar teaches Dextran is the name of a large class of a-D-glucans with anhydro-D-glucopyranose units, α-1,6-linkages are predominant features of dextrans. Dextrans are composed of 95% a-1,6-glucopyranosidic linkages and 5% 1,3- linkages. Pawar teaches that Dextrans obtained from different sources possess different structures and properties, i.e. degree of branching, relative quantity of particular type of glycosidic links, molecular weight, solubility, optical activity and physiological action.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the above references with those of Pawar. As JP’642 does not specify the mol% of 1,6-glucoside linkages, one of skill in the art would have been motivated to use dextran which is commonly known, in particular which are those containing 95% α-1,6-glucopyranosidic linkages and 5% 1,3- linkages as those containing 1,3-linkages are the attachment point of side chains. One of skill in the art would have also bene motivated to determine the source of dextran best for use via optimization as the source used is known to affect the structure and properties of the dextran. One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as both Pawar and JP’642 discuss dextrans having α-1,6-glucose linkages and Pawar teaches specific structure of Dextran known to be used.
Regarding claim 3: As discussed above, JP’642 makes obvious a conditioning shampoo.
Regarding claim 4: JP’642 teaches hair cleansing compositions and teaches that additional ingredients such as anionic surfactants can be included [0021]. Brand also teaches cleansing hair composition, such as shampoos and teaches that suitable anionic surfactants include alkyl and alkyl ether sulfates in amounts ranging from 0.01-50% (Abs and [0033-0034]). Table 8 exemplified the use of SLES and SLS (sodium laureth sulfate and sodium lauryl sulfate), which are known cleansing surfactants. It would have been prima facie obvious to include a hair cleansing surfactant such as SLES or SLS as taught by Brand in the formulation of JP’642 as its prima facie obvious to pursue the known options within the grasp of a skilled artisan to formulate a hair cleansing composition, such as a shampoo, comprising a cationically modified dextran and anionic surfactants.
Regarding claims 5-7: As discussed above, JP’642 and Brant make obvious the composition comprising the quaternary ammonium groups of formula IIa and IIIa, wherein R2 and R3 are methyl, R5 is H and R4 is a C12 alkyl group.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3-7 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2000159642, Brand (US 2010/0093584), University of Cambridge (2011) and Pawar (2008), as applied to claims 1 and 3-7 above, and further in view of Jachowicz (2004).
As discussed above, the prior art teaches the limitations of claim 1 and 3-7 and the cationic degree of substitution of dimethyldodecyl ammonium moieties, but they do not teach the nitrogen content as required by instant claim 2 and 8.
While JP’642 teaches the nitrogen content of the raw material dextran of Example 6 has a nitrogen content of 1.7%, which overlaps with the claimed range, JP’642 does not expressly teach that the nitrogen content is measured by the Kjeldahl method and corrected for ash and volatiles as recited in instant claim 1.
Jachowicz teaches that both the Kjedahl and Dumas methods are used to determine the nitrogen content in cosmetic raw materials (Title and Page 16, Section 2.1.1.3). The Kjedahl method is specifically intended for the determination of the nitrogen content in nitrogen-containing polymers and is highly efficient at converting organic nitrogen into NH4+ in difficult to digest materials, whereas the Dumas method utilizes combustion to convert all nitrogen samples, which would include inorganic nitrogen fractions (Page 16, Section 2.1.1.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of JP’6452 and Brand with those of Jachowicz and use the Kjedahl method to determine the nitrogen content of the dextran polymer with a reasonable expectation of success because Jachowicz teaches that the method is intended for use with nitrogen-containing polymers in cosmetic raw materials and is highly efficient.
Regarding claim 9: JP’642 teaches that optional components include surfactants such as anionic surfactants, amphoteric surfactants, cationic surfactants, and nonionic surfactants, thickeners, preservatives, and pH adjusters, among others, which can be blended as necessary [0021].
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-3 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/264980 (reference application) in view of Pawar (2008). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach hair conditioner formulations, such as conditioning shampoos comprising cleansing surfactants, dermatologically acceptable vehicles and dextrans. Both Applicants teach dextrans having overlapping molecular weight wherein both comprise the same quaternary ammonium groups bounds to the dextran and overlapping cationic degrees of substitution for the C12 alkyl group. Both teach overlapping Kjeldahl nitrogens contents and the inclusion of additional ingredients such as preservatives. US’980 teaches that silicones can be present in amounts of less than 0.1%, thus minimal amounts of silicone such as 0.05% are obvious for use.
US’980 does not teach the dextran based polymer as recited by the instant claims. The teachings of Powar are discussed above and incorporated into this rejections. The claims are obvious for the same reasons.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/546310 in view of Brand (US 2010/0093584), University of Cambridge (2011) and Pawar (2008). US’310 teaches a shampoo formulation comprising a silicone, hair cleansing surfactant and a dermatologically acceptable vehicle. US’310 teaches a dextran which comprises quaternary ammonium groups bound to a pendent oxygen on the dextran polymer, these groups overlap with the claimed formula II and IIIa. The dextran of US’310 has an overlapping Kjeldahl nitrogen contents. US’310 teaches the inclusion of a preservative (instant claim 8).
While US’310 teaches that quaternary ammonium groups can be used which implies more than 1, US’310 does not teach using a lower alkyl groups such as methyl and a higher alkyl group such as dodecyl.
Brand teaches the non-cellulosic cationically modified polysaccharides can be a dextran with a Mw ranging from 200,000-1,000,000 in which cationic modifications comprise a mixture of at least two quaternary ammonium groups having a different combination of alkyl substituents which are covalently attached to the polysaccharide backbone via an ether, ester or urethane linkage [0012, 0020, 0030, 0032]. The first quaternary ammonium groups has an alkyl chain of 1 carbon, while the 2nd group preferably has 12, 18 or 22 carbons [0023-0025]. Examples 6-7 and 9-11 of Brand use a combination of hydroxypropyldimethyldodecylammonium (C12) and hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium (C1). Brand teaches the cationically modified polysaccharides provide conditioning and deposition benefits which are greater than the conditioning benefits of the same polymers which carry only one type of quaternary ammonium groups ([0013-0019] and working examples). Brand teaches the each cationic substituent on the polysaccharide to have a cationic degree of substitution of 0.0001- about 3 [0020]., which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.01-0.03.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of US’310 with those of Brand. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate the dextran of US’310 to comprise at least two quaternary ammonium groups with different alkyl substitutions, one trimethyl and one dimethyldodecylammonium (reading on formula III and II wherein R4 is C12 alkyl group, R2 is methyl, R3 is methyl and R5 is H), with the degree of cationic substitutions as taught by Brand, as Brand teaches that the use of 2 distinct quaternary ammonium groups results in greater conditioning benefits than those that comprise only one group.
Regarding the Mw of the dextran as claim, Brand teaches that the dextran (i.e. polysaccharide) preferably has a molecular weight ranging from 200,000 to 1,000,000, thus it would have been prima facie obvious to use this molecular weight as its taught to be suitable for hair care formulations. While Table 2 does not explicitly disclose that the molecular weight unit of the raw material dextran corresponds to Daltons, claim 1 recites weight average molecular weights represented as “MW” in Daltons. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the molecular weights represent weight average molecular weights, as evidenced by University of Cambridge, which states that weight average molecular weight, MW, rather than number average molecular weight, MN, is the most relevant average for molecules with high molecular weight.
US’310 does not teach the dextran based polymer as recited by the instant claims. The teachings of Powar are discussed above and incorporated into this rejections. The claims are obvious for the same reasons.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim 1-4 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/847697 (reference application) in view of Pawar (2008). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both teach hair conditioner formulations, such as conditioning shampoos comprising cleansing surfactants, dermatologically acceptable vehicles and dextrans. Both Applicants teach dextrans having overlapping molecular weight wherein both comprise the same quaternary ammonium groups bounds to the dextran and overlapping cationic degrees of substitution for the C12 alkyl group, and less than 0.1% of silicon containing molecules (which allows for amounts of say 0.05%). Both teach overlapping Kjeldahl nitrogens contents and the inclusion of addition ingredients such as preservatives.
US’310 does not teach the dextran based polymer as recited by the instant claims. The teachings of Pawar are discussed above and incorporated into this rejections. The claims are obvious for the same reasons.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,453,689 in view of Brand (US 2010/0093584) and Pawar (2008). US’689 teaches a conditioning shampoo formulation comprising cleansing surfactant such as SLES, a silicone and a dermatologically acceptable vehicle. US’689 teaches a dextran which comprises quaternary ammonium groups bound to a pendent oxygen on the dextran polymer, these groups overlap with the claimed formula II and III. The dextran of US’689 has an overlapping Kjeldahl nitrogen contents. US’689 teaches the inclusion of a chelating agent.
While US’689 teaches that quaternary ammonium groups can be used which implies more than 1, US’689 does not teach using a lower alkyl groups such as methyl and a higher alkyl group such as dodecyl.
Brand teaches the non-cellulosic cationically modified polysaccharides can be a dextran with a Mw ranging from 200,000-1,000,000 in which cationic modifications comprise a mixture of at least two quaternary ammonium groups having a different combination of alkyl substituents which are covalently attached to the polysaccharide backbone via an ether, ester or urethane linkage [0012, 0020, 0030, 0032]. The first quaternary ammonium groups has an alkyl chain of 1 carbon, while the 2nd group preferably has 12, 18 or 22 carbons [0023-0025]. Examples 6-7 and 9-11 of Brand use a combination of hydroxypropyldimethyldodecylammonium (C12) and hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium (C1). Brand teaches the cationically modified polysaccharides provide conditioning and deposition benefits which are greater than the conditioning benefits of the same polymers which carry only one type of quaternary ammonium groups ([0013-0019] and working examples). Brand teaches the each cationic substituent on the polysaccharide to have a cationic degree of substitution of 0.0001- about 3 [0020]., which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.01-0.03.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of US’689 with those of Brand. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate the dextran of US’689 to comprise at least two quaternary ammonium groups with different alkyl substitutions, one trimethyl and one dimethyldodecylammonium (reading on formula IIIa and IIa wherein R4 is C12 alkyl group, R2 is methyl, R3 is methyl and R5 is H), with the degree of cationic substitutions as taught by Brand, as Brand teaches that the use of 2 distinct quaternary ammonium groups results in greater conditioning benefits than those that comprise only one group.
While US’689 teaches a skin care composition and the instant claims are directed to hair care formulations, these are recitations of intended use. The composition of US’689 makes obvious the claimed structure and would be capable of being used as a hair conditioner formulations.
US’689 does not teach the dextran based polymer as recited by the instant claims. The teachings of Pawar are discussed above and incorporated into this rejections. The claims are obvious for the same reasons.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,396,939 in view of Brand (US 2010/0093584) and Pawar (2008). US’939 teaches a skin cleansing formulation comprising cleansing surfactant such as SLES, less than 0.0001% of a silicon (which allows for amounts of say 0.05%)e and a dermatologically acceptable vehicle. US’939 teaches a dextran which comprises quaternary ammonium groups bound to a pendent oxygen on the dextran polymer, these groups overlap with the claimed formula II and III. The dextran of US’939 has an overlapping Kjeldahl nitrogen contents. US’939 teaches the inclusion of a fragrance oil (instant claim 8).
While US’939 teaches that quaternary ammonium groups can be used which implies more than 1, US’939 does not teach using a lower alkyl groups such as methyl and a higher alkyl group such as dodecyl.
Brand teaches the non-cellulosic cationically modified polysaccharides can be a dextran with a Mw ranging from 200,000-1,000,000 in which cationic modifications comprise a mixture of at least two quaternary ammonium groups having a different combination of alkyl substituents which are covalently attached to the polysaccharide backbone via an ether, ester or urethane linkage [0012, 0020, 0030, 0032]. The first quaternary ammonium groups has an alkyl chain of 1 carbon, while the 2nd group preferably has 12, 18 or 22 carbons [0023-0025]. Examples 6-7 and 9-11 of Brand use a combination of hydroxypropyldimethyldodecylammonium (C12) and hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium (C1). Brand teaches the cationically modified polysaccharides provide conditioning and deposition benefits which are greater than the conditioning benefits of the same polymers which carry only one type of quaternary ammonium groups ([0013-0019] and working examples). Brand teaches the each cationic substituent on the polysaccharide to have a cationic degree of substitution of 0.0001- about 3 [0020]., which overlaps with the claimed range of 0.01-0.03.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of US’939 with those of Brand. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to formulate the dextran of US’939 to comprise at least two quaternary ammonium groups with different alkyl substitutions, one trimethyl and one dimethyldodecylammonium (reading on formula IIIa and IIa wherein R4 is C12 alkyl group, R2 is methyl, R3 is methyl and R5 is H), with the degree of cationic substitutions as taught by Brand, as Brand teaches that the use of 2 distinct quaternary ammonium groups results in greater conditioning benefits than those that comprise only one group.
While US’939 teaches a skin care composition and the instant claims are directed to hair care formulations, these are recitations of intended use. The composition of US’939 makes obvious the claimed structure and would be capable of being used as a hair conditioner formulations.
US’939 does not teach the dextran based polymer as recited by the instant claims. The teachings of Pawar are discussed above and incorporated into this rejections. The claims are obvious for the same reasons.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Berrios whose telephone number is (571)270-7679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 9am-4pm and Friday 9am-3:30pm.
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, Brian Kwon can be reached at (571) 272-0581. 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.
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613