DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 47-49 are withdrawn.
Claims 26-33 and 35-46 are pending and represent all claims currently under consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/14/2026 has been entered.
Claims 26 and 28 were amended. Claim 34 was canceled. No new material was added.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have overcome the previous objections to claim 28 and the specification, and the rejection of claims 26-33 and 35-46 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
The previous rejections of claim 34 are moot, because the claim was canceled.
The rejections of claims 26-46 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been modified to address the amendments and are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (pages 8-9), filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 26-46 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 26-46 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks (pages 10-12), filed 04/14/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 26-46 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Table 1A and Table 2A of the instant specification demonstrate the composition as claimed has significantly better deposition properties (Remarks, page 10). This argument is not persuasive, because the formulations presented in Tables 2A and 2B compare the deposition properties in the presence or absence of a multi-tail surfactant A and a cationic polymer B. As stated in the rejection below, Kleinen teaches each of these elements, and would therefore be expected to produce similar results. Further, Kleinen states that an advantage to the present invention is that that formulations are able to deposition the ingredients to a high degree (Kleinen, column 2, lines 45-50). The evidence relied upon should establish "that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance." See MPEP 716.02(b).
Applicant argues that Kleinen explains that in order to obtain better foaming properties, a higher proportion of the sulfosuccinate than anionic surfactant should be included, which is in contrast to the claimed weight amount of multi-tail surfactant A being lower than the amount of anionic surfactant D, and states that their position is supported by example 44a of Kleinen, in which the amount of diethylhexyl sodium sulfosuccinate is reported to be three times greater than the amount of sodium laureth sulfate (Remarks, pages 10-12). This argument is not persuasive, because disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123(II). In this case, Kleinen teaches weight ratios which can result in the claimed ratio as stated in the rejection of claim 1 below.
Applicant states that the previous Office Action does not rely on Jamadagni (WO 2020086921 A1), which was cited in the Requirement for Restriction mailed 08/11/2025, and states that this is taken as a withdrawal of the restriction (Remarks, page 12). This argument is not persuasive, because the Applicant previously traversed the Requirement for Restriction in the Remarks filed 09/16/2025, and this traversal was addressed and maintained in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/14/2025. As previously stated, Jamadagni teaches the special technical feature.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/08/2026 has been considered.
Modified/Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 26-33 and 35-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kleinen (US 9320697 B2). Kleinen was cited previously by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 26, Kleinen teaches a composition 20-67 parts by weight of at least one dialkyl sulfosuccinate (i.e., a multi-tail surfactant A as defined by the instant specification, page 3, lines 31-32) and 15-40 parts by weight of at least one anionic surfactant (i.e., an anionic surfactant D; Kleinen, claim 1), resulting in a relative weight amount of A to a weight amount of D which overlaps the relative weights of A being less than D as claimed. 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(I). Kleinen teaches the formulation can comprise active ingredients (i.e., an active ingredient C; Kleinen, column 2, line 47) and polymeric additives (Kleinen, column 2, line 59), with an example containing polyquaternium-10 (i.e., a cationic polymer B as defined by the instant specification, page 28, line 6; Kleinen column 27, example 40d), and an example comprising octopirox (i.e., an active ingredient C as defined by the instant specification, page 32, line 3) in 0.1% by weight (Kleinen, column 31, example 44a), which lies within the claimed range.
Kleinen is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because both Kleinen and the instant invention are in the same field of surfactant personal care compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have arrived at the claimed invention based on the teachings of Kleinen under the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103.
Regarding claim 27, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches formulations for cosmetic care and cleansing (i.e., personal care compositions; Kleinen, column 15, line 4).
Regarding claim 28, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches the composition comprises at least one dialkyl (i.e., two chains) sulfosuccinate (Kleinen, claim 1), wherein the alkyl radicals can be linear or branched with preferably 6-14 carbon atoms (Kleinen, column 4, lines 4-10).
Regarding claim 29, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches a formulation comprising 9% of diethylhexyl sodium sulfosuccinate (i.e., a multi-tail surfactant; Kleinen, column 26, example 37a), which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 30, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. As above, Kleinen teaches the composition comprises at least one dialkyl sulfosuccinate (Kleinen, claim 1).
Regarding claim 31, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches the dialkyl sulfosuccinate can be dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate (Kleinen, column 4, line 20).
Regarding claim 32, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches a formulation example comprising hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride (Kleinen, column 24, example 235).
Regarding claim 33, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches a formulation example comprising hydroxypropyl guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride (i.e., a cationic polymer B as defined by the instant claim 32) in 0.1% by weight (Kleinen, column 24, example 235), which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 35, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches a formulation example comprising octopirox (i.e., an anti-microbial and anti-fungal agent as defined by the instant specification, page 32, line 3) in 0.1% by weight (Kleinen, column 31, example 44a), which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 36, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches a formulation example comprising octopirox (i.e., piroctone olamine as defined by the instant specification, page 32, line 3) in 0.1% by weight (Kleinen, column 31, example 44a), which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 37, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches a composition comprising 15-40 parts by weight of at least one anionic surfactant (i.e., an anionic surfactant D; Kleinen, claim 1), which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 38, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches anionic surfactants present in the composition are preferably alkyl sulfates (i.e., sulfated; Kleinen, column 6, lines 50-52).
Regarding claim 39, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches a formulation comprising sodium laureth sulfate in 10.7% by weight (Kleinen, column 22, example 183), which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 40, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches the composition further comprises at least one amphoteric surfactant (Kleinen, claim 1).
Regarding claim 41, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches the composition comprises an amphoteric surfactant which can be cocamidopropyl betaine (Kleinen, column 5, line 26).
Regarding claim 42, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches a formulation comprising cocamidopropyl betaine (i.e., an amphoteric surfactant as defined by the instant claim 41) in 3% by weight (Kleinen, column 26, example 37a), which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 43, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches a formulation comprising 0% of an oil (Kleinen, column 27, example 41g), which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 44, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches the composition comprises a solvent such as water in preferably from 40-50% by weight (Kleinen, column 15, lines 53-56), which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 45, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 26. Kleinen teaches the composition comprises a solvent such as propylene glycol (i.e., a polyhydric alcohol as defined by the instant specification, page 5, line 27; Kleinen, column 15, lines 51-52).
Regarding claim 46, Kleinen teaches all of the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 45. As above, Kleinen teaches the composition comprises a solvent such as propylene glycol (Kleinen, column 15, lines 51-52).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHASITY P JANOSKO whose telephone number is (703)756-5307. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 ET.
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-Yong 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.
/C.P.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights