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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Argo et al, US 2022/0265527.
Argo et al teach a hand soap comprising 10% sodium laureth sulfate, cocoamidopropyl betaine, 5% glycerin, and the balance water wherein the composition has a pH of 5.5 (¶107, table 9). As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, as the example is identical to the composition claimed, these limitations are satisfied.
With respect to claim 17, as the anti-allergy agent is not defined, the examiner maintains this could be essentially any component in table 9.
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 12, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a2 as being anticipated by Cavaco Paulo et al, US 2023/0414478.
Cavaco Paulo et al teach a hair cleanser comprising disodium 2-sulfolaurate, cocoamidopropyl betaine, glycerin, and the balance water (¶136, table 2), wherein these compositions have a pH of from 4 to 6 (claim 19). As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, as the example is identical to the composition claimed, these limitations are satisfied.
With respect to claim 17, as the anti-allergy agent is not defined, the examiner maintains this could be essentially any component in table 2.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Deng et al, US 2023/0089228.
Deng et al teach a skin cleanser comprising 3.33% disodium 2-sulfolaurate, cocoamidopropyl betaine, 2% glycerin, decyl glucoside, and the balance water wherein this composition has a pH of 4.2 (¶149, formulation C). As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, as the example is identical to the composition claimed, these limitations are satisfied.
With respect to claim 17, as the anti-allergy agent is not defined, the examiner maintains this could be essentially any component in formulation C.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Berbel et al, US 2014/0094395.
Berbel et al teach a skin cleanser comprising 3.2% of a non-sulfate surfactant mixture including disodium 2-sulfolaurate, cocoamidopropyl betaine, glycerin, cocoglucoside, sodium benzoate, and the balance water wherein this composition has a pH between 4 and 5 (¶60, example 3). Another example comprises cocosulfate, cocoamidopropyl betaine, glycerin, and the balance water wherein this composition has a pH between 4 and 5 (¶60, example 10). As this reference meets all material limitations of the claims at hand, the reference is anticipatory.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, as the example is identical to the composition claimed, these limitations are satisfied.
With respect to claim 17, as the anti-allergy agent is not defined, the examiner maintains this could be essentially any component in formulation C.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al, US 2022/0257486.
Liu et al teach an aqueous shampoo comprising disodium 2-sulfolaurate, cocoamidopropyl betaine, 3% glycerin, cocoglucoside, and the balance water (¶171, sample S18) wherein these compositions have a pH of from 4.5 to 6 (¶95) and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare sample S18 with a pH of from 4.5 to 6 as this pH is taught as preferred by the reference.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, as the reference renders obvious the presently claimed composition, the examiner maintains these limitations are satisfied.
With respect to claim 17, as the anti-allergy agent is not defined, the examiner maintains this could be essentially any component in sample S18.
Claims 1-3, 8, 9, 12-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cruz et al, US 2021/0299020.
Cruz et al teach a personal care composition comprising a non-sulfate anionic surfactant, a betaine surfactant, a humectant which may be glycerin, and is free from a thickener (claims 44, 53, and 59). Suitable non-sulfate surfactants include taurates (claim 45), suitable betaines include cocoamidopropyl betaine (claim 47), preferred additives include sodium benzoate (¶60), and these compositions have a pH of from 3.75 to 4.5 (claim 54). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare a composition comprising a taurate, cocoamidopropyl betaine, glycerin and sodium benzoate as all these components are taught as preferred or suitable by the reference.
With respect to claims 2 and 3, as the reference renders obvious the presently claimed composition, the examiner maintains these limitations are satisfied.
With respect to claim 17, as the anti-allergy agent is not defined, the examiner maintains this could be essentially any component in the reference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner notes that personal compositions comprising laureth sulfate and cocoamidopropyl betaine are ubiquitous in the detergent arts. To avoid an onerous action, only one reference has been given, but there are many more.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights