DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/07/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Obviousness
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.
Claim(s) 18, 22-23, 24-25, 26-28 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al (US 2013/0129648 A1), in view of Khenniche et al (WO 2012/055805 A1).
Nguyen taught an anhydrous composition [0299] comprising: at least one amino silicone [0026, 0072]; aminopropyl triethoxysilane (e.g., reads on the instant Formula VIII of claim 18b; reads on the instant Formula VIIIa of claims 24-25) [0026]; and direct dyes (e.g., at least one coloring agent) [0032]. Nguyen was directed to hair compositions [abstract].
Although Nguyen generally taught amino silicones, as previously discussed, Nguyen was not specific the claimed silicones of the instantly recited claims 18 and 20-21.
Khenniche taught hair compositions [claim 16, abstract] in anhydrous form [page 51, lines 15-22] comprising amino silicones, wherein the amino silicones corresponded to the general formula (III) [page 12]:
PNG
media_image1.png
250
515
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As per Khenniche [page 12, lines 3-7], R, R′ and R″, were identical or different, denote a C1-C4 alkyl radical, preferably CH3; a C1-C4 alkoxy radical, preferably methoxy; or an OH radical; A represents a linear or branched, C3-C8 and preferably C3-C6 alkylene radical; m and n are integers dependent on the molecular weight and whose sum is between 1 and 2000.
In another embodiment, R, R' and R", which were identical or different, represented a C1-C4 alkyl or hydroxyl group, A represented a C3 alkylene group and m and n were such that the weight-average molecular mass of the compound was between 5000 and 500000 approximately [page 12, lines 8-12].
The Examiner notes that Khenniche’s formulas read on the instant claims 18 and 20-21.
Since Nguyen generally taught amino silicones, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include, within Nguyen, the amino silicones of Khenniche. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, it is prima facie obvious to select an amino silicone for incorporation into a hair composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use as such, as taught by Khenniche.
Nguyen, in view of Khenniche, reads claims 18, 20-21, 24-27 and 33.
Claims 22-23 are rendered prima facie obvious because Nguyen taught silicone amines present at from about 1 % to about 50 %; or from about 1 % to about 25 %, based on the weight of the compositions [0078].
The instant claim 22 recites from about 0.1 % to 40 % amino silicone.
The instant claim 23 recites from about 1 % to 25 % amino silicone.
Nguyen taught silicone amines present at from about 1 % to about 50 %; or from about 1 % to about 25 %. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 A.
Claim 28 is rendered prima facie obvious because Nguyen taught aminopropyl triethyoxysilane as a silicone amine [0026], where silicone amines were taught in amounts from about 1 % to about 25 %, or from about 1 % to about 50 % [0028].
The instant claim 28 recites the alkoxysilane present from 0.1 % to 30 %.
Nguyen taught aminopropyl triethyoxysilane present at about 1 % to about 25 %, or from about 1 % to about 50 %. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as discussed above.
Claim 31 is rendered prima facie obvious because Nguyen taught pigments present at from about 0.5 % to about 40 % [0032].
The instant claim 31 recites from 0.05 % to 30 % pigment.
Nguyen taught pigments present at from about 0.5 % to about 40 %. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as discussed above.
Claim 32 is rendered prima facie obvious because Nguyen taught that the composition may contain less than 3 % of water [0300].
Claim 34 is rendered prima facie obvious because Nguyen taught aminopropyl triethyoxysilane as a silicone amine [0026], where silicone amines were taught in amounts from about 1 % to about 90 % [0028]. In another embodiment, silicone amines were taught as being present in amounts from about 1 % to about 90 % [0078].
The instant claim 34 recites the mass ratio of the alkokysilane of Formula (VIII) to the amino silicone from 95:5 to 5:95. Nguyen taught aminopropyl triethoxysilane at 1 % to 90 % and silicone amines at 1 % to 90 %. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as discussed above.
Claim(s) 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al (US 2013/0129648 A1), in view of Khenniche et al (WO 2012/055805 A1) and further in view of Plos et al (ES 2981323 T3).
The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection over Nguyen and Khenniche was previously described.
Additionally, Nguyen generally taught organic solvents as hydrocarbons [0228].
Although Nguyen generally taught organic solvents as hydrocarbons, Nguyen was not specific oils chosen from C8-C16 alkanes, as recited in claims 29-30.
Nevertheless, Plos taught anhydrous compositions [page 7, 12th paragraph] for the hair comprising silicones and alkoxysilanes [title], and further comprising isododecane as an organic solvent [page 8, 4th paragraph].
Since Nguyen generally taught hydrocarbon organic solvents, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include, within Nguyen, Plos’ isododecane. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. In the instant case, it is prima facie obvious to select isododecane for incorporation into a hair composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use as an organic solvent, as taught by Plos at page 8, 4th paragraph.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CELESTE A RONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 AM-6 PM.
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, Frederick Krass can be reached at 571-272-0580. 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.
/CELESTE A RONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612