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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-10 and 16, drawn to a hydratable concentrated surfactant composition comprising, based on the total weight of the composition and 100 % activity: a) from 5 wt % to 40 wt % of a sulphate free anionic surfactant comprising 6 to 22 carbon atoms; b) from 5 wt % to 40 wt % of an amphoteric and/or zwitterionic surfactant; c) from 0.01 wt % to 5 wt % of a first viscosity modifier, selected from electrolytes, polymeric thickeners, ethoxylated fatty acid esters, amines comprising from 12 to 18 carbon atoms and mixtures thereof, d) from 0.1 wt % to 15 wt % of a second viscosity modifier, which is a polyol; e) a preservative; and f) from 10 wt % to 70 wt % water; wherein the hydratable concentrated surfactant composition has a pH of from 3 to 6; and wherein the hydratable concentrated surfactant composition has a viscosity of from 6000 to 400,000 cps, when measured at 30°C on a Brookfield DV2T using a Spindle RV-05 at 20 rpm for 60 seconds on a Helipath stand.
Group II, claim(s) 11-13 and 17-18, drawn to an end use composition prepared by hydrating the hydratable concentrated surfactant composition of claim 1 by dilution with water.
Group III, claim(s) 14-15 and 19-20, drawn to a method of preparing an end use composition, the method comprising the step of diluting the hydratable concentrated surfactant composition of claim 1 with water.
This application contains claims directed to more than one species of the generic invention. These species are deemed to lack unity of invention because they are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
The species are as follows:
Species 1) a specific sulfate free anionic surfactant; and
Species 2) a specific amphoteric and/or zwitterionic surfactant.
Applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single species from each of the above categories 1) through 2) to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. The reply must also identify the claims readable on the elected species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered non-responsive unless accompanied by an election.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which are written in dependent form or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowed generic claim. Currently, the following claim(s) are generic: claims 1-20.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Inventions I -III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a hydratable composition comprising a sulfate-free surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant, viscosity modifiers and water, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Hutton et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/098923A1) which discloses a personal care compositions substantially free of sulfated surfactants and containing a gel network, see title. Hutton et al. teaches a personal care composition free of sulfated surfactants, see [0004]. The reference discloses aqueous compositions comprising sodium cocoyl isethionate (a sulfate free anionic surfactant), disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, cocamidopropyl betaine (amphoteric surfactant), viscosity modifiers and water to make the composition hydratable, see tables 3-4. Thus, the inventions lack unity amongst themselves and do not contribute to the prior art.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with Nina Horan on 11/14/25 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of group I, claims 1-10 and 16. Applicant’s election of species Sodium Methyl Cocoyl Taurate as (a sulfate free anionic surfactant) and Cocamidopropyl Betaine as (a surfactant) is also acknowledged.
Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-15 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
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.
Claims 1-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutton et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/098923A1).
Hutton et al. discloses a personal care compositions substantially free of sulfated surfactants and containing a gel network, see title. Hutton et al. teaches a personal care composition free of sulfated surfactants, see [0004]. The reference discloses aqueous compositions comprising sodium cocoyl isethionate (a sulfate free anionic surfactant as claimed in subsection a) of claim1), disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, cocamidopropyl betaine (amphoteric surfactant as claimed in instant claim 1 in subsection b)), ethylene glycol distearate, disodium EDTA, decyl glucoside, sodium chloride and sodium xylene sulfonate, which is one of the well-known hydrotopes, see tables (tables 3 and 4). Surfactant like taurate can be added, see [0199]. Paragraph [0168] specifies that sodium chloride as well as sodium xylene sulfonates are two possible viscosity modifiers. Suitable suspending agents taught are hydroxy ethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, starch-based polymers such as carboxymethyl starch and also starches (rice, corn, potato and wheat), see [0162[-[0163]. (reads on the claimed first viscosity modifiers). The reference teaches use of suspending agents for modifying the viscosity of the compositions ranging from about 0.1% to about 10% by weight of the compositions, see [0158]. The amount of first viscosity modifier overlaps with the claimed amount. The prior art does not disclose the exact claimed values, but does overlap: in such instances even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. MPEP 2144.05 A. Accordingly, since an overlap plainly exists here, it would have been obvious to have selected values within the overlap, consistent with the reasoning of the obviousness above. Liquid carrier from about 20% to about 95% can be added including water, see [0070] and [0072].The reference teaches that rheology modifiers can be added, see [0074] and [0168] and the personal care composition can have an appropriate viscosity and rheology, see [0071]. Additional agents such as propylene glycol can be added, see [0148]. Propylene glycol reads on polyol as claimed. Suitable humectants such as polyhydric alcohols can be added including glycerin, sorbitol, propylene glycol and the amount of the humectants ranges from about 0.1% to about 20%, see [0160] and [0159]. Thus, the reference teaches use of polyol (which reads on the second viscosity modifier). Preservatives can be added, see [0172]. The reference teaches pH adjusting agents can be added, see [0074]. The reference teaches that the charge densities can be measured at the pH of intended use of the personal care composition. (e.g., at about pH 3 to about pH 9; or about pH 4 to about pH 8), see [0078]. Lamellar form of the composition is taught in [0046/47] and [0053]. Isotropic formation is taught in [0048].
Thus, the art teaches a composition that can be hydrated comprising a sulfate-free anionic surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant, viscosity modifiers, preservative and water. This combination is not in a single embodiment. However, all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results of having a water-soluble (hydratable) composition, see MPEP 2143 part (I)(A). The reference does not teach the claimed pH or the lamellar composition. However, the reference teaches the claimed surfactants, viscosity modifiers, preservatives and water in an overlapping amount as discussed above. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the amounts of viscosity modifiers by experimental manipulations in order to obtain optimum viscosity of the personal care composition. Since the reference teaches the claimed viscosity modifiers and suspending agents, it would be within skill of an artisan to have optimized the viscosity of the personal care composition for optimum use. The reference teaches pH adjusting agents can be added, see [0074]. Therefore, manipulation of the pH of the composition would be within purview of an artisan to be used for personal care composition.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SNIGDHA MAEWALL whose telephone number is (571)272-6197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 5PM.
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, Sahana S Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/SNIGDHA MAEWALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612