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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
The amended claim set of 07 Jul 2026 has been entered and reviewed
Claims 1 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-19, directed to a composition for treating keratin materials in the reply filed on 07 Jul 2026 is acknowledged. Applicants also elected, with traverse, that the first anionic surfactant is alkyl sulfonate, the second anionic surfactant is disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, the fatty acid is oleic acid, the anti0dandruff agent is zinc pyrithione, and the amphoteric surfactant is cocobetaine in response to the species election requirement. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search and examination would not be a serious burden as the pending claims recite similar elements and the groups at least partially overlap. Applicant similarly argues that the various species do not present a serious search burden. This is not found persuasive because, as noted in the restriction requirement, the claimed process can be used with a different product, such as composition with sulfate surfactants and the product can be used in a different process, such as method of dyeing hair. Based on this analysis, the claims are properly restricted in keeping with MPEP § 806.05(h). Similarly, with the election of species, each of the various species are distinct compounds with unique structural and functional capabilities that provide different properties to a composition and nothing has been established that these are obvious variants of each other, based on the current record.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention claims.
Claims 1-19 are under consideration to the extent of the elected species, i.e., that the first anionic surfactant is alkyl sulfonate, the second anionic surfactant is disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, the fatty acid is oleic acid, the anti0dandruff agent is zinc pyrithione, and the amphoteric surfactant is cocobetaine.
.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on29 Jul 2024, 31 Oct 2024, 11 Apr, 2025, 15 Apr 2025, and 20 Nov 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, except where noted. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. On the IDS filed 07/29/2024, NPL citation 2 was not considered as a copy was not provided. The examiner notes that NPL was provided for “Crabtree & Evelyn” but not for “Cabtree & Evelyn.” NPL Citations 5-11 were not considered. The examiner notes that copies of various disclosures were provided but there is nothing that would indicate what US application they would correspond to. On the IDS filed 10/31/2024, foreign citation 5 was not considered as a copy was not provided.
Specification
The use of the term Crodesta SL 40 and Ryoto Sugar Ester in paragraph [0087], which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the use of the implied phrase “the disclosure relates.” A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 recites at least on antidandruff active agent. The “active” should be removed for improved consistency with claim 1. 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 1-19 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 1 recites in component (b) that the at least one fatty acid is an optional component and the claim also recites in the next to last wherein clause that the fatty acid is present from 0.001 to 3%. It is unclear if the fatty acid is intended to be an optional component or if it is required to be present in the given range. Claims 2-6, 9-15, and 18 are included in this rejection as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "fatty acids". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites in component (b) “at least one fatty acid,” which encompasses multiple fatty acids, and it is unclear whether “fatty acids” includes just one or more than one fatty acid. Claims 2-19 are included in this rejection as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "anionic surfactants". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites in component (a)(ii) “at least one second anionic surfactant,” which encompasses multiple anionic surfactants, and it is unclear whether the “anionic surfactants” includes just one or more than one second anionic surfactant. Claims 2-19 are included in this rejection as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claims 2 and 9 recite the limitation "anti-dandruff active agent". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2 recites “at least one anti-dandruff active agent,” which encompasses multiple anti-dandruff active agents, and it is unclear whether the “anti-dandruff active agent” includes just one or more than one anti-dandruff active agent. Claims 3-8 are included in this rejection as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 2.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "amphoteric surfactants". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 previously recites “at least one amphoteric surfactant,” which encompasses multiple anionic surfactants, and it is unclear whether the “amphoteric surfactants” includes just one or more than one second amphoteric surfactant. Claims 12-18 are included in this rejection as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 11.
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 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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng (US 2022/0062136, published 03 Mar 2022) in view of Ceballos et al. (US/2019/0365619, published 05 Dec 2019).
Feng teaches compositions for cleansing keratin materials (title) such as hair (claim 20), and teaches the compositions comprise at least one first amphoteric surfactant, at least one second amphoteric surfactant chosen from betaines, at least one nonionic surfactant, at least one non-sulfate anionic surfactant, at least one fatty amine, and at least one polysaccharide thickening agent, wherein the composition is free or essentially free of sulfate based surfactants (abstract, [0020]). Feng teaches that the at least one second amphoteric surfactant chosen from betaines is from about 0.1 to about 15% ([0021], [0050]) and teaches particularly useful betaines include coco-betaine ([0049]), rendering obvious the elected species of amphoteric surfactant as in claims 1, 11, 18 and 19. Feng teaches the at least one non-sulfate anionic surfactants including alkyl suflonates ([0020]) such as C10-C24 olefin sulfonates ([0084]), and alkyl sulfosuccinates ([0020]) such as disodium laureth sulfosuccinate ([0091]) and the at least one non-sulfate anionic surfactant is from about 0.01% to about 6% ([0021]), rendering obvious the elected species of first and second anionic surfactant and their amount as in claims 1, 3-6, 10, 12-15, and 19. These components as taught by Feng render obvious the claimed surfactant system comprising a first anionic surfactant, second anionic surfactant, amphoteric surfactant, and nonionic surfactant.
Feng teaches that the composition may comprise at least one conditioning agent ([0138]), Feng teaches the conditioning agent may be a non-silicone fatty compound such as a fatty acid ([0139]). Feng teaches that the conditioning agent is from about 0.01 to about 10% by weight ([0149]), rendering obvious the amount of fatty acid as in claim 1. Feng teaches including preservatives such as zinc pyrithione in the compositions for treating hair ([0156]) at about 0.01 to about 5% ([0157]), rendering obvious the elected species of anti-dandruff agent as in claims 1, 2, 9 and 19. Regarding the obviousness of the claimed ranges in comparison to the cited ranges above, the examiner notes that where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Feng teaches that the compositions may include water ([0134]).
Feng does not teach the elected species of fatty acid, oleic acid. This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Ceballos.
Ceballos teaches anti-dandruff cleansing compositions that effectively treat dandruff, cleanse the hair, and possess additional desirable qualities such as good foaming, lather, distribution, detangling, shine, smoothness, and discipline to hair ([0005]). Ceballos teaches the inclusion of non-silicone fatty compounds such as fatty acid compounds ([0166-0167]) including oleic acid ([0169]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used oleic acid as the fatty acid in the composition of Feng. The compositions of Feng are for cleansing keratin materials such as hair and include non-silicone fatty compounds such as fatty acids. Ceballos similarly teaches compositions for cleansing hair and teaches including non-silicone fatty compounds such as fatty acids including oleic acid. The inclusion of oleic acid thus merely represents the inclusion of a known prior art element according to its known use. Namely oleic acids are fatty acids known to be suitable for including in hair related compositions and one would have a reasonable expectation of success in including oleic acid in the compositions of Feng as the compositions of Feng are known as suitable with non silicone fatty compounds such as fatty acids.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/680,901 in view of Feng (US 2022/0062136, published 03 Mar 2022) and Ceballos et al. (US/2019/0365619, published 05 Dec 2019).
The reference application recites
PNG
media_image1.png
335
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
And recites C4-C28 alkyl sulfonates and C10-C24 olefin sulfonates, C6-C30 alkyl sulfosuccinates, 0.5-15% total amount of anionic surfactants, and betaine amphoteric surfactants from 0.5-10%.
The reference application does not recite the elected species of second anionic surfactant disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, 0.5-10% amphoteric surfactant cocobetaine, 0.001-3% fatty acid oleic acid or the 0.01-10% anti-dandruff agent zinc pyrithione.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teaching of Feng and Ceballos.
The teachings of Feng and Ceballos are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a composition comprising olefin sulfonates, disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, 0.1-15% cocobetaine, 0.01-10% oleic acid, and 0.01-5% zinc pyrithione as these are compounds known from Feng and Ceballos for use in keratin cleansing compositions and it is obvious to use them for their known purpose. One would have a reasonable expectation of success as their inclusion merely represents the combination of known prior art elements according to their known purpose.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/680,920 in view of Feng (US 2022/0062136, published 03 Mar 2022) and Ceballos et al. (US/2019/0365619, published 05 Dec 2019).
The reference application recites
PNG
media_image2.png
326
663
media_image2.png
Greyscale
And recites C4-C28 alkyl sulfonates and C10-C24 olefin sulfonates, C6-C30 alkyl sulfosuccinates, 0.5-15% total amount of anionic surfactants, and cocobetaine amphoteric surfactants from 0.5-10%, and non-silicone fatty compound as conditioning agents.
The reference application does not recite the elected species of second anionic surfactant disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, 0.001-3% fatty acid oleic acid or the 0.01-10% anti-dandruff agent zinc pyrithione.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teaching of Feng and Ceballos.
The teachings of Feng and Ceballos are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a composition comprising olefin sulfonates, disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, cocobetaine, 0.01-10% oleic acid, and 0.01-5% zinc pyrithione as these are compounds known from Feng and Ceballos for use in keratin cleansing compositions and it is obvious to use them for their known purpose. One would have a reasonable expectation of success as their inclusion merely represents the combination of known prior art elements according to their known purpose.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/731,010 in view of Feng (US 2022/0062136, published 03 Mar 2022) and Ceballos et al. (US/2019/0365619, published 05 Dec 2019).
PNG
media_image3.png
278
640
media_image3.png
Greyscale
And recites C4-C28 alkyl sulfonates and C10-C24 olefin sulfonates, C6-C30 alkyl sulfosuccinates, 0.5-15% total amount of anionic surfactants, and cocobetaine amphoteric surfactants, and 0.01-10% salt of pyrithione, and non-silicone fatty compound as conditioning agents.
The reference application does not recite the elected species of second anionic surfactant disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, 0.5-10% cocobetaine, 0.001-3% fatty acid oleic acid or the 0.01-10% anti-dandruff agent zinc pyrithione.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teaching of Feng and Ceballos.
The teachings of Feng and Ceballos are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a composition comprising olefin sulfonates, disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, 0.1-15% cocobetaine, 0.01-10% oleic acid, and 0.01-5% zinc pyrithione as these are compounds known from Feng and Ceballos for use in keratin cleansing compositions and it is obvious to use them for their known purpose. One would have a reasonable expectation of success as their inclusion merely represents the combination of known prior art elements according to their known purpose.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/731,048 in view of Feng (US 2022/0062136, published 03 Mar 2022) and Ceballos et al. (US/2019/0365619, published 05 Dec 2019).
PNG
media_image4.png
353
653
media_image4.png
Greyscale
And recites C4-C28 alkyl sulfonates and C10-C24 olefin sulfonates, C6-C30 alkyl sulfosuccinates, and 0.01-10% salt of pyrithione.
The reference application does not recite the elected species of second anionic surfactant disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, 0.5-10% cocobetaine, 0.001-3% fatty acid oleic acid or the 0.01-10% anti-dandruff agent zinc pyrithione.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teaching of Feng and Ceballos.
The teachings of Feng and Ceballos are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a composition comprising 0.01-6% olefin sulfonates and disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, 0.1-15% cocobetaine, 0.01-10% oleic acid, and 0.01-5% zinc pyrithione as these are compounds known from Feng and Ceballos for use in keratin cleansing compositions and it is obvious to use them for their known purpose. One would have a reasonable expectation of success as their inclusion merely represents the combination of known prior art elements according to their known purpose.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 18/731,057 in view of Feng (US 2022/0062136, published 03 Mar 2022) and Ceballos et al. (US/2019/0365619, published 05 Dec 2019).
PNG
media_image5.png
393
685
media_image5.png
Greyscale
And recites C4-C28 alkyl sulfonates and C10-C24 olefin sulfonates, C6-C30 alkyl sulfosuccinates, 0.5-15% total amount of anionic surfactants, and 0.5-10% amphoteric surfactants, and at least one anti-dandruff agent of a salt of pyrithione.
The reference application does not recite the elected species of second anionic surfactant disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, 0.5-10% cocobetaine, 0.001-3% fatty acid oleic acid or the 0.01-10% anti-dandruff agent zinc pyrithione.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teaching of Feng and Ceballos.
The teachings of Feng and Ceballos are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a composition comprising olefin sulfonates, disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, 0.1-15% cocobetaine, 0.01-10% oleic acid, and 0.01-5% zinc pyrithione as these are compounds known from Feng and Ceballos for use in keratin cleansing compositions and it is obvious to use them for their known purpose. One would have a reasonable expectation of success as their inclusion merely represents the combination of known prior art elements according to their known purpose.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of copending Application No. 18/731,070 in view of Feng (US 2022/0062136, published 03 Mar 2022) and Ceballos et al. (US/2019/0365619, published 05 Dec 2019).
PNG
media_image6.png
367
671
media_image6.png
Greyscale
And recites C4-C28 alkyl sulfonates and C10-C24 olefin sulfonates, disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, 0.5-15% total amount of anionic surfactants, and 0.5-10% betaine amphoteric surfactants, at least one conditioning agent of non-silicone fatty compound, and at least one anti-dandruff agent of a salt of pyrithione.
The reference application does not recite the elected species of cocobetaine, 0.001-3% fatty acid oleic acid or the 0.01-10% anti-dandruff agent zinc pyrithione.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teaching of Feng and Ceballos.
The teachings of Feng and Ceballos are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a composition comprising olefin sulfonates, disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, cocobetaine, 0.01-10% oleic acid, and 0.01-5% zinc pyrithione as these are compounds known from Feng and Ceballos for use in keratin cleansing compositions and it is obvious to use them for their known purpose. One would have a reasonable expectation of success as their inclusion merely represents the combination of known prior art elements according to their known purpose.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-18 of copending Application No. 18/731,085 in view of Feng (US 2022/0062136, published 03 Mar 2022).
PNG
media_image7.png
342
666
media_image7.png
Greyscale
And recites C4-C28 alkyl sulfonates and C10-C24 olefin sulfonates, C6-C30 alkyl sulfosuccinates, 0.5-15% total amount of anionic surfactants, and 0.5-10% amphoteric surfactants, and 0.01-10% anti-dandruff agent of a salt of pyrithione, and 0.001-3% oleic acid.
The reference application does not recite C10-C24 olefin sulfonates or the elected species of second anionic surfactant disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, 0.5-10% cocobetaine, or the 0.01-10% anti-dandruff agent zinc pyrithione,and non-ionic surfacrtant.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teaching of Feng and Ceballos.
The teachings of Feng and Ceballos are described supra.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a composition comprising olefin sulfonates, disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, 0.1-15% cocobetaine, oleic acid, and 0.01-5% zinc pyrithione as these are compounds known from Feng for use in keratin cleansing compositions and it is obvious to use them for their known purpose. One would have a reasonable expectation of success as their inclusion merely represents the combination of known prior art elements according to their known purpose.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7007. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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 (571)272-0827. 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.
/EDWIN COLEMAN MITCHELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights