DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Claims 10-29 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/CN2022/101923, filed on 23-Dec-2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 31-Dec-2024 and 04-May-2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3 recites “keratious material” and defined. However, all subsequent uses are for “keratinous material” in both the specifications and claims. Applicant is required to clarify whether “keratious material” was intended to be “keratinous material” and make appropriate correction throughout the specification as needed.
Specification recites Plantacare 818UP in one instance but subsequently identifies the composition as Plantopon 818UP. It is unclear whether applicant intended Plantopon 818UP, Plantacare 818UP, or Plantapon Amino SLG-P. Applicant is required to clarify the intended composition and make the appropriate correction.
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.
Claim 26 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 26 recites “wherein composition” is missing the article “the” or “a”. If this is “the” then references the personal care composition of claim 24, and if “a” can be any composition.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the keratinous materials". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 24, which depends from claim 10, recites “the keratinous materials” when claim 10 does not introduce keratinous materials.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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 –
(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.
(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.
Claim(s) 10-13, 15-16, 18, and 20-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Develter et al. (US 9,795,131 B2, Patent: 24-Oct-2017) (hereinafter Develter).
Develter discloses in Example 18 (Col 25, line 1-14), a shampoo composition comprising “3% partial sophorolipid hydrolysate (0.7 mole equivalent) (i.e. a glycolipid biosurfactant which being a partial hydrolysate, inherently comprises a mixture of the sophorolipid in acidic form and lactone form), 12% Plantapon SF (a proprietary blend to Cognis GmbH of sodium coamphoacetate (i.e. an amphoteric surfactant), glycerin lauryl glucoside, disodium cocoyl glutamate and sodium lauryl glucose carboxylate) and 1.5% Lamesoft PO65 (a proprietary blend to Cognis GmbH of cocoglucoside and glyceryl oleate (i.e. a lipid layer enhancer of unsaturated linear C18 fatty acid)). Stirring this shampoo and comparing the obtained foam to a shampoo without sophorolipids surprisingly led to the conclusion sophorolipids enhance the creaming of the foam, with a more creamy, more stable yet easier to rinse off foam than the shampoo without sophorolipids.”
Develter further discloses wherein a partially hydrolyzed surfactant composition is obtained by hydrolyzing the surfactant composition, consisting of 70 wt %-99.9 wt% sophorolactone, 0-1 wt % sophorolipid acid (i.e. a mixture of the sophorolipid biosurfactant in acidic and lactone form), less than 0.1 % residual substrate, and remainder water with 0.5 to 1 equivalents of a base or by heating the sophorolactone for more than 4 hours at a temperature between 70-90° C., preferably to a temperature between 80-90° C., thereby hydrolysing at least part of the sophorolipid lactone to sophorolipid acid and/or its salt (Col 3, Line 21-31).
Regarding claim 20, the method comprises combining the lipid layer enhancer with at least one glycolipid biosurfactant. Develter discloses in Example 18 wherein Lamesoft PO65 (comprising glyceryl oleate (i.e., lipid layer enhancer)) and partial sophorolipid hydrolysate (i.e., glycolipid biosurfactant) are mixed to form a shampoo. Therefore, since Develter discloses substantially the same method step ad claimed, Develter teaches a method of improving dispersibility and stability.
Regarding claim 24, Example 18 teaches that the personal care formulation is a shampoo, and shampoo is inherently used via the application to keratinous materials such as hair. Further, the instant specification expressly identifies “glyceryl monooleate” (Page 6, line 16-18) as a preferred embodiment of the claimed “esters of glycerol of saturated or unsaturated C8-C24 fatty acids” and describes the ester as “monoester of glycerol of unsaturated C12-C22 fatty acids” (Page, line 13-14). Thus, the claimed lipid layer enhancer encompasses glyceryl monooleate. Develter identifies glyceryl oleate as an ingredient in the formulation of Example 18.
Regarding claim 29, Example 18 teaches that the personal care formulation is a shampoo, and shampoo is inherently used via the application to keratinous materials such as hair.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
1. Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Develter et al. (US 9,795,131 B2, Patent: 24-Oct-2017) (hereinafter Develter).
With regard to claim 14, Develter discloses the limitation of claim 13 as discussed above. Develter does not explicitly disclose that about 10 wt% to 90 wt% of the sophorolipid is in acidic form, with the remainder in lactone form.
However, Develter identifies that the acid form to lactone form ratio as a variable that controls the foaming behavior of the composition (Col 6, line 56-65), and that this ratio is tunable through routine selection of hydrolysis conditions: “Addition of a selected amount of base equivalents, preferably at least 0.5 equivalents expressed relative to the lactone, provides a mixture of sophorolipids in lactone and acid form thereby increasing the foaming capacity of the formulation. Alternatively, hydrolysis of the lactone can be obtained by heating the sophorolactone composition consisting of 70 wt%-99.9 wt% sophorolactone, 0-1 wt% sophorolipid acid, less than 0.1 % residual substrate… This procedure hydrolyzes at least part of the sophorolactone providing sophorolipid acid and/or its salt. This has for effect that the foaming behavior is tunable by selection of the amount of base equivalents” (Col 11, line 30-45).
Develter recognizes that the wt% of the sophorolipid in acidic form relative to the lactone form is a results-effective variable that determines the foaming behavior of the resultant composition and establishes that this variable is adjustable through routine selection of known hydrolysis parameters such as amount of base equivalent addition, heating time, and temperature.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention optimize the wt% of the acidic form sophorolipid, including to a value within the claimed range of about 10 wt% to about 90 wt% through routine experimentation in order to arrive at a desired foaming behavior as Develter teaches.
With regard to claim 17, Develter’s Example 18 teaches every element of claim 10 as discussed above, but combines the 3% partial sophorolipid hydrolysate with 1.5% Lamesoft PO65 blend that is only partly glyceryl oleate, with the ratio between the two compounds falling outside the ratio of 1:0.8 to 1:2. Develter then compares the resulting foam to a shampoo without sophorolipids and discloses that the partially hydrolyzed sophorolipids enhance the creaming of the foam, providing a more creamy, more stable, and easier to rinse foam.
However, Develter selected the ratio to optimize foam and cream performance and does teach that “a formulation is provided comprising between 50% and 95% of a composition sophorolactone composition and between 5% to 50% of a non-ionic surfactant” (Col 3, line 62-65). Further, Develter discloses that “sophorolactones are low or non-foaming, hydrolyzed sophorolactones display increased foaming. Hence, a formulation may be obtained with desired foaming properties by adjusting the level of hydrolyzed sophorolactones” (Col 13, line 1-4), demonstrating that the partially hydrolyzed sophorolipid as the component use to modify the foaming characteristics of the formulation.
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 adjust the relative weight ratio of glycolipid biosurfactant to lipid later enhancer to fall within the range of 1:0.8 to 1:2 within the context of Develter’s own teachings, in order to obtain a desired foaming or creaming performance. Such adjustments would represent the selection of amounts of a known formulation components within the ranges expressly disclosed by Develter and would have been motivated by Develter’s stated objective of controlling the foaming properties of the formulation. See MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A).
2. Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Develter et al. (US 9,795,131 B2, Patent: 24-Oct-2017) (hereinafter Develter), and further in view of Harichian et al. (US 7,282,471 B2, Patent: 16-Oct-2007).
Regarding claim 19, Develter discloses the limitation of claim 10 as discussed supra, including Example 18, a composition comprising Plantapon SF, which is a blend comprising glycerin (Col 25, line 4-6).
However, Develter does not teach that glycerin provides a positive or beneficial effect to the substrate being cleaned as required by claim 19. Develter is silent as to the function or purpose of glycerin in the composition. For this reason, Harichian is added.
Harichian is directed to personal care compositions such as shampoos and conditioners, teaches an “approach to dry skin is topical application of humectants. Hydroxylated monomeric and polymeric organic Substances are generally used for this purpose. Glycerin known also as glycerol is one of the most effective humectants” (Col 1, line 27-31).
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 recognize that the glycerin of Develter’s Example 18 shampoo composition as a humectant and moisturizing agent, as taught by Harichian. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to produce a shampoo composition wherein the glycerin provides a beneficial moisturizing effect to the hair and skin with a reasonable expectation of success because Harichian establishes that glycerin is a known humectant and moisturizing agent that performs this function when present in a personal care composition. One of ordinary skill would have understood Develter’s glycerin to inherently confer the same known benefit, and would recognize that the glycerin in a shampoo composition would provide the advantage of moisturizing and skin and hair conditioning during use.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENHAN LI whose telephone number is (571)272-9143. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5 pm EST.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at (571)272-9925. 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.
/W.L./Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights