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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are pending and under current examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
All references included in the information disclosure statement filed 2/28/2025 have been considered and an updated IDS form has been placed in the application file.
Withdrawn Objections and Claim Rejections
All objections to the specification are withdrawn in view of the amended abstract filed 1/21/2026.
All rejections pertaining to claim 6 are moot because the claim is cancelled in the amendments to the claims filed 1/21/2026.
All rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims filed 1/21/2026.
All rejections not reiterated have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments to the claims filed 1/21/2026 have necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
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 1-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartingen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0128431, publication date: 5/6/2021, cited in the IDS filed 9/26/2023, of record), 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 claim 1, Sartingen teaches a cosmetic cleaning product containing at least one surfactant, at least one starch and/or at least one hydrophobically modified starch compound, cellulose and/or a non-ionic cellulose ether [0022-0025]. The at least one surfactant is responsible for the generation of satisfactory foam quantities and foam properties [0056]. The non-ionic cellulose esters include methyl cellulose [0102]. The composition is intended to provide a cleaning and caring cosmetic cleansing product with excellent appearance and feel, which is extremely mild and leaves a feeling of freshness and care on the skin [0028]. The cellulose may be present from about 0.0005-1% by weight, based on the total weight of the cleaning product [0025]. The composition may include hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose [0102].
Regarding claim 2, Sartingen teaches that the surfactants of the compositions are preferably selected from wash-active, mild anionic, amphoteric, zwitterionic and/or non-ionic surfactants [0055].
Regarding claim 3, Sartingen teaches that the composition preferably contains at least one anionic surfactant [0056]. Preferred anionic surfactants have excellent foaming properties [0081].
Regarding claim 4, Sartingen teaches that the surfactant may be present from about 5 to about 18% by weight, based on the total weight of the cleaning product [0022-0023].
Regarding claim 5, Sartingen teaches that the composition may include hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose [0102].
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Sartingen teaches the relevant limitations of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Sartingen teaches that the starch is present from about 1.5-6% by weight [0024].
Regarding claim 10, Sartingen teaches that the cellulose may be present from about 0.0005-1% by weight and that the starch is present from about 1.5-6% by weight, based on the total weight of the cleaning product [0024-0025]. Sartingen also teaches that the presence of cellulose significantly improves the stability of cosmetic cleansing products [0098].
Regarding claim 11, Sartingen teaches that the composition may also contain a polyol such as 1,3-butylene glycol, 1,4-butylene glycol, 1,2-propylene glycol, 1,3,-propylene glycol, dipropylene glycol, and isoprene glycol [0129]. The composition may also include an aqueous carrier [0039]
Regarding claim 12, Sartingen teaches that the polyol is present from about 1 to about 10% by weight [0127].
Regarding claim 13, Sartingen teaches that the invention contains an aqueous carrier that contains at least about 65% by weight of water [0039] and the formulation examples of the composition contain at least 59 weight% of water [0186].
Regarding claim 14, Sartingen teaches that the surfactant may be present from about 5 to about 18% by weight, the cellulose may be present from about 0.0005-1% by weight, and the starch may be present from about 1.5-6% by weight, based on the total weight of the cleaning product [0022-0025].
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claims 1,7, and 8, Sartingen 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, Sartingen 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, Sartingen does not teach a weight percentage of surfactant within the range of the instant claims.
Finding of a Prima Facia Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, 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 Sartingen. 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 Sartingen. 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 Sartingen 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, Sartingen teaches that the presence of cellulose significantly improves the stability of cosmetic cleansing products [0098] 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 claim 14, 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, Sartingen teaches that the foaming properties of the composition can be controlled by selecting surfactant quantities and/or types [0053]. The Applicants' specification provides no evidence that the selected weight percentage of surfactant in claim 14 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 foaming properties of the composition.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sartingen (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0128431, publication date: 5/6/2021, cited in the IDS filed 9/26/2023, of record), in view of Chen (WO2014/059676, publication date: 4/24/2014, cited in the IDS filed 9/26/2023, of record), as applied to claims 1-5 and 7-14 above, and further in view of VitaBath (How to Use Body Was Gel-Body Wash Instructions, available 7/5/2019, of record).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Sartingen teaches that the composition may be used as a shower gel and or shampoo [0185].
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Sartingen does not teach that the composition may be used in a method of applying the composition to the skin and then rinsing off the composition. However, this deficiency is cured by VitaBath.
VitaBath teaches that shower gel may be applied to the skin, scrubbed, and rinsed off (pg. 1-2).
Finding of a Prima Facia Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the shower gel taught by Sartingen in a method comprising applying the composition to the skin and then rinsing it off. One would have understood in view of VitaBath that shower gels may be used by first applying the composition to the skin, scrubbing, and then rinsing the composition off of the skin (pg. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of filing to utilize the shower gel taught by Sartingen in such a method. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to utilize the composition embraced by Sartingen in such a method in order to cleanse the skin. The artisan of ordinary skill would have had reasonable expectation of success because VitaBath teaches that shower gels are used in a method comprising applying the gel to the skin, scrubbing, and rinsing.
Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsaur (U.S. Patent No. 6,903,057, issue year: 2005) in view of Chen (WO2014/059676, publication date: 4/24/2014, cited in the IDS filed 9/26/2023, of record), as evidenced by The Soap and Detergent Association (Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate, available 1996).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Regarding claim 1, Tsaur teaches a personal wash or hair liquid cleansing composition comprising 2 to 30 wt.% of an anionic surfactant, an optional skin benefit agent, and 6 to 30 wt.% of a modified or non-modified starch (col. 2 lines 38-54). The composition may also contain 0.01 to 1 wt.% of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (col. 10 line 64-col. 11 line 1). The anionic surfactants include alkyl benzene sulfonate (col. 3 line 46). The Soap and Detergent Association teaches that linear alkyl benzene sulfonate as excellent foaming characteristics (pg. 3, Ingredient Function). Tsaur also teaches that the starch stabilizing system also helps the lather properties of synthetic surfactants to produce creamier later (col. 7 lines 48-53).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Tsaur teaches a personal wash or hair liquid cleansing composition comprising 2 to 30 wt.% of an anionic surfactant, an optional skin benefit agent, and 6 to 30 wt.% of a modified or non-modified starch (col. 2 lines 38-54). The anionic surfactants include alkyl benzene sulfonate (col. 3 line 46). The Soap and Detergent Association teaches that linear alkyl benzene sulfonate as excellent foaming characteristics (pg. 3, Ingredient Function).
Regarding claim 4, Tsaur teaches that the composition contains 2 to 30 wt.% of a surfactant (col. 2 line 42).
Regarding claim 5, Tsaur teaches that the composition may contain 0.01 to 1 wt.% of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (col. 10 line 64-col. 11 line 1).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Tsauer teaches the relevant limitations of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Tsauer teaches that the composition may contain 6 to 30 wt.% of modified or non-modified starch (col. 2 line 50).
Regarding claim 10, Tsauer teaches that depending on the processing temperature, the starch thickening efficiency, the amount and composition of surfactants used in the cleanser, the pH of the liquid, the additives in the liquid cleanser composition and the desired final liquid viscosity, the amount of modified and/or non-modified starch granules in the liquid can be in the range of 6 to 30 wt.% (col. 9 line 39-44).
Regarding claim 11, Tsaur teaches that the composition may contain propylene glycol (col. 10 line 6). All exemplary compositions are prepared in water (col. 12 line 33) and propylene glycol is a water-soluble skin benefit agent (col. 10 line 39).
Regarding claim 12, Tsaur teaches that the composition may contain 0.1 to 30 wt.% of skin benefit agent, including propylene glycol (col. 10 line 24).
Regarding claim 13, Tsaur teaches an exemplary composition at contains 48.87 wt.% of additional ingredients (col. 12, Table 1 Example 1). All examples are prepared by first mixing deionized water, surfactants, and starch (col. 12 line 32). The water must be present at 51.13 wt.% and therefore the aqueous phase must be at least 51.13 wt.%.
Regarding claim 14, Tsaur teaches a personal wash or hair liquid cleansing composition comprising 2 to 30 wt.% of an anionic surfactant, an optional skin benefit agent, and 6 to 30 wt.% of a modified or non-modified starch (col. 2 lines 38-54). The composition may also contain 0.01 to 1 wt.% of hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (col. 10 line 64-col. 11 line 1). Tsaur also teaches that the combination of anionic and amphoteric/zwitterionic surfactants has a direct effect on the lather of the composition (col. 7 line 33).
Regarding claim 16, Tsaur teaches that the composition may contain 0% of skin benefit agent (e.g. emollient oil) (col. 3 line 30). The Examiner considers the phrase “0% of skin benefit agent” to read on the “does not comprise an oil” limitation of the instant claim.
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, Tsaur 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 claims 9 and 14, Tsaur does not teach a weight percentage of starch within the range embraced by the instant claims.
Regarding claim 10, Tsaur does not teach that a weight ratio of cellulose and starch present in the composition.
Regarding claim 14, Tsaur does not teach a weight percentage of anionic surfactant within the range embraced by the instant claims.
Finding of a Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 8, based on these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to substitute equivalents, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (the starch of Tsaur and the oxidized and esterified starch of Chen for improving lather properties of a cleansing composition). See MPEP 2144.06 (II).
Regarding the weight percentage of starch as specified in claims 9 and 14, 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, Tsaur teaches that the amount of starch present in the composition has a direct effect on the desired final liquid viscosity (col. 9 line 42). The Applicants' specification provides no evidence that the selected weight range in claims 9 and 14 was not due to routine optimization and/or that the results should be considered unexpected compared to the prior art. Due to the direct effect on the viscosity 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 percentage of starch 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 modifying the viscosity of the liquid.
Regarding claim 10, the weight ratio of cellulose to starch is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. Optimization of parameters is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ and would reasonably expect success. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal weight ratio in order to best achieve the desired results as such would provide advantageous viscosity modifying effect. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to engage in routine experimentation to determine optimal or workable ranges that produce expected results. Where 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, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). In the instant case, Tsaur teaches that the amount of starch and other additives present in the liquid cleanser has a direct effect on the desired final viscosity of the composition. The Examiner considers it prima facie obvious to optimize the weight ratio, absent unexpectedly superior properties of the claimed invention. In the instant case, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the amount of cellulose and starch would have a direct effect on the viscosity of the composition and therefore be an optimizable variable.
Regarding the weight percentage of anionic surfactant as specified in claim 14, 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, Tsaur teaches that the combination of anionic and amphoteric/zwitterionic surfactants has a direct effect on the lather of the composition (col. 7 line 33). The Applicants' specification provides no evidence that the selected weight range in claim 14 was not due to routine optimization and/or that the results should be considered unexpected compared to the prior art. Due to the direct effect on the lather 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 percentage of anionic 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 modifying the viscosity of the liquid.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsaur (U.S. Patent No. 6,903,057, issue year: 2005) in view of Chen (WO2014/059676, publication date: 4/24/2014, cited in the IDS filed 9/26/2023, of record), as evidenced by The Soap and Detergent Association (Linear Alkylbenzene Sulfonate, available 1996) as applied to claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16 above, and further in view of VitaBath (How to Use Body Was Gel-Body Wash Instructions, available 7/5/2019, of record).
Determination of the scope and the content of the prior art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Tsaur teaches a personal wash or hair liquid cleansing composition comprising 2 to 30 wt.% of an anionic surfactant, an optional skin benefit agent, and 6 to 30 wt.% of a modified or non-modified starch (col. 2 lines 38-54).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope of the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.02)
Tsaur does not teach that the composition may be used in a method of applying the composition to the skin and then rinsing off the composition. However, this deficiency is cured by VitaBath.
VitaBath teaches that shower gel may be applied to the skin, scrubbed, and rinsed off (pg. 1-2).
Finding of a Prima Facia Obviousness Rationale and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize the personal wash composition taught by Tsaur in a method comprising applying the composition to the skin and then rinsing it off. One would have understood in view of VitaBath that shower gels may be used by first applying the composition to the skin, scrubbing, and then rinsing the composition off of the skin (pg. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of filing to utilize the personal wash composition taught by Tsaur in such a method. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to utilize the composition embraced by Tsaur in such a method in order to cleanse the skin. The artisan of ordinary skill would have had reasonable expectation of success because VitaBath teaches that shower gels are used in a method comprising applying the gel to the skin, scrubbing, and rinsing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10, Applicant argues that as disclosed by Sartingen hydroxyethyl cellulose and hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose are expected to be equal in performance and hydroxyethyl cellulose is disclosed as a preferred embodiment over hydroxypropylmethyl cellulose. This is not found persuasive. In response, simply because the prior art “discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious." Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989). "[P]icking and choosing may be entirely proper in the making of a 103, obviousness rejection." In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972).
On page 10, Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect the use of non-ionic celluloses will bring benefit on foam density as compared with hydroxyethyl cellulose and that the technical solutions as presently claimed provides a significant increase in foam density which could not have been predicted from the description of Sartingen. 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 hydroxyethylcellulose 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 evidence of unexpected properties demonstrates improved foam density at 40% by weight of a single anionic surfactant, 0.1% by weight hydroxypropyl methylcellulose or hydroxyethyl cellulose, and 1% by weight oxidized starch acetate. However, the instant claims embrace 0.05-0.2 wt.% cellulose derivative, 1 to 60 wt.% anionic foaming surfactant, and 0.3-3 wt.% of oxidized and esterified starch. Furthermore, while claims 3 and 14 are limited to an anionic foaming surfactant, claims 1 and 2 embrace a foaming surfactant chosen from anionic, amphoteric, zwitterionic, nonionic, and cationic foaming surfactants. The claims, therefore, embrace a wide range of weight percentages for the anionic surfactant, cellulose derivative, and starch present in the composition and any oxidized and esterified starch. Claims 1 and 2 embrace any anionic, amphoteric, zwitterionic, nonionic, or cationic foaming surfactant and claims 3 and 14 embrace any anionic foaming surfactant. The evidence of unexpected results must also demonstrate an increased foam density for any anionic foaming surfactant or any anionic, amphoteric, zwitterionic, nonionic, or cationic foaming surfactant at weight percentages from 1 to 60 wt.%, cellulose at weight percentages from 0.05-0.2 wt.%, and any oxidized and esterified starch from 0.3-3 wt.%. Therefore, the evidence of unexpected results is not in commensurate scope with the claims.
An analogous analysis of Applicant’s assertion of unexpected results also applies as a secondary consideration for the obviousness rejection over Tsaur in view of Chen as evidenced by The Soap and Detergent Association because Tsaur also teaches hydroxypropyl methylcellulose as one of many choices for thickener (col 10) without any particular direction to choose this substance over other options, including hydroxyethyl cellulose.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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
/KATHERINE PEEBLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights