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 .
Detailed Action
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 4 September 2025, 6 October 2025, and 6 January 2026 are acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner. See attached copy of PTO-1449.
Response to Restriction
2. Applicants’ election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 24 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Application
3. The instant application was filed 22 May 2024. Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 June 2026. Claims 1-19 are examined on the merits within.
Claim Objections
4. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “(i)” has been deleted, however component (C) also comprises “ii”. Please reinsert “(i)” or deleted “(ii)”. Appropriate correction is required.
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: please insert “and” before component “(ii)” to show that this component is included in the structuring system versus an alternative component. Appropriate correction is required.
6. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: please insert a period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
7. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: please change “further comprise” to instead recite “further comprises”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-19 are 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.
10. Claim 1 recites “wherein the cleansing phase comprises an aqueous structured surfactant phase; wherein the cleansing phase comprises, by weight of the composition: (a) an acyl alaninate surfactant; (b)…” . It is unclear from the claim, and the specification, whether the aqueous structured surfactant phase is in addition to components “(a), (b), and (c)” or if components “(a), (b), and (c)” make up the aqueous structured surfactant phase, i.e., these components further define the aqueous structured surfactant phase. Clarification is requested.
11. Claims 7-8 recite “The personal care composition of claim 1, wherein a weight ratio of sodium cocoyl alaninate”. However, sodium cocoyl alaninate is not recited in claim 1. Clarification is requested.
12. Claim 10 recites “less than about 1% hydrophobic modification”. The upper endpoint of “less than about 1%” is unclear. Does this mean less than 1%, 1.5%, 5%, etc.? Clarification is requested. The phrase “less than about 5% hydrophobic modification” includes the same deficiencies.
13. Claims 16-17 recite the limitation "the benefit agent" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Double Patenting
14. 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.
15. Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/175066 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and Application 19/175066 are directed to personal care compositions comprising a cleansing phase, wherein the composition is substantially free of alkyl sulfate and alkyl ether sulfate type surfactants, wherein the cleansing phase comprises an alaninate surfactant, a zwitterionic or amphoteric surfactant, and a structuring system comprising an emulsifying agent and rheology modifier. The only difference lies in the fact that Application 19/175066 also comprises a benefit phase, which is found in claim 2 of the instant application. Thus the claims are not patentably distinct. The dependent claims are included for similarly further defining types of components and amounts thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
16. Claims 1-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of copending Application No. 19/644097 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the instant application and Application 19/644097 are directed to a personal care composition comprising a cleansing phase, wherein the composition is substantially free of alkyl sulfate and alkyl ether sulfate type surfactants, wherein the cleansing phase comprises an alaninate surfactant, a zwitterionic or amphoteric surfactant, and a structuring system comprising an emulsifying agent and rheology modifier. The only difference lies in the fact that Application 19/644097 also comprises a benefit phase, which is found in claim 2 of the instant application, and comprises a taurate surfactant, which is more specific. Thus the claims are not patentably distinct. The dependent claims are included for similarly further defining types of components and amounts thereof.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
17. No claims are allowed at this time.
18. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JESSICA WORSHAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (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, Robert Wax can be reached at 571-272-0623. 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.
/JESSICA WORSHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights