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 .
Amendments
Applicants’ amendments to the claims filed 1/28/2026 have been entered. Any objection\rejections from the previous office action filed 10/14/2025 not addressed below has been withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9,12-17,20-23,27-28 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Mitchell et al. (US 2020/0215145), for the reasons set forth in the previous action filed 10/14/2025. A new reasoning for the rejection was necessitated by amendment to some claims.
Regarding the new limitation in claims 1,13 and 31 that the composition comprises a sugar-based emulsifier, applicants specification defines sugar-based emulsifiers (see specification [0035]) to include sugar alcohols which encompasses glycerol, which as noted in the previous action is taught by Mitchell. Regardless the reference teaches use of extract of sugar cane and honey moisturizer. See abstract, [0203] and claims. Regarding the new limitations in claims 13 and 31 on the cleanser comprising at least 90 wt% of natural or naturally derived ingredients, as noted in the previous action, the compositions of Mitchell contain only natural ingredients or naturally derived ingredients, therefore the recitation is considered met.
Claims 1-6,8-10,12-18,20-23,27-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Nguyen Kim et al. (US 2009/0081137), for the reasons set forth in the previous action filed 10/14/2025. A new reasoning for the rejection was necessitated by amendment to some claims.
Regarding the new limitation in claims 1,13 and 31 that the composition comprises a sugar-based emulsifier, applicants specification defines sugar-based emulsifiers (see specification [0035]) to include sugar alcohols which encompasses glycerol, which as noted in the previous action is taught by Nguyen Kim. Regarding the new limitations in claims 13 and 31 on the cleanser comprising at least 90 wt% of natural or naturally derived ingredients, as noted in the previous action, the compositions of Nguyen Kim contain only natural ingredients or naturally derived ingredients, therefore the recitation is considered met.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6,8-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitchell et al. (US 2020/0215145), cited above in view of Kalahasti et al. (US 2019/0038689), in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0116937) in view of Cavaco Paulo et al. (US 2023/0414478). For the reasons set forth in the previous action filed 10/14/2025 and the modified reasoning above in the 102 rejection.
Claim(s) 1-6,8-31is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen Kim et al. (US 2009/0081137), cited above in view of Kalahasti et al. (US 2019/0038689), in view of Park et al. (US 2018/0116937) in view of Cavaco Paulo et al. (US 2023/0414478). For the reasons set forth in the previous action filed 10/14/2025 and the modified reasoning above in the 102 rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants assert Mitchel does not disclose the claimed pH range and the pH used by the examiner is just for the extraction step, not the final pH of the composition.
The argument is unpersuasive as there are other disclosures on pH in the reference including [0187] and the examples, which includes values within the claimed range. Regardless it follows since the composition of Mitchel is within the same scope and contains the same ingredients which would adjust pH, including citric acid, it will feature a pH within the claimed range.
Applicants assert Nguyen Kim fails to disclose a sugar based moisturizer.
As noted in the modified reasoning above glycerol is a sugar alcohol and is included in the scope of the sugar-based moisturizers as defined in the specification at [0035]. Thus, applicants’ amendment did not overcome the rejection. Regardless for the obviousness rejection the specific ingredient saccharide isomerate which is also defined as a moisturizer in applicants’ specification at [0035] was added to the primary reference.
Applicants assert Kalahasti does not teach that saccharide isomerate is a moisturizer in a fatty acid cleanser gel. Applicants assert neither Mitchel or Nguyen suggests any deficiency with respect to moisturization thus there is not reason to add saccharide isomerate.
The relevance of this assertion is unclear as naming an intended use or property of a compound does not change that it is the same. The only question is if it would be obvious to add saccharide isomerate to the composition of either Mitchel or Nguyen Kim. The examiner established a prima fascia case of obviousness for such a combination. As noted in the previous action the reason for combining the various excipients such as saccharide isomerate is from it having been used individually in the prior art, and from them being recognized in the prior art as useful for the same purpose. As shown by the recited teachings, instant claims are no more than the combination of conventional components of topical skin or hair compositions. It therefore follows that the instant claims define prime facie obvious subject matter.
Applicants assert the secondary references do not teach or suggest all the features of claim 1.
The relevance of this assertion is unclear since Kalahasti, Park and Cavoco Paulo, as secondary references, do not on their own have to teach all of the claimed limitations. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES W ROGERS whose telephone number is (571)272-7838. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30-6:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michael Hartley can be reached at 571-272-0616. 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.
/JAMES W ROGERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1618