DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
Claims 1-20 are pending and under current examination in this application. Amendment to the specification filed 17 August 2024, is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 5, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 2 and 10 are objected to as the term “coascervation” is presumed to be a typographical error for “coacervation”. To avoid ambiguity in the scope of the claims, these claims should be corrected by amendment replacing “coascervation” with “coacervation”.
Claims 4 and 5 are objected to as the term “disposition” is presumed to be a typographical error for “deposition” used in claims 1, 3, 6, and throughout the remainder of the specification. To avoid ambiguity in the scope of the claims, these claims should be corrected by amendment replacing “disposition” with “deposition”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cunningham et al. (US20100158964A1; published 24 June 2010, hereinafter referred to as “Cunningham”).
Cunningham provides a liquid personal care compositions and personal care products comprising a protonated skin aesthetic agent, acidifying agent, and emulsifying agent (Abstract and claims 1 and 3). Cunningham explicitly teaches that the emulsifying agent can be selected from a list including hydroxypropyl bis-hydroxyethyldimonium chloride (HBHEC; hydroxypropyl bis-(2-hydroxyethyl)dimethylammonium chloride) (claim 12 and ¶[0028]), in which the specific structure of HBHEC is inherent to the compound disclosed. The composition also includes cationic deposition polymers, such as polyquaternium-7 (cationic synthetic homopolymer), polyquaternium-10 (cationic cellulose) and guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride (cationic guar derivative) (¶[0083]) and one or more surfactants (¶[0084]), including anionic surfactants as alkyl sulfates and alkyl ether sulfates (¶[0087]), which encompasses sodium lauryl sulfate and sodium laureth-n sulfate, respectively.
Further, the examples provided for the invention use a surfactant blend of a primary surfactant and co-surfactants, including potassium laureth phosphate (¶[0116]), wherein the anionic surfactant can be an alkali metal (e.g., sodium or potassium) (¶[0088]), indicating the specific use of sodium lauryl sulfate or sodium laureth-n sulfate is appropriate for the invention. The composition of Cunningham is intrinsically a coacervate or coacervate-like system, as it is formed by acidifying agent protonation of a deprotonated skin agent within an aqueous liquid to produce an emulsified oil phase (¶[0019] and ¶[0032]).
The invention taught by Cunningham further discloses wherein one or more viscosity enhancers, including thickeners (¶[0076]), colorants, dyes and/or pigments, antimicrobials, antioxidants, pH adjusters, and buffering agents may be added (¶[0091]), as well as preservatives (¶[0029]). Embodiments of the invention are taught as a topical personal care composition as a wet wipe (¶[0031]), wherein wipes are taught to historically be used for cleaning (¶[0002]) and wherein additional components, such as cleansers can be included in aqueous solution formulation embodiments of the invention (¶[0056]), thus integrally teaching a cleansing formulation.
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 (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.
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 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cunningham et al. (US20100158964A1; published 24 June 2010, hereinafter referred to as “Cunningham”) in view of Peffly et al. (WO2004064802A2; published 05 August 2004, hereinafter referred to as “Peffly”).
The coacervate system taught by Cunningham, described above for anticipation, is used in a topically applied personal care product to impart skin and hair quietness (interpreted as “quiet luxury” aesthetic associated with healthy-looking hydrated, glossy and smooth skin and hair) and softness benefits (¶[0007]; conditioning benefit are considered to smooth and soften the hair and skin). To boost these benefits to the skin or hair of a user, the liquid composition of the invention may be incorporated into personal care compositions and personal care products (Abstract), which would then be obvious to apply to the skin or hair during use to increase deposition of conditioning agents to gain the beneficial effects.
Cunningham does not explicitly teach the composition delivered from a rinse-off shampoo cleansing system.
Peffly directly teaches an invention to improve personal care hair and skin conditioning and from rinse-off cleansing compositions containing a cationic cellulose polymer and an anionic surfactant coacervate system to maximize deposition of conditioning agents onto hair and skin during the cleansing process (page 1, paragraph 1-4). Peffly teaches that coacervates are formed by the interaction of a cationic deposition polymer, such as polyquaternium-10, with an anionic surfactant system, such as alkyl sulfates or alkyl ether sulfates (e.g., sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium laureth sulfate; claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 and example on page 23, Table 1) and administering coacervate compositions for treating hair or skin (claim 28) and includes examples of topical rinse-off shampoo cleansing system compositions, containing a high molecular weight conditioning agent, as either Polymer LR30M, MW= 1,8MM; Polymer JR30M, MW=2.0 MM; Polymer KG30M, MW= 2.0MM (UCare; Dow Chemicals) or cationic cellulose polymer with MW = 2.0 MM, and a carrier ingredient that primarily carries or delivers active ingredients in the formulation, as dimethicone (DC2-1550, 44 nm particle size; Dow Co.) (page 22, last paragraph and page 23, Table 1). Furthermore, both Cunningham and Peffly use aqueous carriers in the compositions (Cunningham ¶[0070]; Peffly page 23, Table 1).
Prior to the instant effective filing date, one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to enhance the deposition efficacy of a known coacervate-forming personal care cleansing composition such as that taught by Cunningham, would have been motivated by Peffly’s specific teaching of a rinse-off shampoo deposition-enhancing cleansing coacervate, to modify the invention of Cunningham to include a rinse-off shampoo cleansing composition product form. It would be therefore an obvious modification to incorporate the personal care composition containing HBHEC taught by Cunningham into the explicitly taught cationic deposition polymer/anionic surfactant coacervate system, formulated as a rinse-off shampoo by Peffly.
In the absence of evidence of unexpected results or criticality of the combination, the claimed species and methods are predictable variations of known coacervate deposition-enhancing systems. A prima facie case of obviousness is established, as the prior art teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art that the claimed invention, as a whole by via combining the teachings of Cunningham and Peffly, would have been obvious to try with a reasonable expectation of success in creating a functional coacervate composition for deposition, as both references operate in the same technical field of personal care coacervates and address related problems of delivery/dispersion and deposition efficiency to impart aesthetic benefits of softness and adequate conditioning performance in personal cleansing compositions.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA L. SCOTLAND whose telephone number is (571) 272-2979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm EST.
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 at (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 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.
/RL Scotland/
Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615