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 .
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment and remarks, filed 08 July 2026, in which claims 1 and 9 are amended to change the scope and breadth of the claim, and claim 2 is canceled.
This application is made special by petition granted on 02 Feb 2026.
This application is a domestic application, filed 08 Jan 2026; and claims benefit as a CON of 18/711,860, issued as Patent 12,545,749, which is a 371 of PCT/US2022/081943, filed 19 Dec 2022; which claims benefit of provisional application 63/292,547, filed 22 Dec 2021.
Claims 1 and 3-15 are pending in the current application and are examined on the merits herein.
Rejections Withdrawn
Applicant’s amendment, filed 08 July 2026, with respect that claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smid et al. (US 5,124,079, issued 23 June 1992, of record) has been fully considered and is persuasive, as amended claim 1 clarifies the meaning of the “reaction product” and further recites the molar ratio of the fatty acid to the saccharide polymer in the reaction product. Upon reconsideration, Smid et al. does not disclose the composition meeting the combination of each and every limitation as claimed.
This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, filed 08 July 2026, with respect that claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OHARA (JP 2017071588, published 13 April 2017, provided by Applicant in IDS filed 08 Jan 2026) in view of Smid et al. (US 5,124,079, issued 23 June 1992, of record) and Qi et al. (Starch - Starke, 2018, 70, article 1700304, 5 pages, of record) has been fully considered and is persuasive, as amended claim 1 clarifies the meaning of the “reaction product” and further recites the molar ratio of the fatty acid to the saccharide polymer in the reaction product. Upon reconsideration, Applicant’s remarks are persuasive regarding the amended claims that OHARA teaches the composition comprising a mixture of branched fatty acid and straight-chain fatty acids, and the OHARA does not provide guidance to select the molar ratio of the fatty acid to the saccharide polymer as claimed.
This rejection has been withdrawn.
The following are modified grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendment, filed 08 July 2026, in which claims 1 and 9 are amended to change the scope and breadth of the claim, and claim 2 is canceled
Double Patenting
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.
Amended Claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, and 14-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,545,749 (reference patent).
Reference claims 1-12 of the reference patent recite a composition comprising: an aqueous phase; a neutral surfactant; and a reaction product of a saccharide polymer and a fatty ester, the saccharide polymer comprising a dextran, a dextrin compound, or any combination thereof, meeting limitations of claims 1 and 3. Reference claims 2-4 recite the composition comprising glycerol originating from the fatty ester, meeting limitations of claims 4-6. Reference claims 6 recites wherein the saccharide polymer comprises a dextrin compound, and the dextrin compound comprises a maltodextrin, meeting limitations of claim 8. Reference claims 7-8 recite the molar ratio of fatty acid to saccharide polymer, meeting limitations of claim 1 and 9. Reference claim 10 corresponds to limitations of claim 10 and 12. Reference claim 11 corresponds to limitations of claim 11. Reference claim 12 corresponds to limitations of claim 14.
Regarding claim 15, the specification at page 24, paragraph 54 defines the term “treatment fluid” to refer to any fluid used in a subterranean treatment operation in conjunction with achieving a desired function and/or for a desired purpose and the term “treatment fluid” does not imply any particular action by the treatment fluid or a component thereof. In this case the detergent or surfactant formulation even in the form of a personal care product can perform the function of a detergent or surfactant in a subterranean treatment operation, therefore the detergent or surfactant formulation makes obvious the structural limitations of claim 15.
Claim 7 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,545,749 (reference patent) as applied to claims 1, 3-6, 8-12, and 14-15 above, further in view of OHARA (JP 2017071588, published 13 April 2017, provided by Applicant in IDS filed 08 Jan 2026).
Reference claims 1-12 teaches as above.
Reference claims 1-12 do not specifically teach the composition further comprising a zwitterionic surfactant (claim 7). Reference claims 1-12 do not specifically teach the composition is foamed (claim 13).
OHARA teaches a shampoo composition containing a dextrin branched fatty acid ester and a cationic cellulose derivative (paragraph 1), or a personal care composition comprising a reaction product of a dextrin and a fatty acid or ester. The shampoo composition may contain other ingredients usually used in hair cosmetics, for example, alcohols or the like. Examples of alcohols include glycerin (paragraphs 59-60). In the shampoo composition the detergent surfactant of component (A) may be anionic surfactants, amphoteric surfactants or nonionic surfactants, such as carbobetaine-type amphoteric surfactants like coconut oil fatty acid amide propyl betaine (paragraphs 20 and 22), where carbobetaine-type surfactants are zwitterionic surfactants.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Reference claims 1-12 further in view of OHARA in order to further add a zwitterionic surfactant to the formulation taught by Reference claims 1-12. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Reference claims 1-12 further in view of OHARA with a reasonable expectation of success because the Reference claims teach a composition comprising a neutral surfactant or a reaction product form thereof and a reaction product of a saccharide polymer and a fatty ester, and OHARA teaches a shampoo composition comprising a reaction product of a dextrin and a fatty acid or ester and further teaches the combination with additional surfactants such as a zwitterionic surfactant, suggesting it would have been obvious to combine surfactants to give a composition to be used for the same purpose. See also MPEP 2144.06 at I. providing “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)” Regarding claim 13, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the composition is foamed in the course of using a shampoo, making obvious the composition in a foamed state.
Amended Claims 1, 3-6 and 8-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,957,777 (reference patent) in view Smid et al. (US 5,124,079, issued 23 June 1992, of record).
Reference claims 1-11 of the reference patent recite a composition comprising: an aqueous phase; a neutral surfactant or a reaction product form thereof; a reaction product of a saccharide polymer and a fatty ester, the saccharide polymer comprising a dextran, a dextrin compound, or any combination thereof, corresponding to limitations of claims 1-3. Reference claims 2 recites wherein the saccharide polymer comprises a dextrin compound, and the dextrin compound comprises a maltodextrin, corresponding to limitations of claim 8. Reference claim 3 recites the composition comprising glycerol originating from the fatty ester as the one or more alcohols, corresponding to limitations of claims 4-5. Reference claim 5 recites wherein the at least one fatty acid consists of straight-chain fatty acids, addressing the reaction product of a saccharide polymer and a fatty ester limitation of claim 1. Reference claim 6 recites at least a portion of the at least one fatty acid comprises one or more unsaturated straight-chain fatty acids, corresponding to limitations of claim 12. Reference claim 9 further recites the neutral surfactant comprises an alkanolamide or a reaction product thereof, providing guidance for the neutral surfactant limitation of claim 1. Reference claim 10 recites a molar ratio of fatty acid to saccharide polymer in the reaction product is about 0.2 to about 0.9 on a basis of molesfatty acid in fatty ester:molesglucose monomers in saccharide polymer, addressing the reaction product of a saccharide polymer and a fatty ester limitation of claim 1 and limitations of claim 9. Reference claim 11 recites a personal care product comprising the composition, corresponding to limitations of claim 14.
Reference claims 1-11 do not specifically recite the composition comprising a neutral surfactant comprising at least one compound having a structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
74
122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. (claim 1) Reference claims 1-11 do not specifically recite the composition is foamed (claim 13). Reference claims 1-11 do not specifically recite the composition is a treatment fluid (claim 15).
Smid et al. teaches mixtures of amidated fatty acids or derivatives thereof where the of fatty acid radicals have 14-24 carbon atoms that are good thickeners for surfactants and/or detergents (abstract). The use of thickeners in surfactants and/or detergents, such as shampoos, shower and bath foams, lotions, dishwashing agents, etc., is commonly known (column 1, lines 25-30). Smid et al. discloses the embodiment of the rape oil fatty acid monoethanolamides as a thickener in a detergent or surfactant formulation comprising lauryl sulphate monoethanolamine salt, commercially available as Akyposoft KA 250 BV, and 2.0 wt.% of the thickener, made up to 100% with demineralised water and NaCl (column 5, line 40 to column 6, line 5), or a composition comprising an aqueous phase and the neutral surfactant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Reference claims 1-11 in view of Smid et al. in order to select the neutral surfactant comprises an alkanolamide or a reaction product thereof to be the amidated fatty acid thickener taught by Smid et al. or the composition to be foamed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Reference claims 1-11 in view of Smid et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because the Reference claims provide guidance for selecting the neutral surfactant to be an alkanolamide or a reaction product thereof, and Smid et al. teaches alkanolamides or derivatives thereof that are good thickeners for surfactants and/or detergents, and teaches such personal care products include shampoos and shower and bath foams.
