DETAILED ACTION
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 1-18 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 26 July 2024, 16 October 2024 and 24 April 2025 were filed before the mailing of an Office action. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Applicant filed two IDSs on 16 October 2024, which are identical. Therefore, the examiner crossed out one IDS as a duplicate.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: the compound names should not be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 11 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Instant claim 11 states “The personal care composition of claim 11”. Since the claim depends from itself the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. For the purpose of applying prior art, claim 11 is being construed as being dependent from claim 1.
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 1-10 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wei et al. (US 2012/0316095 A1).
Wei et al. teach throughout a personal care cleaning composition comprising: at least a cleansing phase and a benefit phase wherein: said structured cleansing phase comprises: a) an aqueous surfactant phase comprising from about 5% to about 20%, by weight of said personal care composition, of an anionic surfactant, b) at least one of the following: an amphoteric surfactant and a zwitterionic surfactant; c) a structuring system comprising an electrolyte: said benefit phase comprises: a) from 0.1% to about 50%, by weight of said personal care composition, of a benefit agent comprising a sucrose polyester (Abstract; [0005]-[0006], etc; Claims).
Regarding claims 1-10, Wei et al. teach that the anionic surfactants can be either linear or branched. Examples of some suitable linear anionic surfactants include triethylamine lauryl sulfate, triethanolamine lauryl sulfate, monoethanolamine lauryl sulfate, diethanolamine lauryl sulfate, potassium lauryl sulfate, and combinations thereof ([0041]). Examples of some suitable branched anionic surfactants include but are not limited to the following surfactants: sodium trideceth sulfate, sodium tridecyl sulfate, sodium C12-13 alkyl sulfate, sodium C12-15 alkyl sulfate, sodium C11-15 alkyl sulfate, sodium C12-18 alkyl sulfate, sodium C10-16 alkyl sulfate, etc. ([0042]).
Wei et al. teach that the zwitterionic surfactant suitable for use in the multiphase, personal care composition include, for example, betaines, including cocoamidopropyl betaine ([0049]-[0051]).
Wei et al. also teach that the structuring system can include an electrolyte, an associative polymer, and/or a non-ionic emulsifier ([0052]). An electrolyte may be present from about 0.5% to about 5%, by weight of the personal care composition ([0052]). An associate polymer may be present at a level of about 10% or less, by weigh to of the personal care composition ([0054]).
Wei et al. teach that the benefit phase typically comprises benefit agents. The benefit phase can comprise from about 0.1% to about 50%, preferably from about 1% to about 30%, more preferably from about 5% to about 30%, by weight of the personal care composition, of a benefit agent ([0058]-[0059]).
Wei et al. do not explicitly disclose a personal care composition comprising the instantly claimed mixture of C12 and C13 alkyl sulfate anionic surfactants.
However, Wei et al. teach that the personal care composition comprises at least one anionic surfactant, including linear and branched C12 and C13 alkyl sulfate anionic surfactants, including lauryl sulfate, tridecyl sulfate, sodium C12-13 alkyl sulfate, sodium C12-15 alkyl sulfate, sodium C11-15 alkyl sulfate, sodium C12-18 alkyl sulfate, sodium C10-16 alkyl sulfate, and combinations thereof ([0039]-[0042]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare personal care compositions according to Wei et al. comprising a mixture of C12 and C13 alkyl sulfate anionic surfactants, as well as a betaine, a non-ionic emulsifier, an electrolyte, and a benefit agent. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine through routine experimentation which combinations of alkyl sulfate anionic surfactants are desirable for use in the compositions of Wei et al. Also, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine through routine experimentation the workable concentration ranges for different alkyl sulfate anionic surfactants in the mixture of surfactants.
Regarding claim 2, Wei et al. teach that the surfactant may also be a branched anionic surfactant. Examples of some suitable branched anionic surfactants include: sodium trideceth sulfate, sodium tridecyl sulfate, sodium C12-13 alkyl sulfate, sodium C12-15 alkyl sulfate, sodium C11-15 alkyl sulfate, sodium C12-18 alkyl sulfate, sodium C10-16 alkyl sulfate, etc. ([0042]).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine through routine experimentation the workable ranges of linear and branched alkyl sulfate anionic surfactants according to Wei et al.
Regarding claim 12, Wei et al. teach that the zwitterionic surfactant suitable for use in the multiphase, personal care composition include, for example, betaines, including cocoamidopropyl betaine ([0049]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 13, Wei et al. teach that an associate polymer may be present at a level of about 10% or less, by weigh to of the personal care composition. An example of suitable associative polymers includes Aqupec SER-300 made by Sumitomo Seika of Japan, which is Acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylate crosspolymer and comprises stearyl side chains with less than about 1% HM. Other associative polymers comprise stearyl, octyl, decyl and lauryl side chains. Some more exemplary associative polymers are Aqupec SER-150 (acrylates/C10-30 alkyl acrylates crosspolymer) comprising about C18 (stearyl) side chains and about 0.4% HM; Aqupec HV-701EDR which comprises about C8 (octyl) side chains and about 3.5% HM; and Stabylen 30 manufactured by 3V Sigma S.p.A., which has branched isodecanoate hydrophobic associative side chains ([0054]).
Regarding claim 14, Wei et al. teach nonionic emulsifier is selected from the group consisting of glyceryl monohydroxystearate, isosteareth-2, trideceth-2, trideceth-3, hydroxystearic acid, propylene glycol stearate, PEG-2 stearate, sorbitan monostearate, glyceryl laurate, laureth-2, cocamide monoethanolamine, lauramide monoethanolamine, and mixtures thereof (Claim 10).
Regarding claim 15, Wei et al. teach the electrolyte may also be selected from the group consisting of sodium chloride, ammonium chloride, sodium sulfate, ammonium sulfate, and mixtures thereof ([0029]).
Regarding claim 16, Wei et al. teach that the personal care composition comprises a benefit phase comprising from about 0.1% to about 50% of a benefit agent. The benefit phase may further contain an additional benefit agent. The primary benefit agent that can be included is one or more types of sucrose polyesters ([0058]-[0060]). Additional benefit agents include, for example, glycerides, acetoglyceride esters, alkyl esters, alkenyl esters, polyglycerin fatty acid esters, lanolin, silicone oils, wax esters, glyceryl monooleate, glyceryl monostearate, glyceryl monolaurate, glyceryl dilaurate, petrolatum, mineral oil, or combinations thereof. Non-limiting examples glycerides suitable for use as benefit agents herein include castor oil and soy bean oil ([0065]-[0066]).
Regarding claim 17, Wei et al. teach the cleansing phase may be structured. When structured, the cleansing phase is comprised of a structured domain. The structured domain is preferably an opaque structured domain, which is preferably a lamellar phase. The lamellar phase can provide resistance to shear, adequate yield to suspend particles and droplets and at the same time providing long term stability, since it is thermodynamically stable. The lamellar phase tends to have a viscosity that minimizes the need for viscosity modifiers, but they can be included if desired ([0040]).
Regarding claim 18, Wei et al. teach the term “stable”, as used herein, means that the multiphase personal care composition comprises less than 10% “third-phase” volume, more preferably less than 5% “third-phase” volume, most preferably less than 1% “third-phase” volume after undergoing the rapid protocol aging and third phase measurement as described below in the “Third-Phase” Method. The term “structured,” as used herein means having a rheology that confers stability on the multiphase composition ([0026]-[0027]). The lamellar phase can provide resistance to shear, adequate yield to suspend particles and droplets and at the same time providing long term stability, since it is thermodynamically stable ([0040]).
Claims 1-13, 15 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0000724 A1).
Wang et al. teach throughout a liquid personal care cleaning composition comprising: greater than 4 wt % of at least one surfactant; greater than 0.8 wt % to 2.0 wt % of the combination of: (i) linalool, a linalool isomer, or combinations thereof; and (ii) hinokitiol; and wherein the weight:weight ratio of said linalool, linalool isomer(s), or combinations thereof to said hinokitiol is less than 18:1, respectively ([0006], [0033], etc; Claims).
Regarding claims 1-10, Wang et al. teach that the surfactant(s) can generally present in an amount of 5 wt % to 50 wt %. The surfactants can be, for example, linear, sulfate surfactants. Examples of such surfactants include sodium lauryl sulfate or ammonium lauryl sulfate in which these materials do not contain any ethoxylation or propoxylation. The surfactant may also be a branched anionic surfactant. Examples of some suitable branched anionic surfactants include: sodium trideceth sulfate, sodium tridecyl sulfate, sodium C12-13 alkyl sulfate, sodium C12-15 alkyl sulfate, sodium C11-15 alkyl sulfate, sodium C12-18 alkyl sulfate, sodium C10-16 alkyl sulfate, and combinations thereof. Other salts of all the aforementioned surfactants are useful, such as TEA, DEA, ammonia, potassium, and sodium salts ([0017]). In one example, the at least one surfactant comprises at least a first alkyl sulfate surfactant and a second alkyl sulfate surfactant ([0022]; Claims 11-12).
Wang et al. further teach in one example, the at least one surfactant further comprises a betaine, preferably a cocamidopropyl betaine. Preferably the composition comprises 0.01-10 wt%, preferably 0.1 to 4 wt%, of said betaine, preferably the said betaine is cocamidopropyl betaine ([0024]; Claim 15).
Wang et al. also teach that the compositions herein may also comprise a structuring system wherein the structuring system can comprise an associative polymer, a non-associative polymer, an electrolyte, trihydroxystearin, and combinations thereof. The structuring system can comprise from 0.05% to 5%, from 0.05% to 1%, from 0.07% to 0.5%, or from 0.1% to 0.3%, by weight of the composition, of a structuring material such as a nonassociative polymer. The structuring system can comprise from 0.001% to 5%, from 0.005% to 0.5%, from 0.007% to 0.05%, from 0.008% to 0.04%, or from 0.01% to 0.03%, by weight of composition, of an associative polymer ([0025]). The compositions herein may comprise from 0.05% to 10%, by weight of composition, of an electrolyte ([0029]).
Wang et al. teach that the composition may comprise a dermatologically acceptable moisturizer. Such dermatologically acceptable moisturizers an include lipids of natural and/or petroleum based sources. Lipids of natural sources can include various vegetable oils such as soybean oil, coconut oil, palm oil, palm stearine oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, and corn oil. Other such natural lipids contain various plant and extract butters such as shea butter, cocoa butter. Petroleum sources oils contain petrolatum and various mineral oils ([0029]).
Wang et al. do not explicitly disclose a composition comprising the instantly claimed mixture of C12 and C13 alkyl sulfate anionic surfactants.
However, Wang et al. teach that the personal care composition comprises at least one surfactant, including linear and branched C12 and C13 alkyl sulfate anionic surfactants, including lauryl sulfate, tridecyl sulfate, sodium C12-13 alkyl sulfate, sodium C12-15 alkyl sulfate, sodium C11-15 alkyl sulfate, sodium C12-18 alkyl sulfate, sodium C10-16 alkyl sulfate, and combinations thereof ([0017], [0022]; Claims 10-12).
It would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare personal care compositions according to Wang et al. comprising a mixture of C12 and C13 alkyl sulfate anionic surfactants, as well as a betaine, an emulsifier, an electrolyte, and a benefit agent, such as lipids of natural or synthetic sources, petrolatum, etc. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine through routine experimentation which combinations of alkyl sulfate anionic surfactants are desirable for use in the compositions of Wang et al. An advantage according to Wang et al. is the use of alkyl sulfate surfactants to help with foaming ([0007]). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine which combination of alkyl sulfate surfactants are suitable for use in the compositions. Also, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine through routine experimentation the workable concentration ranges for different alkyl sulfate anionic surfactants in the mixture of surfactants.
Regarding claim 2, Wang et al. teach that the surfactant may also be a branched anionic surfactant. Examples of some suitable branched anionic surfactants include: sodium trideceth sulfate, sodium tridecyl sulfate, sodium C12-13 alkyl sulfate, sodium C12-15 alkyl sulfate, sodium C11-15 alkyl sulfate, sodium C12-18 alkyl sulfate, sodium C10-16 alkyl sulfate, and combinations thereof.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to determine through routine experimentation the workable ranges of linear and branched alkyl sulfate anionic surfactants according to Wang et al.
Regarding claim 11, Wang et al. teach that additional surfactants include sodium laureth sulfate or ammonium laureth sulfate in which the materials contain a level of ethoxylation and/or propoxylation ([0017]).
Therefore, the personal care composition according to Wang et al. can be substantially free of or free of ethoxylated anionic sulfate surfactant.
Regarding claim 12, Wang et al. teach in one example, the at least one surfactant further comprises a betaine, preferably a cocamidopropyl betaine. Preferably the composition comprises 0.01-10 wt%, preferably 0.1 to 4 wt%, of said betaine, preferably the said betaine is cocamidopropyl betaine ([0024]; Claim 15).
Regarding claim 13, Wang et al. teach that the composition may comprise from 0.05% to 5%, from 0.05% to 1% by weight of the composition, of a structuring material selected from the group consisting of an associative polymer, Trihydroxystearin, or combinations thereof. An exemplary associative polymer can include AQUPEC® SER-300 made by Sumitomo Seika of Japan, which is an acrylate/C10-C30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer and comprises stearyl side chains with less than 1 wt% hydrophobic modification. Associative polymers can comprise C16 (palmityl) alkyl hydrophobic side chains with 0.7 wt% hydrophobic modification, but a percentage hydrophobic modification can be up to an aqueous solubility limit in surfactant compositions (e.g., up to 2 wt%, 5 wt%, or 10 wt%). Other associative polymers can include stearyl, octyl, decyl and lauryl side chains, alkyl acrylate polymers, polyacrylates, hydrophobically-modified polysaccharides, hydrophobically-modified urethanes, AQUPEC® SER-150 (acrylate/C10-C30 alkyl acrylate cross-polymer) comprising about Cis (stearyl) side chains and 0.4 wt% HM, and AQUPEC® HV-701EDR which comprises C8 (octyl) side chains and 3.5% HM, and mixtures thereof. Another exemplary associative polymer can be Stabylen 30 manufactured by 3V Sigma S.p.A., which has branched isodecanoate hydrophobic associative side chains ([0026]-[0027]).
Regarding claim 15, Wang et al. teach the electrolyte may also be selected from the group consisting of sodium chloride, ammonium chloride, sodium sulfate, ammonium sulfate, and mixtures thereof ([0029]).
Regarding claim 18, Wang et al. teach that stability of a composition can be maintained or enhanced even with the reduction of associative polymer with the addition of a non-associative polymer ([0026]). Wang et al. teach that samples are tested for visual stability, i.e., that over the course of one month there is visually no observed phase separation in these compositions ([0038]).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0000724 A1) as applied to claims 1-13, 15 and 18 above, further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2021/0401710 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Wang et al. teach that the personal care composition may comprise a nonionic surfactant ([0020]), but do not explicitly disclose a nonionic emulsifier selected from the group consisting of glyceryl monohydroxystearate, glyceryl caprylate/caprate, isosteareth-2, trideceth-2, trideceth-3, hydroxystearic acid, propylene glycol stearate, PEG-2 stearate, sorbitan monostearate, glyceryl laurate, laureth-2, cocoamide monoethanolamide, lauramide monoethanolamide, and mixtures thereof.
Johnson et al. teach personal care compositions comprising a surfactant system which provides cleaning performance to the composition, wherein the surfactant system comprises an anionic surfactant and/or a combination of anionic surfactants and/or a combination of anionic surfactants and co-surfactants selected from the group consisting of amphoteric, zwitterionic, nonionic and mixtures thereof ([0023]). Exemplary anionic surfactants for use in the personal care composition include alkyl sulfate anionic surfactants, such as lauryl sulfate, tridecyl sulfate, etc.; the co-surfactants include betaines, and sorbitan monostearate ([0025]-[0033], [0035], [0039], [0046]).
Regarding claim 16, Wang et al. teach that the composition may comprise a dermatologically acceptable moisturizer. Such dermatologically acceptable moisturizers an include lipids of natural and/or petroleum based sources. Lipids of natural sources can include various vegetable oils such as soybean oil, coconut oil, palm oil, palm stearine oil, canola oil, sunflower oil, and corn oil. Other such natural lipids contain various plant and extract butters such as shea butter, cocoa butter. Petroleum sources oils contain petrolatum and various mineral oils ([0029]).
Wang et al. do not explicitly disclose glyceryl monooleate, glyceryl monostearate, or glyceryl monolaurate.
Johnson et al. teach that nonionic surfactants suitable for use in the present invention are glyceryl esters and polyglyceryl esters, including but not limited to, glyceryl monoesters, glyceryl monoesters of C12-22 saturated, unsaturated and branched chain fatty acids such as glyceryl oleate, glyceryl monostearate, glyceryl monopalmitate, glyceryl monobehenate, and mixtures thereof ([0045]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2021/0000724 A1) as applied to claims 1-13, 15 and 18 above, further in view of Wei et al. (US 2012/0316095 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Wang et al. do not explicitly disclose at least about 40% lamellar structure.
Wei et al. teach a personal care composition comprises at least a structured cleansing phase and a benefit phase. The structured cleansing phase comprises: a) an aqueous structured surfactant phase comprising from about 5% to about 20%, by weight of said personal care composition, of an anionic surfactant; b) an amphoteric surfactant, a zwitterionic surfactant, or a combination thereof; and c) a structuring system comprising an electrolyte ([0005]-[0006]).
Wei et al. teach the cleansing phase may be structured. When structured, the cleansing phase is comprised of a structured domain. The structured domain is preferably an opaque structured domain, which is preferably a lamellar phase. The lamellar phase can provide resistance to shear, adequate yield to suspend particles and droplets and at the same time providing long term stability, since it is thermodynamically stable. The lamellar phase tends to have a viscosity that minimizes the need for viscosity modifiers, but they can be included if desired ([0040]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant claims to prepare personal care compositions according to Wang et al. wherein the cleansing phase comprises a lamellar structure, as reasonably suggested by Wei et al. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare a lamellar phase because Wei et al. teach that the lamellar phase can provide resistance to shear, adequate yield to suspend particles and droplets and at the same time providing long term stability, since it is thermodynamically stable; and the lamellar phase tends to have a viscosity that minimizes the need for viscosity modifiers, but they can be included if desired.
Double Patenting
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 1-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6-14 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/676,576 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘576 Application claims a personal care composition comprising at least a cleansing phase and a benefit phase, wherein the cleansing phase comprises surfactant B, and surfactant B comprises a mixture of C12 and C13 alkyl sulfate anionic surfactants that is the same as instantly claimed. The ‘576 Application further claims that the cleansing phase includes a structuring system comprising optionally a non-ionic emulsifier, optionally a rheology modifier, and an electrolyte, and the benefit phase includes a benefit agent. The concentrations of the components are the same or overlap with the instant claims. The ‘576 Application also claims a method of increasing stability of a personal care composition comprising the surfactant B.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nathan W Schlientz whose telephone number is (571)272-9924. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM, Monday through Friday.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571) 272-5539. 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.
/N.W.S/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616