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 .
Applicants' arguments, filed July 13, 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 – Obviousness (Revised Rejection)
Claims 1, 4, 10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 20200405587).
Song et al. disclose a dissolvable solid fibrous shampoo article comprising fibrous elements comprising: (a) from about 10% to about 40%, on a dry article basis, of a polyvinyl alcohol; (b) from about 20% to about 80%, on a dry article basis, of a surfactant system comprising: (i) from about 45% to about 80%, by weight of the surfactant system on a dry article basis, of a primary anionic surfactant selected from the group consisting of disodium cocoyl glutamate, disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, and combinations thereof; (ii) from about 20% to about 55%, by weight of the surfactant system on a dry article basis, of a co-surfactant selected from the group consisting of lauramidopropyl betaine, sodium cocoyl isethionate, lauryl hydroxysultaine and combinations thereof; (c) from about 0.1% to about 2%, on a dry article basis, of a cationic polymer comprising a weight average molecular weight from about 500,000 g/mol to about 2.5 million g/mol as measured by gel permeation chromatography and a charge density of greater than 0.5 meg/g; wherein the cationic polymer is selected from the group consisting of Polyquaternium-6, Polyquaternium-10, cationic guars comprising a molecular weight greater than and combinations thereof (paragraph 0154). The polyvinyl alcohol has a molecular weight ranging from 10,000 g/mol to 40,000,000 g/mol (paragraph 0099). The anionic surfactant used includes sulfonates such as alpha olefin sulfonates, linear alkylbenzene sulfonates, sodium laurylglucosides hydroxypropylsulfonate, and mixtures thereof. Amphoteric surfactants can include cocamidopropyl betaine, lauramidopropyl betaine, lauryl hydroxysultaine, cocamidopropyl hydroxysultaine, coco-hydroxysultaine, coco-sultaine, lauryl sultaine, lauryl hydroxysultaine, and mixtures thereof.
The articles are homogeneous fibers (see examples).
An example comprises 29.3% disodium laureth sulfosuccinate (a sulfonate surfactant, instant claim 5), 3.6% sodium cocoyl isethionate (a sulfonate surfactant instant claims 5-6), 12% polyvinyl alcohol, 35% lauramidopropyl betaine (instant claim 9 and 12), 0.20% polyquaternium-10 and 0.5% polyquaternium-6.
The example discloses the components in amounts that meet the limitations of instant claims 1-4.
There is no glutamate surfactant or sulfate surfactant meeting the limitation of less than 5% glutamate, less than 3% glutamate anionic surfactant (instant claim 13), substantially free of glutamate anionic surfactant (instant claim 14) and free of sulfate surfactants.
In regards to claim 20, the composition of Song et al. comprise substantially the same components as that of the instant claims and therefore would have a hand dissolution value of less than 15 strokes according to the Hand Dissolution Method.
Song et al. are discussed above and differ from the instant claims insofar as they do not exemplify a composition comprising a combination of a sulfonate surfactant with a sultaine surfactant with no glutamate surfactant.
However Song et al. suggest the combination. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used a sultaine surfactant in combination with a sulfonate surfactant because it is suggested by Song et al.
In regard to the surfactant system not comprising COOH, Song et al. disclose the sulfonate surfactant may be used alone. Therefore, when a sulfonate without a COOH is used, the limitation is met.
Response to Arguments
The Examiner submits that Song et al. disclose and suggest different combinations of surfactant. Song et al. suggest not using surfactant containing a -COOH group. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used different combinations of surfactants because this is suggested by Song et al. Therefore, impermissible hindsight was not used. A reference may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art, including nonpreferred embodiments. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP 2123, I&II. Song et al. disclose “a dissolvable solid fibrous shampoo article comprising fibrous elements comprising: (a) from about 10% to about 40%, on a dry article basis, of a polyvinyl alcohol; (b) from about 20% to about 80%, on a dry article basis, of a surfactant system comprising: (i) from about 45% to about 80%, by weight of the surfactant system on a dry article basis, of a primary anionic surfactant selected from the group consisting of disodium cocoyl glutamate, disodium laureth sulfosuccinate, and combinations thereof; (ii) from about 20% to about 55%, by weight of the surfactant system on a dry article basis, of a co-surfactant selected from the group consisting of lauramidopropyl betaine, sodium cocoyl isethionate, lauryl hydroxysyltaine and combinations thereof; (c) from about 0.1% to about 2%, on a dry article basis, of a cationic polymer comprising a weight average molecular weight from about 500,000 g/mol to about 2.5 million g/mol as measured by gel permeation chromatography and a charge density of greater than 0.5 meg/g; wherein the cationic polymer is selected from the group consisting of Polyquaternium-6, Polyquaternium-10, cationic guars comprising a molecular weight greater than and combinations thereof”. Although Song does not exemplify a composition of the instant claims, the composition may comprise disodium laureth sulfosuccinate and a cosurfactant, sodium cocoyl isethionate and/or lauryl hydroxysultaine. Therefore, a glutamate, sulfate and surfactant with COOH is not required to meet the objective of Song et al. Song et al. meet the limitations of the instant claims. Song et al. disclose a short list of surfactants that may be used in combinations. The combination of disodium laureth sulfosuccinate and sodium cocoyl isethionate and/or lauryl hydroxysultaine are strongly suggested and does not have to be exemplified to be an obvious combination, absent evidence to the contrary.
In regards to the molecular weight of polyvinyl alcohol, the polyvinyl alcohol may have a molecular weight of 10,000 g/mol. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 4, 10 and 17-20 are rejected.
No claims allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEZAH ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-1071. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-7:30.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/LEZAH ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights