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 .
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 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.
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 1-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (US 2021/0371773 A1) as evidenced by Lauroamphoacetates property (data. 2026).
Regarding claims 1-5, 13 and 18, Brandt teaches a mixture formulation (i.e. structured blend) for personal care, shampoo and body gel (instant claim 18) composition; [abstract, 06, 14-20], comprising; a biosurfactant such as rhamnolipid in the amount of 5 wt.%; [6, 89-90], amine containing anionic surfactants (instant claims 4-5) such as sodium lauroyl sarcosinate; [108, 48, 55-57, claim 15], gums such as xanthan or carrageenan; [307: pg.49, 12, 129, 142], zwitterionic surfactant such as sodium lauroamphodiacetate or sodium cocoampho- acetate; [63, 206: example 109], and water (instant claim 13) as liquid carrier; [28, 100-102].
It should be noted that the zwitterionic surfactant of Brandt is not identical to instantly claimed (sodium lauroamphoacetate). But it is almost an identical/analogous form of it, namely sodium lauroamphodiacetate, which has a very similar physio-chemical properties especially considering the fact that both are utilized for personal care or skin care compositions such as shampoo body wash and washing gel…etc. which is evidenced by Lauroamphoacetates property data as attached. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute (or add) the Lauroamphodiacetates of Brandt with Lauroamphoacetates as a functional equivalent ingredient with the same chemical property in personal care compositions. It, also, should be noted that all examples of different formulations provided by Brandt are very related and similar to each other since they are applied to hair or skin thus the amounts similar ingredients could be selected from any formula without deviating from the scope of prior art’s teaching.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, and the term “A viscosity control composition”, it is noted that; Section 2112.02 of the MPEP provides direction as to how phrases such as this are to be treated: “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 11c 2 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81. With respect to claim 14, in all of the provided tables of different formulations the amount of water carrier is about 90 wt.% and the rest are active ingredients that comprise 100 wt.% of instantly claimed viscosity components.
Regarding claim 6-10, Brandt teaches sodium cocosulfate in amount of 7 wt.% and sodium laureth sulfate in amount of 8.5 wt.%; [123-124], and zwitterionic surfactants of amphoacetates at 3 wt.%; [206: formulation 109]. The amount of gums such as carrageenan and xanthan is 3 wt.%; [154, 178]. At the time before the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to select only carrageenan (instant claim 9) as a functional equivalent to any other gum(s) at a desired amount with the motivation of providing a desired viscosity for the intended compositional efficacy. The ratio of anionic surfactant to biosurfactant (glycolipid) is 5/4.5 which renders instant claim 10 obvious.
Regarding claim 11-12, Brandt does not expressly teach the ratios of the amounts of zwitterionic and gum to biosurfactants. However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to change these ratios for the desired delivery of composition during the washing and after washing the hair or skin, since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954), MPEP 2144.04 [R-6] VD.
Regarding claim 19-20, Brandt teaches other ingredients such as fragrance and dye; [64, 99, 103, 312]. It teaches method of preparing formulations; [89-94], the composition wherein the skin, body or shampoo composition are prepared along with viscosity ingredients thus mixing them for resulting in final product. It is evident and an obvious that products such as shampoo, body wash or conditioners are naturally and expectedly placed in a containers of desired shapes, size and volume for being purchased by public.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (US 2021/0371773 A1) as evidenced by Lauroamphoacetates property (data. 2026).
Regarding claims 15 and 16-17, Brandt teaches a mixture formulation (i.e. structured blend) for personal care (abstract, 06, 14-20) composition comprising; a biosurfactant such as rhamnolipid in the amount of 5 wt.%; [6, 89-90], amine containing anionic surfactants such as sodium lauroyl sarcosinate; [108, 48, 55-57, claim 15], gums such as xanthan or carrageenan; [307: pg.49, 12, 129, 142], zwitterionic surfactant such as sodium lauroamphodiacetate or sodium cocoampho- acetate; [63, 206: example 109], and water as liquid carrier; [28, 100-102]. It should be noted that the zwitterionic surfactant of Brandt is not identical to instantly claimed (sodium lauroamphoacetate). But it is almost an identical/analogous form of it, namely sodium lauroamphodiacetate, which has a very similar physio-chemical properties especially considering the fact that both are utilized for personal care or skin care compositions such as shampoo body wash and washing gel…etc. which is evidenced by Lauroamphoacetates property data as attached. At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute (or add) the Lauroamphodiacetates of Brandt with Lauroamphoacetates as a functional equivalent ingredient with the same chemical property in personal care compositions. With respect to claim 17, in all of the provided tables of different formulations the amount of water carrier is about 90 wt.% and the rest are active ingredients that comprise 100 wt.% of instantly claimed viscosity components.
Regarding claims 15-16, and the term “A viscosity control composition”, it is noted that; Section 2112.02 of the MPEP provides direction as to how phrases such as this are to be treated: “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 11c 2 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”); Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d at 152, 88 USPQ2d at 480-81.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dr. M. Reza Asdjodi whose telephone number is (571)270-3295. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 AM- 6 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, Dr. Mark Eashoo can be reached on 571-272-1197. 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.
/M.R.A./
Examiner, Art Unit 1767
2026/08/09
/LIAM J HEINCER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1767