Regarding claim 15, the specification at page 24, paragraph 54 defines the term “treatment fluid” to refer to any fluid used in a subterranean treatment operation in conjunction with achieving a desired function and/or for a desired purpose and the term “treatment fluid” does not imply any particular action by the treatment fluid or a component thereof. In this case the detergent or surfactant formulation even in the form of a personal care product can perform the function of a detergent or surfactant in a subterranean treatment operation, therefore the detergent or surfactant formulation makes obvious the structural limitations of claim 15.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,957,777 (reference patent) in view Smid et al. (US 5,124,079, issued 23 June 1992, of record) as applied to claims 1, 3-6 and 8-15 above, further in view of OHARA (JP 2017071588, published 13 April 2017, provided by Applicant in IDS filed 08 Jan 2026).
Reference claims 1-11 in view of Smid et al. teaches as above.
Reference claims 1-11 in view of Smid et al. does not specifically teach the composition further comprising a zwitterionic surfactant (claim 7).
OHARA teaches as above. OHARA teaches the composition further comprising an amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Reference claims 1-11 in view of Smid et al. further in view of OHARA in order to further add a zwitterionic surfactant to the formulation taught by Reference claims 1-11 in view of Smid et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Reference claims 1-11 in view of Smid et al. further in view of OHARA with a reasonable expectation of success because the Reference claims teach a composition comprising a neutral surfactant or a reaction product form thereof and a reaction product of a saccharide polymer and a fatty ester, and OHARA teaches a shampoo composition comprising a reaction product of a dextrin and a fatty acid or ester and further teaches the combination with additional surfactants such as a zwitterionic surfactant, suggesting it would have been obvious to combine surfactants to give a composition to be used for the same purpose. See also MPEP 2144.06 at I. providing “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)”
Amended Claims 1, 3 and 8-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,299,667 (reference patent) in view of Smid et al. (US 5,124,079, issued 23 June 1992, of record).
Reference claims 1-10 and 13 of the reference patent recite a composition comprising: an aqueous phase; a neutral surfactant or a reaction product form thereof; a reaction product of a saccharide polymer and a fatty acid, the saccharide polymer comprising a dextran, a dextrin compound, or any combination thereof, corresponding to limitations of claims 1 and 3. Reference claim 2 recites the saccharide polymer comprises a dextrin compound and the dextrin compound comprises a maltodextrin, corresponding to claim 8. Reference claim 3 recites fatty acid selected from the group including linear saturated and unsaturated groups, addressing limitations of claim 10 and 12. Reference claims 6 and 13 corresponds to the limitation of claims 1 and 9. Reference claim 7 recites the reaction product of the saccharide polymer is obtained in the presence of water and a hydroxide base, corresponding to limitations of claim 1. Reference claim 9 recites the composition is a foamable formulation, corresponding to limitations of claim 13. Reference claim 10 recites the formulation comprises a soap, or a personal care composition corresponding to limitations of claim 14. Reference claim 4 further recites the neutral surfactant comprises an cocamide diethanolamine or a reaction product thereof.
Reference claims 1-10 and 13 do not specifically recite the composition comprising a neutral surfactant comprising at least one compound having a structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
74
122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. (claim 1)
Smid et al. teaches as above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Reference claims 1-10 and 13 in view of Smid et al. in order to select the neutral surfactant to be the amidated fatty acid thickener taught by Smid et al. or the composition to be foamed. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Reference claims 1-10 and 13 in view of Smid et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because the Reference claims provide guidance for selecting the neutral surfactant to be an alkanolamide or a reaction product thereof, and Smid et al. teaches alkanolamides or derivatives thereof that are good thickeners for surfactants and/or detergents, and teaches such personal care products include shampoos and shower and bath foams.
Regarding claim 15, the specification at page 24, paragraph 54 defines the term “treatment fluid” to refer to any fluid used in a subterranean treatment operation in conjunction with achieving a desired function and/or for a desired purpose and the term “treatment fluid” does not imply any particular action by the treatment fluid or a component thereof. In this case the detergent or surfactant formulation even in the form of a personal care product can perform the function of a detergent or surfactant in a subterranean treatment operation, therefore the detergent or surfactant formulation makes obvious the structural limitations of claim 15.
Claims 4-7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,299,667 (reference patent) in view of Smid et al. (US 5,124,079, issued 23 June 1992, of record) as applied to claims 1, 3 and 8-15 above, further in view of OHARA (JP 2017071588, published 13 April 2017, provided by Applicant in IDS filed 08 Jan 2026).
Reference claims 1-10 and 13 in view of Smid et al. teaches as above.
Reference claims 1-10 and 13 in view of Smid et al. does not specifically recite the composition further comprising glycerol (claim 4). Reference claims 1-10 and 13 in view of Smid et al. does not specifically teach the composition further comprising a zwitterionic surfactant (claim 7).
OHARA teaches as above. OHARA teaches the composition further comprising an amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant, and further comprising glycerol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Reference claims 1-10 and 13 in view of Smid et al. further in view of OHARA in order to further add a zwitterionic surfactant and glycerol to the formulation taught by Reference claims 1-10 and 13 in view of Smid et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Reference claims 1-10 and 13 in view of Smid et al. further in view of OHARA with a reasonable expectation of success because the Reference claims teach a composition comprising a neutral surfactant or a reaction product form thereof and a reaction product of a saccharide polymer and a fatty ester, and OHARA teaches a shampoo composition comprising a reaction product of a dextrin and a fatty acid or ester and further teaches the combination with additional surfactants such as a zwitterionic surfactant and additional components such as glycerol, suggesting it would have been obvious to combine surfactants to give a composition to be used for the same purpose. See also MPEP 2144.06 at I. providing “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)”
Claims 1, 3 and 7-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,125,193 (reference patent) in view of Smid et al. (US 5,124,079, issued 23 June 1992, of record).
Reference claims 1-16 of the reference patent recite a composition comprising: a neutral surfactant or a reaction product form thereof; and a reaction product of a saccharide polymer and a fatty acid comprising at least one unsaturated fatty acid, the saccharide polymer comprising a dextran, a dextrin compound, or any combination thereof, and a specific molar ratio of fatty acid to glucose monomers and/or the one or more fatty acids consist of one or more straight chain fatty acids, addressing limitations of claims 1, 3, 9, and 12. Reference claim 2 recites the composition further comprising an aqueous phase, addressing limitations of claim 1. Reference claims 4 recites wherein the saccharide polymer comprises a dextrin compound, and the dextrin compound comprises a maltodextrin, corresponding to limitations of claim 8. Reference claim 6 recites the at least one fatty acid consists of straight-chain fatty acids, addressing limitations of claims 1 and 10. Reference claim 7 recites the neutral surfactant comprises a fatty acid alkanolamide or a reaction product thereof, providing guidance for selecting the neutral surfactant. Reference claim 9 recites the molar ratio of the fatty acid to saccharide polymer in the reaction product, addressing limitations of claim 1 and 9. Reference claim 10 recites the reaction product of the saccharide polymer is obtained in the presence of water and a hydroxide base, addressing claim 1. Reference claim 14 recites the further comprising a zwitterionic surfactant, addressing claim 7. Reference claim 15 recites a foamed formulation comprising the composition, addressing claim 13. Reference claim 16 recites a personal care product comprising the composition, addressing claim 14.
Reference claims 1-16 do not specifically recite the composition comprising a neutral surfactant comprising at least one compound having a structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
74
122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. (claim 1)
Smid et al. teaches as above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Reference claims 1-16 in view of Smid et al. in order to select the neutral surfactant to be the amidated fatty acid thickener taught by Smid et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Reference claims 1-16 in view of Smid et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because the Reference claims provide guidance for selecting the neutral surfactant to be an alkanolamide or a reaction product thereof, and Smid et al. teaches alkanolamides or derivatives thereof that are good thickeners for surfactants and/or detergents.
Regarding claim 15, the specification at page 24, paragraph 54 defines the term “treatment fluid” to refer to any fluid used in a subterranean treatment operation in conjunction with achieving a desired function and/or for a desired purpose and the term “treatment fluid” does not imply any particular action by the treatment fluid or a component thereof. In this case the detergent or surfactant formulation even in the form of a personal care product can perform the function of a detergent or surfactant in a subterranean treatment operation, therefore the detergent or surfactant formulation makes obvious the structural limitations of claim 15.
Claims 4-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,125,193 (reference patent) in view of Smid et al. (US 5,124,079, issued 23 June 1992, of record) as applied to claims 1, 3 and 7-15 above, further in view of OHARA (JP 2017071588, published 13 April 2017, provided by Applicant in IDS filed 08 Jan 2026).
Reference claims 1-16 in view of Smid et al. teaches as above.
Reference claims 1-16 in view of Smid et al. does not specifically recite the composition further comprising glycerol (claim 4).
OHARA teaches as above. OHARA teaches the composition further comprising glycerol.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Reference claims 1-16 in view of Smid et al. further in view of OHARA in order to further add a zwitterionic surfactant and glycerol to the formulation taught by Reference claims 1-16 in view of Smid et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Reference claims 1-16 in view of Smid et al. further in view of OHARA with a reasonable expectation of success because the Reference claims teach a composition comprising a neutral surfactant or a reaction product form thereof and a reaction product of a saccharide polymer and a fatty ester, and OHARA teaches a shampoo composition comprising a reaction product of a dextrin and a fatty acid or ester and further teaches the combination with additional components such as glycerol, suggesting it would have been obvious to combine surfactants to give a composition to be used for the same purpose. See also MPEP 2144.06 at I. providing “It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)”
Amended Claims 1, 3, 7-12, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,542,429 (reference patent) in view of Smid et al. (US 5,124,079, issued 23 June 1992, of record).
Reference claims 1-19 of the reference patent recite a composition comprising: an aqueous phase; a neutral surfactant or a reaction product thereof; and a reaction product of a saccharide polymer and a fatty acid comprising at least one unsaturated fatty acid, the saccharide polymer comprising a dextran, a dextrin compound, or any combination thereof, and a specific molar ratio of fatty acid to glucose monomers, addressing limitations of claims 1, 3, and 9. Reference claim 4 recites the fatty acid select from a group including linear saturated or unsaturated fatty acids, addressing limitations of claim 1 and 12. Reference claim 5 recites the neutral surfactant comprises a fatty acid alkanolamide or a reaction product thereof, providing guidance for selecting the neutral surfactant. Reference claim 7 recites a specific molar ratio of fatty acid to glucose monomers, addressing limitations of claim 1 and 9. Reference claim 9 recites the reaction product of the saccharide polymer is obtained in the presence of water and a hydroxide base, addressing limitations of claim 1. Reference claim 15 recites the composition comprising a zwitterionic surfactant, addressing limitations of claim 7. Reference claims 17-19 recite a treatment fluid comprising the composition, addressing claim 15. Reference claim 21 recites a composition comprising: an aqueous phase; a zwitterionic surfactant; a neutral surfactant or a reaction product thereof; and a reaction product of a saccharide polymer and a fatty acid comprising at least one unsaturated fatty acid, the saccharide polymer comprising a dextran, a dextrin compound, or any combination thereof.
Reference claims 1-19 and 21 do not specifically recite the composition comprising a neutral surfactant comprising at least one compound having a structure of
PNG
media_image1.png
74
122
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. (claim 1)
Smid et al. teaches as above.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Reference claims 1-19 and 21 in view of Smid et al. in order to select the neutral surfactant to be the amidated fatty acid thickener taught by Smid et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Reference claims 1-19 and 21 in view of Smid et al. with a reasonable expectation of success because the Reference claims provide guidance for selecting the neutral surfactant to be an alkanolamide or a reaction product thereof, and Smid et al. teaches alkanolamides or derivatives thereof that are good thickeners for surfactants and/or detergents.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks:
Applicant’s remarks, filed 08 July 2026, have been fully considered and not found to be persuasive.
As terminal disclaimers are not of record, it is proper to maintain these modified grounds of rejection.
Regarding the teachings of Smid et al. as applied in the nonstatutory double patenting rejections above, in each of the rejections the Reference claims of the reference patents provide guidance for the limitations not taught by Smid et al. noted in Applicant’s remarks.
Regarding the teachings of OHARA as applied in the nonstatutory double patenting rejections above, in each of the rejections the Reference claims of the reference patents provide guidance for the limitations not taught by OHARA noted in Applicant’s remarks. Further, in the nonstatutory double patenting rejections above, the broader teachings of OHARA suggesting formulating a shampoo composition with other ingredients usually used in hair cosmetics such as glycerin (also named glycerol) or amphoteric surfactants are relied upon. MPEP 2123 at I. provides “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) In this case the broader teachings of OHARA are pertinent to the claimed invention as part of the literature of the art, and the broader teachings of OHARA are not limited to the composition comprising a mixture of branched fatty acid and straight-chain fatty acids which is what is described as their own invention.
Conclusion
No claim is currently in condition for allowance.
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 Jonathan S Lau whose telephone number is (571)270-3531. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9a-5p Eastern.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571)270-5241. 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.
/JONATHAN S LAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights