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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 25, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-16 and 19 are pending and currently under examination. Claims 3-4, 6-7 and 17-18 are canceled. Claim 1 is amended. Claim 19 is newly added.
Claim 15 is withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-14, 16 and 19 are examined on their merits in light of the sodium methyl cocoyl taurate as the taurate surfactant and sodium cocoyl glutamate as the amino acid surfactant elected species.
Previous Rejections
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn as are those rejections and/or objections expressly stated to be withdrawn.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.
Rejections Maintained/New Rejections
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 of this title, 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.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 5, 8-14, 16 and newly applied to claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Allef et al. WO 2013/098066 (7/4/2013) is maintained.
Allef et al. (Allef) teaches compositions comprising water, a biotenside and at least one fatty acid that are used for cleansers. (See Abstract). The compositions can comprise rhamnolipids as one of their preferred biosurfactants as called for in instant claim 2 which is a glycolipid as called for in instant claim 1. (See Product Example 2b). The amount of rhamnolipids can be around 0.1 to 30% (See page 5, lines 1-11). 0.1 to 30% overlaps with the 2% to 10% called for in instant claim 1(a). Cleansers are called for in instant claim 13.
Allef teaches that the composition can comprise 1.0% Sodium Cocoyl Glutamate (See Product Example 2b). Sodium Cocoyl Glutamate is the elected species of amino acid surfactant called for in instant claim 6 which falls within the scope of formula A in claims 1 and 17-18. Allef teaches that the composition can comprise from 1.0% to 30 wt% surfactant. (See claim 1). 1.0% to 30 wt% surfactant overlaps with the from 2% to 10% range called for in instant claim 1.
Allef teaches that oleic acid is a fatty acid that has a positive effect on the cleansing composition and no significant effect on the foam or thickening properties. The fatty acid can be present in an amount of more preferably less than 0.1% wt. (See page 7, lines 5-15). Oleic acid is a fatty acid and reads on a higher fatty acid that is called for in instant claim 14 and less than 0.1 wt% overlaps with the 1% by weight or less called for in instant claim 14. Less than 0.1 wt% oleic acid also overlaps with the less than 0.01% by weight or less called for in instant claim 16. Oleic acid is also an unsaturated fatty acid that is a higher unsaturated fatty acid as called for in instant claim 19. 18 carbon atoms falls within the 8-20 carbon atoms called for in instant claim 19 and less than 0.1% overlaps with the 0.05% by weight or less called for in instant claim 19.
Allef also teaches citric acid for adjusting pH and citric acid is a monovalent non-polymeric acid as called for in instant claim 11. (See Product Example 2b). The pH can be 5.7 which falls within the from 4 to 8 pH range called for instant claim 12.
Allef teaches that the composition can also comprise sodium methyl cocoyl taurate in the amount of 0.7% (See Product Example 2b). Sodium methyl cocoyl taurate is the elected species of taurate surfactant that falls within formula I in claims 1 and 17-18. 0.7% falls within the from 0.6% to 3% called for in instant claim 1. 1.0% to 30 wt% surfactant overlaps with the from 0.75% to 3% range called for in instant claim 5.
0.7% sodium methyl cocoyl taurate to 1.0% Sodium Cocoyl Glutamate falls within the scope of the range of from 3:1 to 1:10 taurate surfactant to amino acid surfactant called for in instant claim 9. With the amount of rhamnolipids around 0.1% and the amounts of 0.7% sodium methyl cocoyl taurate and 1.0% Sodium Cocoyl Glutamate, the total amount of the glycolipids, taurate surfactant and amino acid surfactant falls within the range of from 1% to 25% called for in instant claim 10.
Product Example 2b contains rhamnolipids, citric acid, 0.7% sodium methyl cocoyl taurate and water. Water is called for in instant claim 1. The amount of water is approximately 80% in Product Example 2b. 80% falls within the from 50% to 99% called for in instant claim 8. Allef teaches that it is a mild and effective cleanser that is useful to clean skin and hair that also has good storage stability and good foaming behavior that has surfactants based on renewable raw materials. (See Allef, pg. 2, last par.).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art making the Allef cleansing composition to combine 0.1 to 30% rhamnolipids, 0.7% sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, oleic acid and 1.0% Sodium Cocoyl Glutamate and use citric acid to adjust the pH to around 5.7 in order to have a mild and effective cleanser that is useful to clean skin and hair that also has good storage stability and good foaming behavior that has surfactants based on renewable raw materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicants comments of August 25, 2026 have been considered carefully and are found to be mostly unpersuasive. Applicants note the amendments to the claims and the new claim and where support for the amendments to the claims and the new claim can be found.
Applicants continue to assert that claim 1 is patentable over Allef because the claimed invention provides unexpected results which are seen in the Examples. The inventors surprisingly discovered that the content of the taurate surfactant is important for stability and at least 0.5 wt% provided superior stability with respect to temperature change. This is remarkable and unexpected from Allef, since Allef does not disclose or suggest that the combination of the specific amount of the surfactants (a) to (c) can achieve a stable composition with regard to temperature change. The amount of the (a) glycolipid in the Examples of Allef is different from the claimed amount of 2 to 10%.
Applicants respectfully disagree with the Office’s characterization that the results are not commensurate in scope with the claims because sodium cocoyl taurate is still the only taurate surfactant tested and that formula (I) still covers many different types of taurate surfactants and this observation applies to formula A as well.
Applicants note the amendments to the claims, specifically the incorporation of the limitations of claim 17 and 18 into claim 1 and assert that the claims are now commensurate in scope with the showing of unexpected results. Applicants note that the cocoyl group principally contains C8-C18 alkyl groups. Applicants assert that the compounds embraced by formula I as now recited therefore differ from sodium methyl cocoyl taurate in only two respects: R8 may alternately be H and M+ may alternatively be a potassium or an ammonium cation rather than a sodium cation. The compounds represented by Formula A as now recited differ from sodium cocoyl glutamate and disodium cocoyl glutamate in only three respects: X may alternatively by a methyl group, n may alternatively be 1 and Y may alternatively be CH2C(O)O-M+. Accordingly the compounds embraced by formulas (I) and (A) as now recited are closely represented by the species actually tested in the Examples and the showing in the Examples is commensurate in scope with Claim 1 as amended.
Applicants reassert that the demonstrated results are not suggested by Allef. Applicants take issue with statement of good storage stability on which the Office Action relies appears in the background section of Allef and is too generalized. It is not a property demonstrated for mild cleaning compositions. Furthermore, general stability is not stability against temperature change demonstrated in the Examples of the present application.
With respect to new claim 19, Applicants compare the formulation examples of Allef to the limitations of the new claim and also to the examples in the instant specification. Based on these comparisons, Applicants assert that Allef neither teaches nor suggests a cosmetic composition comprising at least one higher unsaturated fatty acid having 8 to 20 carbon atoms in an amount of 0.05% by weight or less and claim 19 is patentable for this reason.
Applicants’ arguments have been carefully considered and are not found to be sufficiently persuasive.
Allef does teach that its compositions have stability. Allef states that the drawbacks of prior art compositions included a lack of stability. (See page 2). Allef then states at page 3 that its composition addresses all of the drawbacks of the prior art compositions.
The object of the present invention was to provide compositions, in particular hair and skin cleansing compositions, particularly preferably formulations for cleansing and care of human or animal body parts, in particular skin and hair or feathers, which do not have one of the several disadvantages of the known formulations. The composition according to the invention should preferably be biodegradeable to the greatest possible extent, well tolerated, in particular cause only little or no reddening of the skin and/or eyes have a good skin are performance and/or be based as completely as possible on natural raw materials.
Since Allef teaches that its compositions do not have even one of the several disadvantages of the prior art compositions, and Allef teaches that a lack of stability was a problem with several prior art compositions, Allef does at least suggest that its composition is stable. Experimental data is not needed since the suggestion and teaching is made in the reference.
Applicants’ assertion of unexpected results is still not found to be persuasive for the reason that the results do not appear to be that unexpected because they appear to be at least suggested by the prior art. Allef teaches that it has good storage stability, which is a teaching of stability over the long term and potentially over temperature fluctuations. (See Allef, pg. 2, last par.). Since the results are suggested by the prior art, superior stability would be expected rather than unexpected. Applicant are correct that Allef does not expressly and explicitly teach stability over fluctuating temperatures, but the suggestion of storage stability does run counter to the claim of unexpected advantages.
Further, as stated in the rejection, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art making the Allef cleansing composition to combine 0.1 to 30% rhamnolipids, 0.7% sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, oleic acid and 1.0% Sodium Cocoyl Glutamate and use citric acid to adjust the pH to around 5.7 in order to have a mild and effective cleanser that is useful to clean skin and good foaming behavior that has surfactants based on renewable raw materials. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed invention for the benefits of a mild cleanser, having good foaming behavior and which is based on renewable raw materials. The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Assuming arguendo, to the extent that Allef doesn’t test for stability or provide stability data, Applicant is reminded that the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The stability would have been intrinsic to the Allef cleansing composition comprising 0.1 to 30% rhamnolipids, 0.7% sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, oleic acid and 1.0% Sodium Cocoyl Glutamate and use citric acid to adjust the pH to around 5.7, supra, which is identical/substantially identical to the claimed cosmetic composition. Applicant is reminded that mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979). "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant is reminded that the ultimate determination of patentability must be based on consideration of the entire record, by a preponderance of evidence, with due consideration to the persuasiveness of any arguments and any secondary evidence. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The submission of objective evidence of patentability does not mandate a conclusion of patentability in and of itself.
Additionally, Applicants’ assertion of unexpected results is also still not found to be persuasive for the reason that the results are still not commensurate in scope with the claims. It should be noted that the claims are narrower in scope and are closer to being commensurate in scope with the showing of unexpected results. Claim 1, while narrower in overall scope due to the narrowing amendments, however, is still broader than the Examples tested. The Examples show only certain amino acid surfactants tested (sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, disodium cocoyl glutamate and sodium cocoyl glutamate).
Respectfully, it should be noted that claim 1 is still directed to several different broad categories of glycolipids (rhamnolipids, sophorolipids, glucolipids, trahalolipids, and cellobiose lipids and mixtures thereof in amounts ranging from 2% to 10% by weight, but only a rhamnoplipid is used in the Examples. Respectfully, all of these different types of glycolipids cannot be reasonably generalized from rhamnolipid tested only at 4.5%, 3.6% and 3.32% used in the Examples. In short, the scope of claim 1, while narrower, is still broader than the Example compositions tested in the instant specification.
All showings of secondary considerations of obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims. Unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. See In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 196 (CCPA 1980). See MPEP 716.02(d).
With respect to claim 19, Applicant is reminded that Allef teaches that oleic acid is a fatty acid that has a positive effect on the cleansing composition and no significant effect on the foam or thickening properties. (See page 7, lines 5-15). The fatty acid can be present in an amount of more preferably less than 0.1% wt. (See page 7, lines 5-15). Oleic acid is a fatty acid and with 18 carbon atoms falls within the 8-20 carbon atoms called for in instant claim 19 and less than 0.1% overlaps with the 0.05% by weight or less called for in instant claim 19.
Respectfully, Applicants arguments regarding claim 19 and assertions of its patentability all rely on specific examples but do not address the general teachings of the Allef reference which strongly motivate and teach the amounts of less than 0.1% (which overlaps with the less than 0.05% called for in instant claim 19).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CHICKOS whose telephone number is (571)270-3884. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6.
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.
/SARAH CHICKOS/
Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights