DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are pending. Of these, claims 7-13 are withdrawn as directed to a nonelected invention. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 14-15 are under consideration on the merits.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/27/26, 5/3/26, 6/19/26, 8/10,26, and 9/6/26 was filed prior to the mailing date of a Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, it was considered by the Examiner.
Status of the Rejections
The claim objection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The 35 USC 112(b) rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment.
The 103 rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendment and accompanying arguments.
The double patenting rejections are revised in view of the amendment.
Notice of Subject Matter Free of the Prior Art
All claims under examination on the merits, i.e., claims 1-6 and 14-15, are free of the prior art. Base claim 1 has been amended to recite that the composition changes from a lamellar phase to an isotropic phase upon dilution, and that the viscosity decreases upon dilution. Mould, by contrast, discloses that its composition is in the form of a lamellar phase when concentrated but transforms to a viscous rod or hexagonal phase upon dilution as argued by Applicant.
The present specification as published states as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
248
606
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Mould et al. teaches sodium benzoate as one of many optional additives that may be incorporated into the composition taught therein for its preservative properties. The prior art does not teach or suggest that a composition as claimed comprising sodium benzoate as a phase modifier would result in a composition that changes from a lamellar phase to an isotropic phase that is less viscous upon dilution as recited by the claims.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1- 6 and 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over all claims of US Pat. Appl. No. 18/706,663.
The teachings of Mould are relied upon as discussed above.
Although the reference claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the reference claims recite a hydratable concentrated surfactant composition comprising 30-50 wt% sodium laureth ether sulfate, 4-12% betaine cosurfactant or cocamide monoethanolamide, 0.2-3% sodium benzoate, 0.2- 3% inorganic electrolyte such as a metal chloride, and 10-60% water, wherein the composition is in a lamellar phase and the pH is 3-6 and the composition has a viscosity of 8000-200,000 cps, the composition further comprising ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and is free from silicone, the ratio of the sodium benzoate to total surfactant and of the anionic surfactant to cosurfactant being within the claimed ratios.
Although the reference claims do not expressly recite that the compositions converts from a lamellar phase to an isotropic phase upon dilution and wherein the viscosity decreases upon dilution, the reference composition will possess these properties because it comprises the same ingredients in the same amounts recited by the claims, and a product cannot be separated from its properties.
Claims 1-6 and 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over all claims of US Pat. Appl. No. 18/711,038.
Although the reference claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the reference claims recite a hydratable concentrated surfactant composition comprising 30-50 wt% sodium laureth ether sulfate, 4-12% betaine cosurfactant or cocamide monoethanolamide, 0.2-3% sodium benzoate, 0.2- 3% inorganic electrolyte such as a metal chloride, and 10-60% water, wherein the composition is in a lamellar phase and the pH is 3-6 and the composition has a viscosity of 8000-200,000 cps, the composition further comprising ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and is free from silicone, the ratio of the sodium benzoate to total surfactant and of the anionic surfactant to cosurfactant being within the claimed ratios.
Although the reference claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the reference claims recite a hydratable concentrated surfactant composition comprising 30-50 wt% sodium laureth ether sulfate, 4-12% betaine cosurfactant or cocamide monoethanolamide, 0.2-3% sodium benzoate, 0.2- 3% inorganic electrolyte such as a metal chloride, and 10-60% water, wherein the composition is in a lamellar phase and the pH is 3-6 and the composition has a viscosity of 8000-200,000 cps, the composition further comprising ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and being substantially free from silicone, the ratio of the sodium benzoate to total surfactant and of the anionic surfactant to cosurfactant being within the claimed ratios.
Although the reference claims do not expressly recite that the compositions converts from a lamellar phase to an isotropic phase upon dilution and wherein the viscosity decreases upon dilution, the reference composition will possess these properties because it comprises the same ingredients in the same amounts recited by the claims, and a product cannot be separated from its properties.
Claims 1- 6 and 14-15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over all claims of US Pat. Appl. No. 18/578,443 and in view of Mould et al. (WO 94/16680) and/or Dixon et al. (GB2297762) where indicated below.
The teachings of Mould and Dixon are relied upon as discussed above.
Although the reference claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct because the reference claims recite a hydratable concentrated surfactant composition comprising 5-40 wt% sulfate-free anionic surfactant, 5-12% of an amphotheric such as a betaine, 0.1- 5% inorganic electrolyte, a preservative, and 10-70 wt% water, wherein the composition is in a lamellar phase and the pH is 3-6 and the composition has a viscosity of 6000-400,000 cps, with a weigtht ratio of anionic to amphoteric surfactant of 1:1 to 1:2. The reference composition does not recite the presence of a silicone.
Although the reference claims do not recite that the electrolyte is a metal chloride or that the surfactant comprises sodium laureth ether sulfate or that the betaine is cocamidopropylbetaine or that the preservative is sodium benzoate nor the weight ratios of sodium benzoate to total surfactant and that the composition further comprises ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, it would have been prima facie obvious to make these modifications since Mould teaches that for a similar hydratable concentrated surfactant composition comprising anionic surfactant, inorganic electrolyte, and betaine surfactant and a preservative, the preservative may be sodium benzoate, the electrolyte may be a metal chloride, the betaine surfactant may be cocamidopropylbetaine, and the anionic surfactant may be sodium laureth ether sulfate, and the presently claimed weight ratios may be within the claimed ranges, and Dixon teaches that ethylene diaminetetraacetic acid is useful in surfactant compositions as a calcium and magnesium ion sequestrant to provide lather boosting properties under hard water usage conditions, such that the skilled artisan reasonably would have been motivated to make these modifications to the reference claims with a reasonable expectation of success.
Although the reference claims do not expressly recite that the compositions converts from a lamellar phase to an isotropic phase upon dilution and wherein the viscosity decreases upon dilution, the reference composition will possess these properties because it comprises the same ingredients in the same amounts recited by the claims, and a product cannot be separated from its properties.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant has not submitted any substantive arguments against the rejections, which are therefore maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAREN GOTFREDSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3468. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9AM-6PM.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on 5712720827. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/GAREN GOTFREDSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/ANNA R FALKOWITZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600
Prosecution Insights