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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/30/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1 and 10-17 are pending and under current examination. Claims 2-5 and 7-8 are cancelled.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections
All rejections pertaining to claims 2-5 and 7-8 are moot because the claims are cancelled in the amendments to the claims filed 6/30/2026.
All rejections not reiterated have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “TEA-cocoyl glutamate”. The clarity of the record would be improved by providing the full definition of TEA followed by the abbreviation in parenthesis at the first occurrence of the term in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Figura (U.S. Patent No. 9,867,768, issue date: 1/16/2018), in view of Chen (WO2014/059676, publication date: 4/24/2014, cited in the IDS filed 9/26/2023, of record).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 17, Figura teaches a cleansing composition that may comprise an anionic surfactant such as sodium cocoyl glycinate, sodium cocoyl glutamate (col. 26 lines 31-34), sodium lauroyl sarcosinate (col. 27 line 33), sodium stearoyl glutamate (col. 27 line 22), disodium cocoyl glutamate (col. 27 line 23), sodium lauroyl glutamate (col. 27 line 21), potassium cocoyl glycinate (col. 27 line 31), and TEA salts of N-acylated glutamic acid (col. 27 line 27). The amount of the at least one anionic surfactant ranges from about 1 or 3 to about 22 wt.% based on the weight of the total composition (col. 30 line 4). The cleansing composition may also contain from about 0.5 to about 25 wt.% hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (col. 31 lines 16 and 24). The hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose acts as a rheology modifier that is added to attain a desired yield stress value to obtain a cleansing composition that is easily pourable (col. 31 lines 1-10). The composition may also contain starch and starch derivatives (col. 19 line 29) as protective colloids. The protective colloids may be present in concentrations from 0.05 to 20 wt.% based on the weight of the total monomers (col. 19 lines 35-36). The protective colloids can stabilize the monomer/polymer droplets or particles (col. 18 lines 66-67). The composition contains a nonionic polymer that enhances the foaming performance of the composition (col. 1 line 22).
Regarding claim 10, Figura teaches that the cleansing composition may also contain from about 0.5 to about 25 wt.% hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (col. 31 lines 16 and 24) and that the composition may also contain starch and starch derivatives (col. 19 line 29) as protective colloids. The protective colloids may be present in concentrations from 0.05 to 20 wt.% based on the weight of the total monomers (col. 19 lines 35-36).
Regarding claim 11, Figura teaches that the cleansing composition may contain a protective colloid such as polyethylene glycol (col. 19 line 14) and glycerin (col. 40 line 30). The cleansing compositions are aqueous based systems (col. 31 line 34).
Regarding claim 12, Figura teaches that additives such as glycerin may be present from 0 to about 20 wt.% based on the total weight of the composition (col. 40 line 31). The protective colloids may be present in concentrations from 0.05 to 20 wt.% based on the weight of the total monomers (col. 19 lines 35-36).
Regarding claim 13, Figura teaches that the cleansing compositions comprise from about 10 to about 95 wt.% water (col. 31 line 39).
Regarding claim 15, Figura teaches that the composition are applied topically to the desired area of the skin or hair in an amount sufficient to provide effective cleansing. The composition is preferably diluted with water prior to, during, or after topical application and then subsequently rinsed off of the applied area using water (col. 40 lines 43-50).
Regarding claim 16, Figura teaches that the composition optionally includes a silicone conditioning agent (col. 32 line 43). The composition may also contain a conditioning oil (col. 36 line 24). The Examiner considers the phrases “optionally” and “may contain” to read on a composition that does not comprise an oil.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claim 1, Figura does not teach the inclusion of an oxidized and esterified starch. However, this deficiency is cured by Chen.
Chen teaches cleansing compositions that contain oxidized ester modified starches, especially acetylated modified starch, that improve the performance of foam in terms of foaming property, rinse ability and skin finish in surfactant base gel cleansers [00104]. Chen teaches that at least one hydroxy unit of the glucose unit of the oxidized esterified starch is esterified by a (thio)carboxylic acid [0028].
Regarding claim 10, Figura does not teach a weight ratio of cellulose to starch present in the composition. However, this deficiency is cured by Chen.
Chen teaches cleansing compositions that contain oxidized ester modified starches, especially acetylated modified starch, that improve the performance of foam in terms of foaming property, rinse ability and skin finish in surfactant base gel cleansers [00104].
Regarding claim 14 and 17, Figura does not teach a weight percentage of anionic surfactant within the range embraced by the instant claims.
Regarding claim 17, Figura does not teach a weight percentage of cellulose within the range embraced by the instant claims.
Finding of a Prima Facia Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claim 1, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of filing to include an oxidized esterified starch in the cleansing composition embraced by Figura. One would have understood in view of Chen that oxidized ester modified starches improve the performance of foam in cleansing compositions [00104]. It would have been obvious to substitute the oxidized ester modified starches of Chen for the modified starches embraced by Figura. One of ordinary skill in the art of filing would have been motivated to include an oxidized ester modified starch in the cleansing composition embraced by Figura in order to impart the benefits of an improved foam performance to the composition. The artisan of ordinary skill would have had reasonable expectation of success because Chen teaches that oxidized ester modified starches may be included in cleansing compositions.
Regarding the weight ratio of cellulose to starch as specified in claim 10, MPEP 2144.05 states:
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. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, Figura teaches that the protective colloids can help to stabilize the monomer/polymer droplets of the composition and Chen teaches that oxidized ester modified starches, especially acetylated modified starch, improve the performance of foam in terms of foaming property, rinse ability and skin finish in surfactant base gel cleansers [00104]. The Applicants' specification provides no evidence that the selected weight ratio in claim 10 was not due to routine optimization and/or that the results should be considered unexpected compared to the prior art. Due to the effects of the cellulose on formulation stability and the effects of oxidized esterified starch and the foaming properties of the composition, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine these teachings and alter the weight ratio of cellulose to starch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the weight ratio as this could be expected to be advantageous for modifying the stability and foamability of the cleansing composition.
Regarding the weight percentage of surfactant as specified in claims 14 and 17, MPEP 2144.05 states:
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. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, Figura teaches that the anionic surfactant actives the crosslinked polymer component to provide a stable yield stress cleansing composition with desirable rheological and aesthetic properties and the ability to suspend particulate and insoluble materials in an aqueous medium for indefinite periods of time independent of pH (col. 23 lines 40-46). The Applicants' specification provides no evidence that the selected weight percentage of surfactant in claims 14 and 17 was not due to routine optimization and/or that the results should be considered unexpected compared to the prior art. Due to the foaming effect of the surfactants, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine these teachings and alter the weight percentage of surfactant present in the composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the weight percentage as this could be expected to be advantageous for adjusting the stability and foaming properties of the composition.
Regarding the weight percentage of nonionic cellulose as specified in claim 17, MPEP 2144.05 states:
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. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Furthermore, Figura teaches that the hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose acts as a rheology modifier that is added to attain a desired yield stress value to obtain a cleansing composition that is easily pourable (col. 31 lines 1-10). The Applicants' specification provides no evidence that the selected weight percentage of nonionic cellulose in claim 17 was not due to routine optimization and/or that the results should be considered unexpected compared to the prior art. Due to the foaming effect of the surfactants, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine these teachings and alter the weight percentage of surfactant present in the composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to change the weight percentage as this could be expected to be advantageous for adjusting the rheological properties of the composition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 6, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the use of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose will bring a significant increase in foam density compared with hydroxyethyl cellulose. This is not found persuasive. Please refer to MPEP 716.02 (b) which details the burden on Applicant to establish that results in a side-by-side comparison to the closest prior art are unexpected and significant. Specifically, Applicant must establish that differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and are of both practical and statistical significance. Additionally, evidence of unexpected properties must be commensurate in scope with the claims.
Differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious: The unexpected results amount to an increased foam density when hydroxypropyl methylcellulose is utilized in combination with oxidized starch acetate compared to a composition that utilizes hydroxyethyl cellulose in combination with oxidized starch acetate. These results are unexpected over the teaching of the prior art.
Differences are of both practical and statistical significance: The evidence of unexpected results are of practical and statistical significance.
Evidence of unexpected properties must be in commensurate scope with the claims: The claims 1 and 14 embrace 8 anionic surfactants and any oxidized and esterified starch with a hydroxyl group esterified with a thiocarboxylic acid. Claim 11 embraces 8 polyol compounds. Claim 17 embraces any anionic foaming surfactant, 8 different nonionic cellulose compounds, and any oxidized and esterified starch. In order to be commensurate in scope with claims 1-16, the evidence of unexpected results must demonstrate improved foam density for each and every anionic surfactant claimed and any oxidized and esterified starch with a hydroxyl group esterified with a thiocarboxylic acid. In order to be commensurate in scope with claim 17, the evidence of unexpected results must demonstrate increased foam density for every anionic surfactant, any oxidized and esterified starch, and each and every claimed nonionic cellulose compound. However, the evidence of unexpected results amounts to increased foam density in an inventive composition comprising 40% by weight sodium cocoyl glycinate, 35% by weight glycerin, 0.1% hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, 1% oxidized starch acetate, acrylates copolymer, potassium chloride, cetyl alcohol, and citric acid. The comparative composition comprises hydroxyethyl cellulose in place of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose. Therefore, the evidence of unexpected results is not in commensurate scope with the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections over the teachings of Sartingen and Tsaur have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH ANNE MEYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-2271. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm 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, 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.
ELIZABETH ANNE MEYERSExaminer, Art Unit 1617
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights