DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-12 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “Composition” which should read as “A composition” at the beginning of the claim.
Claims 2-10 recites “A composition” which should read as “The composition”.
Claim 11 recites “Process” which should read as “A process”.
Claim 12 recites “Process” which should read as “The process”.
Claim 14 recites “Multi-compartment” which should read as “A multi-compartment”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd.App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 7 recites parenthetical recitations, which makes the claims indefinite because it is unclear if the limitations within the parenthetical recitations are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 2-10, the phrases "preferably" and “preferentially” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 7, 10, 11, and 13, the phrase "such as” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 3, 7, and 9, the phrase "better still” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention.
Claim 13 provides for the use of a composition, but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced.
Claim 12 is included in the rejection because it does not correct for the defect of the claim from which it depends.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grevalcuore et al. (“Hair Care Composition”, Research Disclosure, Kenneth Mason Publications, Hampshire, UK, GB, vol. 672, no. 75, 1 April 2020 (2020-04-01), page 496) hereinafter Grevalcuore.
Regarding claims 1-14, Grevalcuore discloses use of a synergistic combination of environmental friendly surfactants able to reduce the water consumption and thus the environmental impact during the rinsing of cosmetic products, mainly hair dyes. A system of surfactants derived from amino acids was combined with a specific anionic co-surfactant of natural derivation in order to improve the ease of rinsing. This combination improves also the rheology of the formulation bringing advantages in terms of applicability of the product compared with the traditional products present on the market. The environmental impact of the formula is further improved using biodegradable chelating agents, such as tetrasodium glutamate diacetate (GLDA) (pg. 1; Table 1), and 1,3-propanediol (CAS 504-63-2) 5% (pg. 1; Table 2), and cetearyl alcohol, and glyceryl stearate (non-ionic surfactant) (pg. 1; Table 2).
Grevalcuore does not explicitly disclose each of the components of the composition together as claimed in a single embodiment for an anticipation rejection.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Grevalcuore, to arrive at the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Grevalcuore discloses all the required ingredients and Grevalcuore discloses “a synergistic combination of environmental friendly surfactants able to reduce the water consumption and thus the environmental impact during the rinsing of cosmetic products, mainly hair dyes” (page 1). Further, one having ordinary still in the art would reasonably expect success in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2141.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANGLONG N TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0719. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Robert A Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/QUANGLONG N TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1615