CTNF 18/850,891 CTNF 89069 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-19 are pending and under examination. Priority Acknowledge is made that this application is national stage of international patent application PCT/CN2022/096189, filed on 05/31/2022. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/25/2024 and 02/13/2026 is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3 and 8-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Hoffmann et al. (US20140352711) . The limitation of claims 1-3 and 8-17 are met by Hoffmann et al. disclosing a hair cleansing composition comprising lactic acid (alpha-hydroxy acid), 2.0% of Decyl glucoside (nonionic surfactant), 10.6% of Sodium lauryl ether sulphate (anionic surfactant), 0.5% of Stearamidopropyldimethylamine (cationic surfactant), and water (solvent) at pH 5 in example 3 ([0099]) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 1-3, 5-17 and 19 are rej ected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hof fmann et al. (US20140352711). The following 103 rejection is relied on for whole embodiments in Hoffmann et al. teaching instead of working example 3 only. Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01) Hoffmann et al. teaches an aqueous cleansing composition for keratin fibres, especially human hair, comprising at least one amino acid surfactant and at least one cationic and/or cationizable surfactant (abstract). Fourth objective of the present invention is a process for cleansing and conditioning hair wherein an aqueous composition comprising at least one amino acid surfactant of the above general structure and at least one cationic and/or cationizable surfactant of the above general structure is applied onto hair and after massaging for up to 3 min, preferably 2 min and more preferably 1 min and most preferably less than 60 seconds rinsed off from hair ([0012]). Compositions of the present invention comprise at least one cationic and/or cationizable surfactant, non-limiting suitable examples are palmitamidopropyl diethylamine, lauramidopropyl diethylamine, stearamidopropyl diethylamine ([0028]), and in working example, stearamidopropyl dimethylamine is recited ([0099]). Concentration of at least one cationic and/or cationizable surfactant according to the above general structure is in the range of 0.01 to 5%, preferably 0.02 to 4%, more preferably 0.05 to 3% and most preferably 0.1 to 2% and in particular 0.25 to 1% by weight calculated to total composition ([0031]). Preferably aqueous cleansing compositions of the present invention comprise at least one anionic surfactant in addition to the amino acid surfactants at a concentration range of 2 to 40%, preferably 3 to 30% and more preferably 5 to 20%, and most preferably 5 to 15% by weight, calculated to the total composition ([0032]). Suitable and most preferred is sodium laureth sulphate ([0035]). The most preferred anionic surfactants within the meaning of the present invention are those of alkyl ether sulphates according to above general structure such as lauryl ether sulphate sodium salt ([0041]). In a preferred embodiment of the present invention, cleansing composition of the present invention comprises at least one anionic surfactant as mentioned above and at least one nonionic surfactant. Nonionic surfactants are suitable at a concentration of 1 to 15%, in particular from 1 to 10% by weight, calculated to the total composition (0042]). Nonionic surfactants especially suited in the cleansing compositions according to the invention are alkyl polyglucosides of the general formula R 13 —O—(R 14 O) n —Z x , wherein R 13 is an alkyl group with 8 to 18 carbon atoms, R 14 is an ethylene or propylene group, Z is a saccharide group with 5 to 6 carbon atoms, n is a number from 0 to 10 and x is a number between 1 and 5 ([0043]). The most preferred non-ionic surfactants are alkyl polyglucosides such as decyl, cocoyl polyglucoside and ethoxylated fatty alcohols such as laureth-16 ([0050]). The cleansing composition may contain active ingredients selected from UV filters, moisturisers, sequestering agents, and natural ingredients ([0073]). The sequestering agents are preferably selected from polycarboxy acids. The preferred one is ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid, EDTA. Typical useful concentration range for sequestering agents is of 0.01-2.5% by weight calculated to the total composition ([0075]). The UV filters are that oil and water soluble ones for the purpose of protecting hair and hair colour. Suitable UV-absorbing Substances includes salicylic acid and ester and salt thereof. The amount of the UV-absorber ranges typically from about 0.01% to 2.5%, more preferably from 0.05% to 1% by weight, calculated to the total composition ([0076]). The pH of the compositions according to the present invention is suitably between 2 and 8.0, preferably in the range of 2.5 to 7.0, more preferably 3 to 6.5 and most preferably 4 to 5.5 measured at ambient temperature with a suitable pH meter. pH of the compositions is adjusted with acidic and alkaline compounds. Acidic compounds can be inorganic and organic acid or their mixtures. Nonlimiting suitable examples are citric acid, lactic acid, glycolic acid, hydroxyacrylic acid, glyceric acid, malic acid and tartaric acid and of the dicarboxylic acids are malonic acid, succinic acid, glutaric acid, adipic acid, maleic acid, fumaric acid and phtalic acid. Alkaline compounds such as sodium hydroxide can be used to adjust the pH of the compositions ([0087-0088]). In example 3 ([0099]), the composition comprises (% by weight) Sodium lauryl ether sulphate 10.6 Cocamidopropyl betaine 3.0 Sodium lauroyl sarcosinate 2.5 Decyl glucoside 2.0 Polyquaternium-67 0.5 Stearamidopropyldimethylamine 0.5 PEG-90 glyceryl isostearate 3.0 Lactic acid/sodium hydroxide q.s. to pH 5.0 Preservative, fragrance q.s Water to 100 Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02) The difference between the instant application and Hoffmann et al. is that Hoffmann et al. do not expressly teach all ingredients in one embodiment. Finding of prima facie obviousness Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to Hoffmann et al., as suggested by amount of lactic acid, and produce the instant invention. Regarding claims 1-3, 5-17 , Hoffmann et al. teaches a hair cleansing composition comprising lactic acid as pH adjust agent (alpha-hydroxy acid), about 0.01% to 2.5% of salicylic acid as sunscreen agent (beta hydroxy acid), 2.0% of Decyl glucoside (nonionic surfactant), 0.5% of Stearamidopropyldimethylamine (cationic surfactant), 5-20% of Sodium lauryl ether sulphate (anionic surfactant), and water (solvent) at pH 4-5.5. Regarding claim 19, Hoffmann et al. teaches a process for cleansing and conditioning hair with hair cleansing composition is applied onto hair and then rinsed off from hair, with common practice, rinse with water. In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103. From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. 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, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffmann et al. (US20140352711), as applied for the above 103 rejection for claims 1-3, 5-17 and 19, in view of Rath et al. (US5993792) . Determination of the scope and content of the prior art (MPEP 2141.01) Hoffmann et al. teaching has already been discussed in the above 103 rejection and is incorporated herein by reference. Rath et al. teaches other additives can be included in the shampoo base in lesser, but effective, amounts. Useful additives include a chelating or sequestering agent such as disodium EDTA, tetrasodium EDTA, citric acid or lactic acid. A chelating or Sequestering agent is typically added to stabilize the composition (column 3, line 50-60). Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims (MPEP 2141.02) The difference between the instant application and Hoffmann et al. is that Hoffmann et al. do not expressly teach lactic acid as sequestering agent and its range. This deficiency in sequestering agent is cured by the teachings of Rath et al. Finding of prima facie obviousness Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Hoffmann et al., as suggested by Rath et al. , and produce the instant invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to substitute 0.01-2.5% of lactic acid for 0.01-2.5% of EDTA as sequestering agent because this is simple substitution of one known sequestering agent for another to obtain predictable results. Under guidance from Hoffmann et al. teaching 0.01-2.5% of EDTA as sequestering agent, Rath et al. teaching lactic acid is alternative to EDTA as sequestering agent in shampoo composition, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill ion the art to substitute 0.01-2.5% of lactic acid for 0.01-2.5% of EDTA as sequestering agent and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claims 4 and 18, prior art teaches a hair cleansing composition comprising 0.01-2.5% lactic acid as sequestering agent (also pH adjust agent; alpha-hydroxy acid), about 0.01% to 2.5% of salicylic acid as sunscreen agent (beta hydroxy acid), 2.0% of Decyl glucoside (nonionic surfactant), 0.5% of Stearamidopropyldimethylamine (cationic surfactant), 5-20% of Sodium lauryl ether sulphate (anionic surfactant), and water (solvent) at pH 4-5.5. In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103. From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. 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, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary . Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. US9018150 in view of Hoffmann et al. (US20140352711) and Rath et al. (US5993792). The reference patent teaches a hair cleansing composition comprising alkyl glucoside as nonionic surfactant (claim 1, 14), cationic surfactant stearamidopropyl dimethylamine (claims 14-15) and anionic surfactant, but silent about lactic acid, salicylic acid and pH; in view of Hoffmann et al. teaching salicylic acid as sunscreen agent for protecting hair color and pH 4-5.5 for hair cleansing composition; Rath et al. teaching lactic acid as sequestering agent to stabilize the composition, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include salicylic acid to protect hair color, lactic acid as sequestering agent to stabilize the composition and have pH 4-5.5 to produce applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success . 08-36 AIA Claim s 1-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US12377039 in view of Hoffmann et al. (US20140352711) and Rath et al. (US5993792). The reference patent teaches a hair cleansing composition comprising alkyl glucoside as nonionic surfactant (claim 13), cationic surfactant stearamidopropyl dimethylamine (claim 10) and anionic surfactant, but silent about lactic acid, salicylic acid and pH; in view of Hoffmann et al. teaching salicylic acid as sunscreen agent for protecting hair color and pH 4-5.5 for hair cleansing composition; Rath et al. teaching lactic acid as sequestering agent to stabilize the composition, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include salicylic acid to protect hair color, lactic acid as sequestering agent to stabilize the composition and have pH 4-5.5 to produce applicant’s claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success . Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANFENG SONG. Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. 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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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. /JIANFENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/850,891 Page 2 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/850,891 Page 3 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/850,891 Page 4 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/850,891 Page 5 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/850,891 Page 6 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/850,891 Page 7 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/850,891 Page 8 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/850,891 Page 9 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/850,891 Page 10 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/850,891 Page 11 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/850,891 Page 12 Art Unit: 1613 Application/Control Number: 18/850,891 Page 13 Art Unit: 1613
Prosecution Insights