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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-19 and 41 are pending.
Claims 12-19 and 41 are currently amended.
Claims 20-40 have been canceled.
Claims 1-19 and 41 are currently under consideration.
Claims 1-19 and 41 are rejected.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/CA2022/051567 filed 10/24/2022. The provisional applications 63/271,767 filed 10/26/2021 and 63/338,516 filed 05/05/2022 are in a non-English language. As such, the priority date is benefited to the filing date of the PCT. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(5).
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 04/26/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Applicant Claims
The instant claims are directed to a shampoo in solid form, the shampoo comprising: at least one surfactant; at least one thickening agent; at least one conditioning agent; and at least one system of preservation agents, wherein the shampoo being reconstitutable in an aqueous environment to create a shampoo in a liquid form, wherein the at least one surfactant is a primary surfactant; wherein the at least one surfactant is a primary surfactant; wherein the primary surfactant is present in the shampoo in an amount of between about 10% and about 60% per total mass of the shampoo; wherein the at least one surfactant is a secondary surfactant; wherein the secondary surfactant is present in the shampoo in an amount of between about 10% and about 60% per total mass of the shampoo; wherein the at least one surfactant is a contour surfactant; wherein the contour surfactant is present in the shampoo in an amount of between about 0.1% and about 10% per total mass of the shampoo; wherein the at least one surfactant is selected from: sodium lauroyl sarcosinate, sodium lauryl sulfoacetate, sodium olivate, sodium lauroyl glutamate, sodium cocoate, glyceryl oleate, sodium cocoyl glutamate, lauryl glucoside, coco glucoside, lauroyl arginine, sodium cocoyl glycinate and sodium cocoyl isethionate; wherein the at least one surfactant is sodium lauryl sulfoacetate; wherein the at least one surfactant is sodium cocoyl glutamate; wherein the at least one surfactant is sodium cocoyl glycinate; wherein the at least one thickening agent is present in an amount of between about 1% and about 30% per total mass of the shampoo; wherein the at least one thickening agent is selected from: dehydrated xanthan gum, xanthan gum, cellulose gum, sodium alginate and carrageenan; wherein the at least one thickening agent is xanthan gum; wherein the at least one thickening agent is carrageenan; wherein the at least one conditioning agent is present in an amount of between about 0.1% and about 10% per total mass of the shampoo; wherein the at least one conditioning agent is selected from: sarcosine, protein hydrolysates, plant powder, starches, vegetable oils and vegetable milks; wherein the at least one conditioning agent is rice starch. Applicants claim a method for reconstituting the shampoo in solid form, the method comprising: solubilizing the shampoo in solid form in a quantity of aqueous solvent in order to create a solubilized shampoo; and shaking the solubilized shampoo.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 41 are objected to because of the following informalities: the use of dashes or bullets should not be used. Applicants may consider amending by replacing the dashes with lower case letters that are typically used in an outline, e.g., (a), (b), etc. for clarity. The Examiner notes that copying and pasting complex files which may contain embedded images, animations, or intricate formatting, may result in data loss or formatting inconsistencies. 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.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 12-13, 17 and 41 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.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: step(s) prior to or after the “shaking the solubilized shampoo.” As liquids are fluids and do not have a fixed shape it appears that solubilized shampoo may need to be contained in a vessel or bottle in order for this to occur. For the purposes of this office action, any prior art that teaches shampoo in solid form solubilized by amount of aqueous solvent will be considered to read on the claim.
The term “quantity” in claim 41 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “quantity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. By using the term “quantity” renders the solubilized shampoo indefinite.
The term “about” in claims 3, 5, 7, 12-13 and 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The amounts of surfactants, thickening agents, and conditioning agents have been rendered indefinite by the use of the term "about".
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lush Godiva Shampoo Bar (product reviews available online 2009).
Lush anticipates the claims by disclosing a solid shampoo bar in which the following surfactants appear first, third, and forth on the cosmetics label: sodium coco sulfate, cetearyl alcohol and sodium lauryl sulfate (document provided bridging pgs. 2-3) to anticipate at least one surfactant. Lush discloses stearic acid which is widely used as thickener. The various plant oils on the ingredients list of Lush anticipate the at least one conditioning agent limitation. Behentrimonium chloride, benzyl alcohol, and benzyl benzoate disclosed anticipate the at least one system of preservation agents limitation. Lush explains how to use the product by showing an image representing the use of the solid shampoo (pg. 1 of document) and provides written instructions (see “How to use:” pg. 2 of document) to anticipate the solubilizing the shampoo in solid form limitation.
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 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 (a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
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. Applicants are 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.
Claim(s) 1-19 and 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chan et al. (US 2020/0214946 A1, pub. 07/09/2020) in view of Bekto et al. (US 2024/0398686 A1, filed 08/30/2022) herein referenced Chan and Bekto.
Chan discloses that a solid shampoo, including the following components in percentage by weight: sodium cocoyl isethionate 50-80%, first surfactant 1-10%, second surfactant 0.5-20%, polyhydric alcohol humectant 1-20% and preservative 0.1-2%; wherein the first surfactant comprises one or two of the following: sodium lauryl sulfoacetate and disodium laureth sulfosuccinate (abstract). The second surfactant comprises one or more of the following: coco-glucoside, cocamidopropyl betaine and disodium lauroamphodiacetate ([0005], [0034], claim 1). The solid shampoo further comprises from 0.1 to 10% by weight of hair conditioning factor including one or more of hair conditioning oil ([0036], claim 2). The hair conditioning oil comprises of synthetic oil at 20-40%, and plant oil at 60-80% ([0017]). Embodiment 1 of Chan shows sodium cocoyl isethionate at 55%, sodium lauryl sulfoacetate at 8%, coco-glucoside at 15%, hair conditioning factor at 5.7%, with a preservative system that includes preservative at 1.2% and plant essential oil at 0.1% ([0035], [0040], [0049]). Chan provides sensory test results in which during the trial, hair was washed every two days in two weeks ([0074] see Table 1, Fig. 1) to read on the shampoo being reconstitutable in an aqueous environment limitation of claim 1.
Chan does not teach thickening agent.
Bekto discloses a powder composition that comprises an effervescent system, a solid surfactant system, and a stabilizing system comprising a polysaccharide builder and a salt of carboxylic acid, and optionally a viscosity builder (abstract). In an embodiment, isethionate makes up from 50 to 90% by weight of the surfactant in the surfactant system ([0026]) and provides Example 1 where sodium cocoyl isethionate is present at 24% and 26% ([0092]) and is added to balance in Example 3 ([0100]). In another embodiment, the end use wash composition is a shampoo (i.e., hair washing) composition ([0027]).
Regarding at least one thickening agent, Bekto teaches xanthan gum and carrageenan as viscosity builders for use in the cleansing powder compositions ([0069], [0100] Example 3, [0103] Example 4, [0103] Example 5).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, ahead of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the thickening agent taught by Bekto in the solid shampoo composition of taught by Chan with expected results. One would be motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success because Bekto surprisingly found that the cleansing powder composition advantageously has a higher-than-expected quantity of a viscosity builder as it is conventionally known by one of ordinary skill in the art that increasing inclusion levels of viscosity builders may significantly suppress peak foam volume ([0069]). This complements the solid shampoo of Chan given that “Foam Degree” is the first of the user experience evaluation measures ([0074-0075] see Table 1).
Regarding claims 2-8, Chan teaches sodium cocoyl isethionate at 50-80%, first surfactant at 1-10%, second surfactant at 0.5-20% (abstract, claim 1), to read on the claimed surfactants and their amount ranges per total mass of the shampoo: primary (10-60%), secondary (5-35%), and contour surfactants (0.1-10%). MPEP 2144.05 states that a prima facie case of obviousness exists in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art.
Regarding claim 9, Chan teaches sodium lauryl sulfoacetate and provides embodiments thereof (abstract, [0069] Embodiments 6, claim 1).
Regarding claims 10-11, Chan teaches sodium cocoyl isethionate (SCI) but not sodium cocoyl glutamate (SCG) and sodium cocoyl glycinate (SCG). Bekto teaches sodium cocoyl glutamate and sodium cocoyl glycinate (claim 3). In addition, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, ahead of the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute Chan’s SCI with the SCGs taught by Bekto for a similar purpose of cleansing. Looking to the instant specification each of these surfactants are described as exemplary primary surfactants (see Spec. [0020]). Simple substitution of one coconut-derived anionic surfactant for another is within the purview of the skilled artisan and would yield predictable results.
Regarding claims 12-13, Bekto teaches the presence of thickening agent from 0% to 10% by weight of the cleansing powder composition (claim 8) to fall within and overlap with the claimed ranges (i.e., 1-30%, 5-20%).
Regarding claims 14-16, Bekto teaches xanthan gum (claim 8) and carrageenan ([0069]).
Regarding claims 17-18, as mentioned above Chan teaches a hair conditioning factor from 0.1 to 10% of the shampoo including one or more conditioning oil that comprises plant oil which is at 60-80% ([0017]). Here Chan teaches an amount of conditioning agent (i.e., plant oil) is present at about 0.06% to about 8% (60-80% of 0.1-10%) to overlap and fall with the claimed range (i.e., 0.1-10% of the total mass of the shampoo).
Regarding claim 19, Bekto teaches rice starch as being used in the composition ([0065]).
Regarding claim 41, and considering the 112 issues discussed above, Bekto teaches that the resulting end use wash composition may be a shampoo ([0027]). The cleansing powder composition, powder and water, in no particular order, can placed in a mixing vessel and shaken, stirred and/or agitated with moderate shear ([0070-0071], [0090] see shakers). Bekto teaches that the end use wash composition can be produced in the hands as well by placing water and cleansing composition in a hand and subsequently supplied to the hair and scalp washing where the washing motion provides the shear to make the face wash or shampoo composition as the case may be ([0071]).
For the foregoing reasons the instant claims are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Claims 1-19 and 41 are rejected; no claims are currently allowable.
The Examiner asks Applicant to provide support for the amendments in the application disclosure by referencing page numbers, paragraphs, figures, etc. for the sake of compact prosecution.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Karen Ketcham whose telephone number is (571)270-5896. The examiner can normally be reached 900-500 ET.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/Karen Ketcham/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614