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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claims 1-18 have been examined.
Claims 1-18 are rejected.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for domestic benefit based on provisional application 63/444,737 filed on 02/10/2023 as noted on the Application Data Sheet (37 CFR 1.76).
Information Disclosure Statement
[1] The information disclosure statement filed on 05/12/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, for the following reasons:
Foreign Patent Documents, reference 1 is listed as BR 199400875 A, whereas the publication number, as shown in the attached document, is “9400875.”
Foreign Patent Documents, reference 61 is listed as JP S56011009 with a publication date of 1981-12-04, whereas the publication number and publication date, as shown in the attached document, are “JPS5611009” published 1981-02-04.
Foreign Patent Documents, reference 64 is listed as JP S60004598 A, whereas the publication number, as shown in the attached document, is “JPS604598 (A).”
Foreign Patent Documents, reference 76 is listed as JP H10017894 A, whereas the publication number, as shown in the attached document, is “JPH1017894A.”
Foreign Patent Documents, reference 115 “JP 2009096778 A” includes an attachment that is ineligible.
Foreign Patent Documents, reference 118 “JP2011153167” includes an attachment that is ineligible.
Foreign Patent Documents, reference 155 is listed as WO 91017237 A1, whereas the publication number, as shown in the attached document, is ”WO 91/17237.”
Non-Patent Literature Documents, reference 2 is listed as "Comparative Study on the Chemical constituents of Aloe Vera and Aloe Kula in China," published in Flavor Cosmetics, No. 63, whereas the attachment identifies the publication as “The Comparative Study of Chemical Constituents on Aloe [A. vera L. var. Chinensis (Haw.) Berg.] and Aloe (A. barbadensis Mill.),” published in Flavor Fragrance Cosmetics, Nos. 3-4.
Non-Patent Literature Documents, reference 22 does not include an English translation.
Non-Patent Literature Documents, reference 33 is listed as "Dandruff Control Shampoo 11" and as consisting of two pages, whereas the attachment identifies the title as “Dandruff Control Shampoo” and indicates that the document consists of three pages.
Non-Patent Literature Documents, reference 48 is listed as " Mineral Conquer Blonde Silver Shampoo," whereas the attachment identifies the title as “Conquer Blonde Silver Shampoo.”
It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
[2] The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/18/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
[3] The information disclosure statement filed on 08/15/2024 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the non-patent literature document cited as Reference 4 has not been attached, contrary to the requirement of MPEP § 609.01(B)(2)(b), which requires that copies of each cited non-patent literature publication, or the relevant portion thereof that caused it to be listed, be provided. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
[4] The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The present application contains two drawing sheets comprising a total of six figures.
Specification Objections
[5] The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 3, line 21, the value “05%” should be amended to read “0.5%,” assuming the intent is to correspond with the value recited on line 14 and other instances in which a leading zero precedes a decimal value.
On page 4, line 8, the phrase “according to the” is duplicative and should be deleted.
On page 22, the table heading currently identified as “Table 1” should be corrected to read “Table 4.”
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.
[6] Claims 1-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cochran & Hutton (Patent US20180071185A1, published 03/15/2018).
With regard to claim 1, the reference teaches a personal care composition (see title, abstract, and paragraph [0013]) comprising about 2% to about 50% by weight of a detersive surfactant, about 0.1% to about 10% by weight of a polyvinyl alcohol, which paragraph [0162] teaches functions as a suspending agent; about 0.05% to about 14% by weight of a fatty alcohol; and about 0.05% to about 14% by weight of a gel network surfactant, wherein paragraphs [0155]-[0156] teach forming gel networks by combining fatty alcohols and surfactants in a ratio of from about 1:1 to about 40:1 and paragraph [0157] teaches that the fatty alcohol is present at a level of from about 0.05% to about 14% by weight, such that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that, when fatty alcohols and surfactants are present in a 1:1 ratio, the surfactant would likewise be present at a level of from about 0.05% to about 14% by weight; the detersive surfactant and the gel network surfactant are selected from anionic, zwitterionic, and non-ionic surfactants and mixtures thereof and may be the same or different (page 9, lines 13-14); and the composition further comprises about 20% to about 95% by weight of a liquid carrier and a dispersed gel network phase comprising at least a portion of the fatty alcohol, the gel network surfactant, and the liquid carrier, wherein the composition is substantially free of silicone and is a liquid; therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to arrive at the claimed composition through routine formulation and optimization with reasonable expectation of success (see paragraphs [0035], [0038], [0049], [0052], [0057], [0137], [0157], [0159], [0161]; page 4, line 33 to page 5, line 1; page 5, lines 14-15; Table 1), wherein the present application further discloses that the term ‘about’ refer to a range of ±20% or less and that the number of significant digits does not limit the indicated amounts or the accuracy of the measurements.
With regard to claims 2-4, the instant application discloses in Tables 2-4 several compositional ingredients identified as Polyvinyl Alcohol 3-80, Polyvinyl Alcohol 32-80, and Polyvinyl Alcohol 3-98, respectively. The superscripts (2)-(4) refer to corresponding trade names and suppliers, specifically identifying (2) as PVOH 3-80 (Kuraray Poval®), (3) as PVOH 32-80 (Kuraray Poval®), and (4) as PVOH 3-98 (Kuraray Poval®). Technical data sheets for these commercially available polyvinyl alcohol products (see, e.g., TDS_Poval_1, published 07-2014; TDS_Poval_2, published 05-21-2022 ) describe a family of modified or unmodified polyvinyl alcohol grades having varying degrees of polymerization, degrees of hydrolysis, viscosities, and optional comonomers. The technical data further disclose that the Kuraray PovalTM product line is commercially available in multiple hydrolysis grades, including approximately 88% and approximately 95% hydrolyzed products. For example, Kuraray Poval™ 32-80 is disclosed as having a degree of hydrolysis of about 79.0-81.0 mol% and a viscosity of about 29.0-35.0 mPa.s; Kuraray Poval™ 3-98 is disclosed as having a degree of hydrolysis of about 98.0-99.0 mol% and a viscosity of about 3.2-3.8 mPa.s; and Kuraray Poval™ 3-80 is disclosed as having a degree of hydrolysis of about 78.5-81.5 mol% and a viscosity of about 2.8-3.3 mPa.s, as measured as a 4% solution at 20 °C. Accordingly, once the use of polyvinyl alcohol is taught or rendered obvious by claim 1, the selection of a particular degree of hydrolysis (≥ 80% or ≥ 90%) or viscosity range (about 4 cP to about 32 cP) (1 cP = 1 mPa·s; see, Viscosity Units, published 01-20-2021), as recited in claims 2-4, would have been an obvious matter of routine optimization and product selection from a known commercial product family to achieve desired formulation properties. Such selections represent well-understood formulation choices within the ordinary skill in the art and would have been made with a reasonable expectation of success.
With regard to claims 5-6 and 11-12, the reference teaches that the fatty alcohol is selected from cetyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol, or mixtures thereof (reference paragraph [0158] and Table 1); that the composition is free of silicone (reference claim 15 and paragraph [0149]); that the composition is free of sulfated surfactants (reference claim 11); and that the composition comprises a cationic deposition polymer (such as guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride per instant application (page 11, lines 1-2) (reference paragraphs [0071], [0131] and Tables 4).
With regard to claims 7-10, the reference teaches that the conditioning shampoo provides an average detangling force of less than 210 gf, and more specifically, from about 45 gf to about 180 gf (reference paragraph [0194] and Table 9), as recited in claims 7-8. The instant application further teaches that industry-standard combing force analysis provides outputs including both detangling and tip resistance measurements, and that equivalent instruments may be used (page 19, lines 22-31), and the reference likewise measures combing force using comparable force measurement instrumentation (reference paragraph [0179]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that, once detangling measurements are performed using such standard methods, determining tip resistance is a routine and predictable extension. Accordingly, claims 9-10 would have been obvious in view of the reference teachings for detangling and the admitted standard methods disclosed in the instant application, as the use of these known techniques to measure tip resistance represents a conventional and predictable application of routine hair testing procedures.
With regard to claims 16-18, the reference teaches that the composition further comprising a co-surfactant chosen from amphoteric surfactants, zwitterionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, and mixtures thereof (reference paragaraph [0141]); that the composition comprises a zwitterionic surfactant chosen from a betaine (paragraphs [0050]-[0051]); and that the composition has a viscosity of about 1000 cP to about 20,000 cP measured using a Brookfield R/S Plus Rheometer (reference paragraph [0168]).
[7] Claims 1, 5-6, and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carter & Burt (Patent US20130280192A1, published 10/24/2013).
With regard to claims 1 and 6, the reference teaches a hair care composition comprising a dispersed gel network phase including at least about 0.05% fatty alcohols, at least about 0.01% gel network surfactants, and 60-85 wt% water (reference claims 1 and 14; and paragraph [0042]). The reference further teaches inclusion of a detersive surfactant comprising anionic, amphoteric, or zwitterionic surfactants in amounts of about 5-20 wt% (reference paragraphs [0034] and [0035]). The reference additionally teaches that the composition may comprise further optional components known for use in hair care or personal care products in amounts about 0.001-10 wt% (see reference paragraph [0044]), including carboxy-modified polyvinyl alcohol, sulfonic acid-modified polyvinyl alcohol, and phosphoric acid-modified polyvinyl alcohol (reference paragraphs [0133] and [0134]). Although the reference does not expressly teach unmodified polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), it expressly teaches multiple modified PVA derivatives within the same compositional framework. Because the modified materials are derivatives of PVA and are taught in the disclosed hair care composition, substitution of unmodified PVA for the disclosed modified PVA species would have been a predictable variation and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. The reference also teaches optional inclusion of silicone at concentrations as low as 0.01% (reference paragraph [0044], [0050]-[0051]), and the instant application defines “substantially free of silicone” as 0.1% or less (instant page 10, lines 1-6). Accordingly, the claimed silicone limitation is encompassed by the reference.
With regard to claims 5 , 11, and 16, the reference teaches that the fatty alcohol is selected from cetyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol, or mixtures thereof (reference paragraph [0153]). The reference further teaches that the conditioning shampoo may be free of sulfated surfactants, as it discloses only optional inclusion of sulfated compounds and provides alternates non-sulfated surfactants for use in the composition (reference paragraphs [0133]-[0134]). The reference also teaches the inclusion of nonionic cosurfactants (reference paragraph [0045]).
With regard to claims 12-15, the reference teaches that the composition may further comprise a cationic deposition polymer at a concentration of about 0.01-1 wt% (reference paragraph [0100] and [0102], inter alia]. The reference also teaches that PVA (i.e., modified PVA derivatives, supra) may be present at about 0.001-10 wt% (see reference paragraph [0044] and [0133]-[0134]). In view of these teachings, the claimed ratios of cationic deposition polymer to polyvinyl alcohol in instant claims 12-15, ranging from about 0.4:1 to 10:1, 0.5:1 to 8:1, and 1:1 to 4:1, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, as such ratios fall within the respective disclosed concentration ranges and represent predictable and routine combinations of known components.
With regard to claims 17, the reference teaches the composition comprises a zwitterionic surfactant such as betaine (reference paragraph [0040], inter alia).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALI M ALAOUIE whose telephone number is 571-272-0844. The examiner can normally be reached Flextime: (M-TH) 7:30 am 6:30 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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/ALI M. ALAOUIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614