DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of claims
Claims 1-3, 5, and 11 are original. Claims 4, 6-10 and 12-25 are currently amended. Claims 1-25 are pending and under examination.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/079449, filed on 10/21/2022. Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCTEP2021079372, filed on 10/22/2021. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/14/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 16 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “and any combination thereof” is improper in this context. Since the claims do not employ a Markush group format, the phrase should be amended to read “or any combination thereof”.
Claims 19 and 20 are objected to for “capryloyl/caproyl methyl” which appears to be a misspelling and needs to be “capryloyl/caproyl methyl glucamide” (see in claim 17).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-25 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation “a liquid polyol at a weight percentage concentration of from about 40 wt % to about 80 wt %”, and the claim also recites “preferably from about 45 wt % to about 80 wt %”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation
In the present instance, claim 1 also recites the broad recitation “surfactant component at a weight percentage concentration of from about 10 wt % to about 40 wt %”, and the claim also recites “preferably from about 15 wt % to about 35 wt %, more preferably from about 20 wt % to about 30 wt %”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “trihydric alcohol is selected from the group consisting of glycerin (propyl triol), 1,2,3-butylene triol, 1,2,5-pentylene triol, 1,3,6-hexylene triol and any combination thereof”, and the claim also recites “preferably the trihydric alcohol is glycerin”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “wherein the first sulfate-free anionic surfactant is an isethionate compound,”, and the claim also recites “preferably an acyl isethionate or a acyl methyl isethionate”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “wherein the isethionate compound is selected from the group consisting of sodium cocoyl isethionate, sodium cocoyl methyl isethionate, sodium lauroyl isethionate and sodium lauroyl methyl isethionate”, and the claim also recites “preferably the isethionate compound is sodium cocoyl isethionate”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitation “wherein the first sulfate-free anionic surfactant has a concentration of from about 5 wt % to about 20 wt %”, and the claim also recites “preferably about 10 wt % to about 20 wt %, and most preferably about 12 wt % to about 18 wt %”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “wherein the second sulfate-free anionic surfactant is selected from the group of acyl isethionates/methyl isethionates, acyl glycinates, acyl taurates, acyl amino acids, acyl sarcosinates, sulfosuccinates and sulfonates, wherein the acyl groups comprise from 6 to 30 carbon atoms”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the second sulfate-free anionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of sodium cocoyl isethionate, sodium cocoyl methyl isethionate, sodium lauroyl isethionate, sodium lauroyl methyl isethionate, sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, sodium methyl oleoyl taurate; and more preferably wherein the second sulfate-free anionic surfactant is sodium lauroyl sarcosinate”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 8 recites the broad recitation “wherein the second sulfate-free anionic surfactant has a concentration of from about 2 wt % to about 10 wt %”, and the claim also recites “preferably about 5 wt % to about 8 wt %”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 9 recites the broad recitation “wherein the first sulfate-free anionic surfactant to the second sulfate-free anionic surfactant are in a wt % ratio of from about 1.5:1 to about 7:1”, and the claim also recites “preferably about 1.8:1 to about 4:1, more preferably about 2:1 to about 3:1”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “wherein each of the first, second and third sulfate-free anionic surfactants are different components”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the third sulfate-free anionic surfactant is an acyl/methyl isethionate or an acyl taurate”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 11 recites the broad recitation “wherein the third sulfate-free anionic surfactant is selected from the group consisting of sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, sodium cocoyl methyl isethionate, sodium lauroyl isethionate, sodium lauroyl methyl isethionate, sodium methyl oleoyl taurate”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the third sulfate-free anionic surfactant is sodium cocoyl methyl isethionate or sodium methyl oleoyl taurate, more preferably wherein the third sulfate-free anionic surfactant is sodium cocoyl methyl isethionate”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “wherein the third sulfate-free anionic surfactant has a concentration of from about 2 wt % to about 10 wt %”, and the claim also recites “preferably from about 5 wt % to about 8 wt %”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 13 recites the broad recitation “wherein the first sulfate-free anionic surfactant to the third sulfate-free anionic surfactant are in a wt % ratio of from about 1.3:1 to about 7:1”, and the claim also recites “preferably from about 1.5:1 to about 4:1, more preferably from about 1.6:1 to about 3:1”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 15 recites the broad recitation “wherein the weight percentage ratio of anionic surfactants to non-ionic surfactant(s) is from about 5:1 to about 15:1”, and the claim also recites “preferably about 8:1 to about 12:1”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 16 recites the broad recitation “wherein the non-ionic surfactant comprises one or more of lauroyl/myristyl methyl glucamide, capryloyl/caproyl methyl glucamide, capryloyl/caproyl glucamide, lauryl glucoside, decyl glucoside, coco glucoside, and any combination thereof”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the non-ionic surfactant comprises lauroyl/myristyl methyl glucamide and/or capryloyl/caproyl methyl glucamide”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 17 recites the broad recitation “wherein the non-ionic surfactant comprises one or more of lauroyl/myristyl methyl glucamide, capryloyl/caproyl methyl glucamide, capryloyl/caproyl glucamide, lauryl glucoside, decyl glucoside, coco glucoside, and any combination thereof”, and the claim also recites “preferably wherein the non-ionic surfactant comprises lauroyl/myristyl methyl glucamide and/or capryloyl/caproyl methyl glucamide”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 18 recites the broad recitation “wherein the non-ionic surfactant has a concentration of from about 1 wt % to about 10 wt %”, and the claim also recites “preferably from about 2 wt % to about 5 wt %”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 19 recites the broad recitation “wherein the first sulfate-free anionic surfactant is an isethionate compound”, and the claim also recites “preferably sodium cocoyl isethionate, the second sulfate-free anionic surfactant is sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, and the non-ionic surfactant comprises lauroyl/myristyl methyl glucamide and/or capryloyl/caproyl methyl, and optionally further comprising a third sulfate-free anionic surfactant, wherein the third sulfate-free anionic surfactant is sodium cocoyl methyl isethionate”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 22 recites the broad recitation “wherein the polyol is selected from the group consisting of erythritol, xylitol, sorbitol, propylene triol, 1,2,3-butylene triol, 1,2,5-pentylene triol, 1,3,6-hexylene triol, ethylene glycol, 1,2-propylene diol, 1,3 propane diol, 1,2-butane diol, 1,3-butane diol, 1,2 pentane diol, diethylene glycol, dipropylene glycol and any combination thereof”, and the claim also recites “preferably the polyol is selected from the group consisting of sorbitol, glycerin (propyl triol), 1,2,3-butanetriol, ethylene glycol, diethylene glycol, 1,2 propylene diol, 1,3 propylene diol and any combination thereof; and more preferably the polyol is selected from the group consisting of sorbitol, glycerin, 1,2-propanediol, 1,3 propanediol and any combination thereof”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 23 recites the broad recitation “liquid polyol at a weight percentage concentration of from about 45 wt % to about 65 wt %”, and the claim also recites “preferably from about 50 wt % to about 60 wt %”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
In the present instance, claim 24 recites the broad recitation “wherein the composition further comprises a conditioning agent; preferably the concentration of the conditioning agent is in a range of from about 0.05 wt % to about 10 wt %”, and the claim also recites “more preferably from about 0.1 wt % to about 5 wt % relative to the total weight of the shampoo composition; and especially more preferably the conditioning agent comprises at least a quaternary ammonium organic compound”, which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation.
The above claims (1, 3-13, 15-19, 22-24) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 7 recites that the second sulfate free anionic surfactant is “selected from the group of” certain surfactants. However, the phrase “selected from the group of” does not clearly indicate whether the listed surfactants form a closed Markush group or whether unrecited members may also be included. In contrast, Markush groups are typically introduced using the phrase “selected form the group consisting of’, which clearly defines a closed set of alternatives. The use of “selected from the group of” may be considered as “selected from the group comprising” which is improper. Because the claim language does not make it clear whether the group is intended to be closed or open to additional members, the scope of the claim is ambiguous. Accordingly, claim 7 is indefinite.
Claim 15 recites “the weight percentage ratio of anionic surfactants to non-ionic surfactant(s)”. However, it is unclear which anionic surfactants are included in the recited ratio. For example, claim 1 introduces a first sulfate-free anionic surfactant and a second sulfate-free anionic surfactant. However, claim 15 does not specify whether the ratio refers only to either the first or second anionic surfactant, or to the total amount of all anionic surfactants that could be present. Because the scope of the claimed ratio is unclear, claim 15 is indefinite.
Claims 15-20 refer to “the non-ionic surfactant” or “non-ionic surfactant, whereas the antecedent basis introduced in the earlier claims they depend on is “one or more nonionic surfactant”. It is therefore unclear whether the later reference refers to a single surfactant or the previously introduced “one or more nonionic surfactants”. because the scope of these claims cannot be determined with reasonable certainty of which non-ionic surfactant from the one or more is being referred to, claims 15-20 are indefinite. Applicant may resolve this issue by amending claims 15-20 so that they consistently refer to “the one or more nonionic surfactants” as originally introduced.
Claim 25 Recites a “Use” claim. The claim does not recite any method steps describing how such reduction is achieved. As written, it is unclear whether claim 25 is intended to be a composition claim or a method claim directed to using the composition to reduce water usage. Because the claim language does not clearly define the statutory category of the invention and lacks any steps corresponding to the recited functional use, the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, and is thus indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(q) for more details.
The remaining claims 2, 14, and 21 are also indefinite because they are dependent on an indefinite claim.
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 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter as being a “Use” claim. Claim 25 recites the “use of the water-reduced shampoo composition of claim 1 for reducing the use of rinse water”. The claim therefore introduces a use limitation describing the intended use of the composition without reciting any method steps. As drafted, the claim attempts to encompass both a composition of matter and a method of using the composition, because the phrase “for reducing” describes a functional use rather than a structural limitation of the composition. Claims must be directed to one statutory category of the invention (e.g., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Because claim 25 is drafted in a manner that attempts to cover both a composition and method of use, the claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP 2173.05(q) for more details.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-4, 6-9, 14-15, 18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (US6239093B1) in view of Mauer et al. (US20170333734A1).
Foley et al. discloses a liquid cleaning composition or shampoo comprising a surfactant system with a dianionic or alkoxylated dianionic surfactant having a structural skeleton of at least five carbon atoms to which two anionic substituent groups spaced at least three atoms apart (first and second anionic surfactant) (abstract). Other cosurfactants may be present (abstract). Foley et al. describes liquid cleaning compositions to include shampoos as well (column 1, lines 12-16). Foley et al. teaches that such shampoo compositions may include anionic and non-ionic surfactants (claims 14 and 15). Foley et al. teaches that such compositions may comprise water and/or other solvents such as polyols including those containing from 2 to about 6 carbon atoms and from 2 to about 6 hydroxy groups (e.g., 1,3-propanediol, ethylene glycol, glycerin, and 1,2-propanediol) (column 22, lines 7-14). Foley et al. teaches that such compositions may contain the above solvents at concentrations ranging from about 1% to about 99.7% or 5 to 90% (column 22, lines 15-16; column 2, line 60). These components satisfy the water and polyol composition and concentration requirements of present claim 1, in addition to all elemental requirements of present claims 2, 3, 22, and 23. Foley teaches hair conditioning agents (Cationic surfactants). Foley teaches “typical examples include the C12-C18 and C12-C14 N-methylglucamides” as (2) nonionic co-surfactants (also see example 3 with C24 N-methyl glucamide).
However, Foley et al. fails to teach the various combinations, concentrations, and ratios of the anionic and non-ionic surfactants in the composition as disclosed in many of the present claims, including present claims 6, 8-9, 12-13, 15, 18, and 22-23. In addition, Foley et al. fails to teach the composition being sulfate-free as taught in present claim 14, and also fails to teach it being free of amphoteric surfactants as taught in present claim 21.
Mauer et al. discloses a composition suitable as a shampoo or hair conditioner, comprising at least one surfactant (abstract). Mauer et al. teaches that the composition may include at least one surfactant consisting of a sulfate, an ethoxylated sulfate, a sulfonate, an alkyl polyglycoside, a derivative of an alkyl polyglycoside, a betaine, an amphoacetate, a glutamate, a sulfosuccinate, a taurate, a glycinate and an isethionate (¶30) ––making the option of adding or omitting sulfate surfactants apparent, and thus satisfying the sulfate-free requirements of all applicable present claims, which thereby covers all required elements of present claim 14. Mauer teaches alkylglucamides and alkyl oligoglucoside surfactants (31). Mauer et al. teaches that the composition may specifically include at least one surfactant that is an an-ionic and/or non-ionic and/or amphoteric and/or zwitterionic (¶31) ––thus making the option of omitting amphoteric surfactants apparent, thereby satisfying all requirements of present claim 21, in addition to covering the nonionic and anionic surfactant teachings of all present claims, including claim 1. Additionally, Mauer et al. teaches that the at least one surfactant may be in the composition at concentrations ranging from 3% to 40% by weight (¶31), preferably 10% to 20% by weight (¶32). Mauer et al. teaches that the composition may also include at least one co-surfactant (¶34), with the at least one co-surfactant being at concentrations ranging from 0% to 15% by weight (¶81; claim 2). Collectively, the above teachings cover all components of concentration ranges, concentration ratios, and combinations of sulfate-free anionic and nonionic surfactants in all present claims (such as present claim 1), and thus also satisfy all the requirements of present claims 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, and 18. Mauer teaches a conditioning agent/compound (paragraphs 149 and 158).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions, to modify the liquid cleaning compositions of Foley et al. with the surfactant selections and concentration ranges taught by Mauer et al. This is because Foley et al. teaches shampoo compositions comprising anionic and nonionic surfactants in combination with water and/or polyol solvents such as glycerin at concentrations overlapping with those in the present claims. Mauer et al. further teaches shampoo compositions comprising sulfate-free anionic and nonionic surfactants/cosurfactants at combinations, concentrations, and ratios overlapping with those in the present claims. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have thus been motivated to combine these teachings in order to formulate sulfate-free cleansing compositions with suitable surfactant systems and solvent compositions for improved formulation flexibility and cosmetic stability. Furthermore, adjusting the classes/combinations of these conventional shampoo surfactants, in addition to their concentrations and ratios is a matter of routine optimization of result-effective variables for a person of ordinary skill in the art to enhance properties such as cleansing performance, foaming, and stability of the composition based on overlapping ranges in the prior art. Because both references are directed to closely related shampoo compositions employing compatible surfactant systems and solvents, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Foley et al. and Mauer et al. to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claims 5, 10-13, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (US6239093B1) in view of Mauer et al. (US20170333734A1) in further view of Patron et al. (US20170087199A1).
Foley et al. and Mauer et al. collectively teach all limitations of claim 1. In addition, they collectively teach all combinations, concentrations, and ratios of the sulfate-free anionic and nonionic surfactants in the composition of all present claims.
However, Foley et al. and Mauer et al. fail to collectively teach the required species of anionic and nonionic surfactants recited in present claims 4-5, 7, 10-11, 16-17, and 19-20. They additionally fail to collectively teach the presence and concentration of conditioners taught in present claim 24.
Patron et al. discloses compositions comprising combinations of one or more cooling agents with additional cooling agents, inactive drug ingredients, food additives, antimicrobials, corticosteroids, and compounds known to be used in personal care products (abstract). Patron et al. teaches that the composition can be made in the form of shampoos (¶44). Patron et al. teaches that the composition may include one or more surfactants (¶5), including anionic and nonionic surfactants (¶164). Patron et al. teaches that such topical compositions may include Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate (¶28), which satisfies the anionic surfactant requirements of present claims 4 and 5. Patron et al. teaches that the composition may also contain Sodium Lauroyl Sarcosinate (¶28), which satisfies all required elements of present claim 7. Patron et al. also teaches that such compositions may include Sodium Hydrogenated Cocoyl Methyl Isethionate (¶28), which satisfies all required elements of present claims 10 and 11. Patron et al. teaches that the composition may also include Lauroyl Methyl Glucamide and lauryl methyl glucamide (¶28), which satisfies all required elements of present claims 16 and 17 as being a species that obviates those in applicant’s claims 16 and 17. Collectively, the above teachings also cover all required elements of present claim 19, in addition to covering the required surfactant components of present claim 20. Patron et al. also teaches that emollients (a form of conditioner) can be present in such compositions at concentrations ranging from 1% to 10% w/w (¶90), and further states that the composition may contain Quaternary ammonium compounds (¶164), which satisfies all required elements of present claim 24. In paragraph 25, glucosides such as cocoglucosides, decyl glucoside, Caproyl ethyl glucoside, Caprylyl/Capryl Glucoside and caprylyl glucoside are taught as representative surfactants.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions, to modify the shampoo compositions suggested by Foley et al. and Mauer et al. with the specific surfactant species and conditioning agents taught by Patron et al. This is because Foley et al. and Mauer et al. collectively teach shampoo compositions comprising anionic and nonionic surfactants in solvent systems that overlap with those in the present claims, while Mauer et al. further teaches sulfate-free anionic and nonionic surfactant systems at concentrations and ratios overlapping with those in the present claims. Patron et al. teaches that such shampoo compositions may include the specific anionic and non-ionic surfactants as required by the present claims such as sodium cocoyl isethionate, sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, lauroyl methyl glucamide, sodium hydrogenated cocoyl methyl isethionate, in addition to conditioners at concentrations overlapping with those in the present claims. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have thus been motivated to incorporate these known surfactant species and conditioning agents into the shampoo compositions suggested by Foley et al. and Mauer et al. in order to formulate cosmetically acceptable cleansing compositions using conventional surfactants and conditioners. Furthermore, the selection and combination of such conventional surfactants for shampoos is a matter of routine formulation choice and optimization for one of ordinary skill in the art to enhance properties such as cleansing performance, nourishment, foaming, and stability of the composition. And because these references are directed to closely related shampoo formulations employing compatible surfactant systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining the teachings of Foley et al., Mauer et al., and Patron et al. to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foley et al. (US6239093B1) in view of Mauer et al. (US20170333734A1) in further view of Bernet et al. (US20160184214A1).
Foley et al. and Mauer et al. collectively teach all limitations of claim 1.
However, Foley et al. and Mauer et al. fail to collectively teach the limitations of claim 25.
Bernet et al. discloses a cosmetic composition comprising a cosmetically active ingredient in a cosmetically acceptable medium (abstract). Bernet et al. teaches shampoos as examples of such cosmetic composition (¶6). Bernet et al. teaches that the composition contains a cosmetically acceptable medium (¶3) which includes water, solvents, diluents, and mixtures thereof (¶26). Bernet et al. teaches that the composition may contain surface active materials (¶25) such as anionic and non-ionic surfactants (¶30). Bernet et al. teaches that such compositions may also contain moisturizers (¶25) such as polyols including glycerin and sorbitol (¶29). Bernet et al. teaches that the composition may also include agents such as silicone to reduce the amount of water required to rinse off the lather (or foam), resulting in a major reduction in water usage; often 60-80% water (¶6), which satisfies all required elements of present claim 25.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions, to employ the shampoo compositions taught by Foley et al. and Mauer et al. in the manner suggested by Bernet et al. for reducing the amount of rinse water required during use. This is because Foley et al. and Mauer et al. collectively teach shampoo compositions comprising nonionic and anionic surfactants in solvents such as water and polyols. Meanwhile, Bernet et al. teaches that shampoo formulations containing conventional cosmetic ingredients such as surfactants, polyols, and optional silicone agents may be formulated to reduce the amount of water required to rinse off the foam, thereby significantly reducing the water usage. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have thus been motivated to use the shampoo compositions taught by Foley et al. and Mauer et al. in the manner suggested by Bernet et al. to improve the rinsability and reduce water consumption during use. Because these references are all directed to closely related shampoo compositions employing compatible ingredients, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Bernet et al. into the compositions taught by Foley et al. and Mauer et al. to arrive at the claimed invention.
Conclusions
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARYA AHMADI BAZARGANI whose telephone number is (571)272-0211. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 5:00 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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571) 272-0581. 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.
Arya A. Bazargani, Ph.D.
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1613
/MARK V STEVENS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613