DETAILED ACTION
1 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 allowance or after an Office action under Ex Parte Quayle, 25 USPQ 74, 453 O.G. 213 (Comm'r Pat. 1935). 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, prosecution in this application has been reopened pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 20, 2026, has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 43 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 43 and 44 recite the limitations “a closure for a bottle, the closure enclosing the concentrate and comprising at least one -------”, “ the closure is placed onto a bottle” and “wherein the closure has a thread by which ------”. These limitations do not recite in the claimed specification. The claimed specification recites “a cosmetic product comprising a packaging and the concentrate according to the invention (see the claimed specification, page 9, lines 8-9) and “the cap has a thread so as to be affixed to the bottle in a removable way” (see the claimed specification, page 9, lines 27-28).
The limitations in the claims 43 and 44 lack literal basis in the specification as originally filed, see Ex parte Grasselli, 231 USPQ 393 (Bd. App. 1983) aff'd mem. 738 F.2d 453 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Therefore, claims 43 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph.
Double Patenting
3 The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 18, 20, 22-26, 29-30, 33-34, 37-38, 41 and 42 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over 23-24, 26-34 and 36-40 of copending Application No. US 18/559,736. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the copending application No. 18/559,736, recite a cosmetic cleaning concentrate in a solid form comprising one or more surfactants include Disodium Lauryl Sulfosuccinate and sodium coco sulfate and one or more polysaccharides include Casealpinia Spinosa Gum and wherein the concentrate comprises less that 7% pf ingredients that are liquid under standard conditions as claimed in claims 18, 20, 22-26, 29-30, 33-34, 37-38, 41 and 42 (see claims 23-24, 26-34 and 36-40 of copending Application No. US 18/559,736). Therefore, this is an obvious formulation,
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The instant claims differ from the teaching of the claims of the copending application No. US 18/559,736 by reciting a cosmetic cleaning concentrate comprising one or more of surfactants in component (a).
However, the claims of the copending application No. US 18/559, 736 teach a solid cosmetic cleaning composition comprising additional surfactants (see claim 24).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of the claims of the copending application No. US 18/559,736, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to modify the cosmetic composition of the claims of the copending application No. US 18/559,736 by incorporating additional surfactants to arrive at the claimed invention based on the teaching of the claims of the copending application No. US 18/559,736 that suggest the use of more surfactants in the cosmetic composition, and, thus the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a cosmetic composition to have similar results to those claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4 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.
5 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.
Claims 18-20, 22, 24, 26 and 28-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashcroft et al. (WO 2015158638 A1) as evidence by the Patent (DE 102004014612 A1) in view of Harper et al., (US 20200140781 A1).
Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) teaches a solid oral care composition for use in the cleaning of teeth (see abstract), wherein the cleaning composition comprises (a) anionic surfactant sodium lauryl sulfate and (b) sodium carboxy methyl cellulose (cellulose gum) in the amount of 1% wt., and wherein the solid cleaning composition comprises menthol, Novamint as liquid components in the amounts of 6.5 % by wt., which is less than 7% by wt., as claimed in claims 18 and 26 (see page 8, Example 1).
It is known in the art that sodium carboxymethylcellulose, also known as cellulose gum (see English translation of the Patent No. (DE 102004014612 A1) at page 74, last paragraph), and wherein the solid cleaning composition does not comprise water as claimed in claim 33 (see page 8, Example 1), wherein the solid cleaning composition does not comprise Xanthan Gum, Sphingomonas Ferment Extract, Dehydroxanthan gum or hydroxypropyl guar as claimed in claim 28 (see page 8, Example 1) and wherein the solid cleaning composition in in the form of tablet as claimed in claim 34 (see page 2, line 3).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) by reciting a solid cosmetic composition comprising one or more of anionic surfactants selected from the species as claimed in claim 18.
Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) in analogous art of cleaning formulation, teaches a solid
cleaning product (see abstract), wherein the solid cleaning product comprises surfactants include sodium coco-sulfate as claimed in claims 18, 19 and 20 (see page 2, paragraph, 0018). The solid cleaning product is not in liquid form as claimed in claim 18 (see page 1, paragraph, 0013), wherein the surfactants present in the solid cleaning product in the amounts of from 1% to about 50% or from about 8% to about 30% by wt., as claimed in claims 22 and 24 (see page 2, paragraph, 0019), wherein the solid detergent product does not comprise liquid Xanthan Gum, Sphingomonas Ferment Extract, Dehydroxanthan gum or hydroxypropyl guar as claimed in claim 28 (see the reference’s disclosure), and wherein the solid cleaning product also comprises maltodextrin in the amount from about 2 to about 5% as claimed in claims 18, 29 and 30 (see page 3, paragraph, 0029) and wherein the solid cleaning product also comprises sodium benzoate as claimed in claims 18 and 31 (see page 3, paragraph, 0029), wherein the solid cleaning product comprises water in the amount of less than 0.01% by wt., as claimed in claim 33 (see page 1, paragraph, 0013), wherein the cleaning product may be in a form of powder or tablets as claimed in claim 34 (see page 1, paragraph, 0002) and wherein the solid cleaning product is formulated in water-tight package such a dissolvable film as claimed in claim 35 (see page 3, paragraph, 0032).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the cosmetic composition of Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) by incorporating anionic surfactants include sodium coco sulfate as taught by Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention, and, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of anionic surfactants as taught by Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous solid cosmetic composition taught by Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1), absent unexpected results.
6 Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashcroft et al. (WO 2015158638 A1) in view of Harper et al., (US 20200140781 A1) and further, in view of Wang (WO 2020114679 A1).
The disclosures of Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) and Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) as described above, do not teach or disclose solid cosmetic composition comprising anionic surfactants include disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate in the claimed amount as claimed in claims 23 and 25.
However, Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) teaches a solid cosmetic composition comprising anionic surfactants include sodium lauryl sulfate (see page 8, Example 1) and Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) teaches a solid cosmetic composition comprising anionic surfactants include sodium coco-sulfate (see page 2, paragraph, 0018).
Wang (WO’ 679 A1) in other analogous art of cosmetic formulation, teaches a solid cosmetic composition comprising 14% mass of disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate as claimed in claim 23 (see page 13, Example 1).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Wang (WO’ 679 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the solid cosmetic compositions of Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) and Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) by incorporating the anionic surfactant disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate as taught by Wang (WO’ 679 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious because the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that use of disodium lauryl sulfosuccinate anionic surfactant as taught by Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous solid cosmetic compositions taught by Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) and Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1), absent unexpected results.
Regarding the limitation of claim 25, Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) teaches a surfactant sodium coco sulfate in the claimed amount (see page 2, paragraphs, 0018-0019). Wang Y (WO’ 679 A1) teaches and discloses a solid cleaning composition comprising surfactants include disodium Lauryl sulfosuccinate in the claimed amounts (see page 11, Example 1), and therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the amounts and to determine the weight ratio between these surfactants in the solid cleaning composition so as to get the maximum effective amounts of these surfactants in the solid cleaning composition, and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a solid cleaning composition to have similar property to those claimed, absent unexpected result.
7 Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashcroft et al. (WO 2015158638 A1) in view of Harper et al., (US 20200140781 A1).
The instant claim differs from the teaching of the reference of Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) by reciting a method for providing a cosmetic composition comprising the step (a) of mixing solid surfactant, cellulose gum and further additive to prepare a cosmetic cleaning concentrate and the step (b) of dissolving the cosmetic cleaning concentrate in water to obtain a cosmetic cleaning composition.
However, the combined disclosures of Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) and Harper et al., (US’781 A1) as described above, teach and disclose solid cosmetic compositions comprising cellulose gum and surfactants (see the combined disclosures of Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) and Harper et al., (US’781 A1) as taught above.
Further, Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) teaches a method for generating a foamed cleaning
product (cosmetic cleaning composition), when a solid cleaning product exposed to added water and agitated by the used or by an instrument method (see page 4, paragraph, 0039) wherein the solid cleaning product comprises surfactants (see page 2, paragraph, 0018) and other additives include maltodextrin (see page 3, paragraph, 0029) and sodium benzoate (see page 3, paragraph, 0029).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the method of generating a cleaning product as taught by Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious based on the teaching of Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) that clearly teaches and discloses cleaning ingredients of solid surfactants (see page 2, paragraph, 0018) and other additives include maltodextrin (see page 3, paragraph, 0029) and sodium benzoate (see page 3, paragraph, 0029) in a solid product as described above, which implies and indicates that these cleaning ingredients are mixed together and formulated in a solid product as claimed in claim 37 step (a). Further, Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1), refers to the foam generated when the cleaning product is exposed to added water, which implies and indicates that the cleaning product reacts or dissolves when subjected to water to obtain a foam cleaning composition as claimed in claim 37 step (b), and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect such a method of a generating cleaning composition from a solid product as taught by Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) to have similar property to those claimed, absent unexpected results.
8 Claims 38, 41 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashcroft et al. (WO 2015158638 A1) in view of Harper et al., (US 20200140781 A1) and further, in view of Paufique (US 20190070093 A1).
The disclosures of Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) and Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) as described above, do not teach or disclose a method for providing a solid cosmetic cleaning composition comprising Caesalpinia Spinosa Gum as claimed in claims 38 and 41.
However, Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) teaches a solid cosmetic composition comprising anionic surfactants include sodium coco-sulfate as claimed in claim 42 (see page 2, paragraph, 0018).
Paufique (US’ 093 A1) in other analogous art of solid cosmetic cleaning formulation, teaches a solid cosmetic cleaning composition comprising Caesalpinia Spinosa Gum as claimed in claims 38 and 41 (see page 1, paragraph, 0006).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Paufique (US’ 093 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the method of Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) and Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) by incorporating Caesalpinia Spinosa Gum as taught by Paufique (US’ 093 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention and the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of Caesalpinia Spinosa Gum as taught by Paufique (US’ 093 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous solid cleaning cosmetic composition taught by Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) and Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1), absent unexpected results.
9 Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashcroft et al. (WO 2015158638 A1) in view of Harper et al., (US 20200140781 A1) and further, in view of Hodes et al. (EP 3826607 B1).
The disclosures of Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) and Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) as described above, do not teach or disclose a solid cosmetic cleaning composition comprising magnesium carbonate hydroxide as claimed in claim 39.
Hodes et al. (EP’ 607 B1) in analogous art of solid cosmetic cleaning formulation, teaches a solid cosmetic cleaning composition (see page 17 paragraph, 0095 and page 18 paragraph, 0102) comprising magnesium hydroxide carbonate as claimed in claim 39 (see page 19 paragraph, 0109).
Therefore, in view of Hodes et al. (EP’ 607 B1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the solid cosmetic cleaning compositions of Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) and Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) by incorporating magnesium hydroxide carbonate as taught by Hodes et al. (EP’ 607 B1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious because the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of magnesium hydroxide carbonate as taught by Hodes et al. (EP’ 607 B1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous solid cleaning cosmetic composition taught by Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) and Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1), absent unexpected results.
10 Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashcroft et al. (WO 2015158638 A1) in view of Harper et al., (US 20200140781 A1) and further, in view of Frushour (US 20210228566 A1).
The disclosures of Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) and Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) as described above, do not teach or disclose a solid cosmetic cleaning composition comprising hydroxyacetophenone as claimed in claim 40.
Frushour (US’ 566 A1) in analogous art of solid cosmetic cleaning formulation, teaches a solid cosmetic cleaning composition comprising hydroxyacetophenone as claimed in claim 40 (see abstract, page 1, paragraph, 0002 and page 2, paragraph, 0015).
Therefore, in view of Frushour (US’ 566 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to be motivated to modify the solid cosmetic cleaning compositions of Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) and Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1) by incorporating hydroxyacetophenone as taught by Frushour (US’ 566 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would be obvious because the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of hydroxyacetophenone as taught by Frushour (US’ 566 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous solid cleaning cosmetic composition taught by Ashcroft et al. (WO’ 638 A1) and Harper et al., (US’ 781 A1), absent unexpected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571)272-2817. 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights