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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 4/27/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restriction
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Response to Arguments
All of Applicant’s arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the amendments filed 4/27/2026, all prior art rejections presented in the office action mailed 2/2/2026 are withdrawn and new rejections are presented below. Applicant’s arguments against the previous rejections are moot.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 21 recites “free from fatty acids” instead of “free from free fatty acids”. Appropriate correction is required.
New 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) 1-7, 9, 11, 13-15, 17 and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US 2020/0170894), KR20120136699, Pham (US 2011/0212043) and Guillou (US 2003/0050201). Park, Pham and Guillou are newly cited.
Park teaches thick cleansing compositions comprising anionic surfactants, fatty alcohols, conditioning agents, etc. (Abs) for application to hair and skin [0001]. Park teaches that the compositions can optionally include one or more silicones, however, they can be formulated to be free or essentially free of silicones [0234]., thus it would be obvious to formulate the composition to be silicone free.
Regarding claim 1(b), 5-6 and 17(b): Park teaches the inclusion of 0.5-3% of fatty alcohols, including stearyl alcohol (a C18 saturated fatty alcohol), cetearyl alcohol, cetyl alcohol, etc., [0040-0041].
Regarding claim 1(c), 9 and 17(c): Park teaches that total amount of conditioning agents included ranges from 0.1-10% [0208], suitable agents for use include stearyl dimethyl amine and stearamidopropyl dimethylamine (i.e. am amidoamine surfactant) [0263-0265].
Regarding claims 1(d) and 17(d): Park teaches the composition to be aqueous and comprise 40-90% water [0182].
Regarding claim 11 and 17: Park teaches that the composition can be formulated as an oil in water emulsion [0323].
Regarding claim 13 and 17(e): Park teaches that total amount of conditioning agents included ranges from 0.1-10% [0208]. Park teaches that suitable conditioning agents include those which are non-silicone fatty compounds including oils, mineral oils, fatty alcohol derivatives, fatty acid derivatives, etc. [0221], thus the inclusion of a non-silicone oil in addition to the required fatty alcohol is prima facie obvious (see Park working examples).
Regarding claims 14-15 and 17(f): Park teaches the inclusion of 0.01-25% of a water soluble solvent, such as polyhydric alcohols, glycols and monoalcohols [0185-0187].
Regarding claims 21-22: The instant specification defines “essentially free” to mean less than about 5% of the claimed component. While Park mentions fatty acids as a suitable non-silicone fatty compound suitable for use as a conditioning agent, this is simply one of many alternatives and is not taught to be critical, as such it would have been prima facie obvious to formulate the composition to be free of fatty acids, by using one of the other listed conditioning agents. In the alternative, Pham teaches conditioning shampoo compositions (abs) and teaches these to preferably be free of fatty acids having from 10 to 20 carbon atoms in an alkyl chain (i.e. free fatty acids) as they are not desirable since they provide a poor quality conditioning benefit to the hair [0045]. As such it would have been prima facie obvious to formulate the composition of Park to be free of fatty acids, by using one of the other listed conditioning agents, as fatty acids are taught to be undesirable.
However, Park does not teach the composition to comprise the claimed compound of formula I.
Regarding claims 1(a), 2-4 and 17(a): KR’699 discloses a solvent for cleaning skin and hair [0001]. The cleansing solvent has excellent cleansing power while being safe and not irritating to the skin (pg. 6). The solvent can exhibit superior drying rate and superior hair styling agent cleaning ability and also ensures good hair condition after cleaning (pg. 8-pg. 9). A suitable solvent is 1,2-isopropylidene glycerol [0040]. The composition comprising the solvent comprises less than 90% water (pg. 9) and can comprise other ingredients such as 1-50% anionic surfactant (pg. 11), as such the solvent can be calculated to be present in amounts of at least 9-90%.
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 teaching of Park either those of KR’699. One of skill in the art would have been motivated to add 9-90% of 1,2-isopropylidene glycerol to the composition of Park as KR’699 teaches this solvent to be have superior cleansing ability and ensure good hair condition after cleaning. One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as both Park and KR’699 teach cosmetic compositions for cleansing hair such as shampoos and Park teaches that additives can be included (working examples).
Regarding claims 7 and 17(c): The above references make obvious 9-90% of (a) and .6-13% (b+c), this results in a ratio of 9-90 : 0.6-13 (.69-150:1), which overlaps with the claimed range.
However, the above references do not teach the composition to have a pH ranging from 6-9.
Guillou teaches cleansing compositions for skin and hair and teaches these to have a pH that is compatible with the skin, that is to say preferably ranging from 3 to 9 and better still from 4 to 8 [0137 and 0116].
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 teaching the above references with those of Guillou and formulate the composition made obvious above to have a pH ranging from 4-8 as taught by Guillou as this is taught to be pH that is compatible with skin and suitable for cleansing formulations.
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
Prosecution Insights