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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/03/2026 has been entered.
Formal Matters
Receipt of Applicant’s response dated 08/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5, 7-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 6 and 16 are canceled.
Claim 20 is new.
Claims 1 and 5 are amended.
Claims 7-8, 12, and 18 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 4 and 13-14 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to nonelected species.
Claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 15, 17, and 19-20 are under consideration in the instant Office action to the extent of the elected species, i.e., the at least one biosurfactant is di-rhamnolipids, the at least one sulfonic or sulfinic acid derivative of formula (I) or any salt thereof is 2-hydroxy sulfonate acetate (where n=2, R1=H, and R2=COOH), and the at least one further surfactant is an anionic surfactant.
OBJECTIONS/REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
Claim Objections
The objection to claim 5 set forth in the Office action dated 05/28/2026 is hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-11, 15-17, and 19 set forth in the Office action dated 05/28/2026 is hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and in favor of the new grounds of rejection set forth below.
NEW GROUNDS OF OBJECTION/REJECTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the recitation of trademarks without the proper symbol on at least page 6 of the specification.
The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM, or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant is requested to check the rest of the disclosure for trademarks missing the proper symbol as well as other informality errors and make changes accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “1000: 1” in the last line should be amended to “1000:1” (i.e., delete the extra space following the colon) in order to improve claim consistency (See formatting of other recitations of weight ratio in claim 1 and claim 20 which do not contain a space).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-3, 5, 9-11, 15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schelges et al (US 2017/0071842 A1, published 03/16/2017, cited in Notice of References Cited dated 02/06/2026) in view of The Good Scents Company ("disodium hydroxysulfinoacetate", published 10/23/2020 dated by Wayback Machine).
Schelges et al teach cosmetic cleansing agents, i.e., compositions, comprising one or more biosurfactants, preferably in an amount of approximately 0.5 to 50% by weight, and one or more anionic surfactants, preferably in an amount of approximately 0.5 to 30% by weight, that can be formulated as a body cleansing agent, face cleansing agent, or agent for cosmetically treating acne (See entire document, e.g., Abstract, [0016], [0051]-[0052], [0072], [0084]). Suitable biosurfactants include rhamnolipids, wherein rhamnolipid may be a mixture of a mono- and di-rhamnolipid each derived from 3-hydroxydodecanoic acid and/or 3-hydroxyundecanoic acid (e.g., [0016], [0028]-[0033]). Schelges et al teach that all anionic surface-active substances suitable for use on the human body are suitable as anionic surfactants and teach a list of suitable anionic surfactants including mixtures of surface-active hydroxysulfonates (e.g., [0052]-[0053], [0064]).
Schelges et al do not teach examples of suitable surface-active hydroxysulfonates, and therefore, do not specifically teach the compound corresponding to formula (I) instant claim 1, wherein n=2, R1=H, and R2=COOH, or any salt thereof, as a suitable hydroxysulfonate.
This deficiency is made up for in the teaching of The Good Scents Company.
The Good Scents Company teaches disodium hydroxysulfinoacetate (i.e., CAS number 29736-24-1, which corresponds to the disodium salt of the compound corresponding to formula (I) instant claim 1, wherein n=2, R1=H, and R2=COOH) as a cosmetic agent with no found hazard statements or precautionary statements (See entire document, e.g., Pages 1 and 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Schelges et al and The Good Scents Company, to provide a cosmetic cleansing composition, formulated as a body cleansing agent, face cleansing agent, or agent for cosmetically treating acne, comprising approximately 0.5 to 50% by weight of one or more biosurfactants comprising a mixture of a mono- and di-rhamnolipid each derived from 3-hydroxydodecanoic acid and/or 3-hydroxyundecanoic acid and approximately 0.5 to 30% by weight of one or more anionic surfactants comprising disodium hydroxysulfinoacetate (i.e., CAS number 29736-24-1, which corresponds to the disodium salt of the compound corresponding to formula (I) instant claim 1, wherein n=2, R1=H, and R2=COOH).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use disodium hydroxysulfinoacetate (i.e., CAS number 29736-24-1) in the composition of Schelges et al, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success, because although Schelges et al teach compatibility of the composition with surface-active hydroxysulfonates, Schelges et al does not provide examples of suitable surface-active hydroxysulfonates, for which The Good Scents Company teaches disodium hydroxysulfinoacetate (i.e., CAS number 29736-24-1), which is an anionic hydroxysulfonate, and teaches its use specifically in cosmetics. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).
The aforementioned, modified composition of Schelges et al in view of The Good Scents Company renders obvious the weight percent ranges and weight ratio ranges required by the instant claims. A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art (In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985)). 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, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding instant claims 10 and 19, the modified composition of Schelges et al in view of The Good Scents Company comprising one or more anionic surfactants meets the limitation of the formulation further comprising at least one further surfactant being an anionic surfactant.
Thus, the modified composition of Schelges et al in view of The Good Scents Company renders obvious instant claims 1-3, 5, 9-11, 15, 17, and 19-20 to the extent of the elected species.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 08/03/2026 regarding the obviousness rejection set forth in the Office action dated 05/28/2026 have been fully considered by the Examiner, however are considered moot because the rejection under 35 USC 103 over Schelges et al in view of Berghofer et al set forth in the Office action dated 05/28/2026 has been withdrawn and the combination of Schelges et al and Berghofer et al is not being applied in a prior art rejection in the instant Office action.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAELEIGH ELIZABETH OLSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1962. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, David Blanchard can be reached at (571)272-0827. 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.
/K.E.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
