DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 38-44 are withdrawn.
Claims 23-37 are pending and represent all claims currently under consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 04/27/2026 has been entered.
Claim 31 was amended. No new material was added.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and the previous objections to the specification.
The specification is newly objected to due to the amendment.
The rejections of claims 23-37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Colaco, alone or in combination with the remaining references, fails to teach or suggest all elements of the currently claimed compositions. Applicant states that the claims recite compositions that comprise water in an amount ranging from 0.5 to 15% by weight, while Colaco discloses sol-gel compositions that comprises water or an aqueous solution from about 99% by weight to about 50% by weight. Applicant states that Colaco’s composition in Table 2 contains 12% added water and 55.93% water from the silica sol-gel due to the description of silica sol-gel in paragraphs 0109-0116 (Remarks, pages 19-20). This argument is not persuasive, because Colaco does not specify that the silica sol-gel of example 6 (Colaco, table 2) has a water content as cited by the Applicant from example 1 (Colaco, paragraphs 0109-0116). The only water content explicitly stated for the example of table 2 is 12%, and therefore it would be reasonable to expect this is the total water content. While Colaco does teach a sol-gel composition may comprise water or an aqueous solution from about 99% by weight to about 50% by weight as cited by the Applicant, Colaco also teaches the epoxysilane-functionalized silica will comprise up to about 90% by weight of the final sol-gel composition including water (Colaco, page 4, paragraph 0060), which supports the 12% water content cited for the example of table 2. Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. See MPEP § 2123(II).
New Objection to the Specification
Content of Specification
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION: See 37 CFR 1.72(a) and MPEP § 606. The title of the invention should be placed at the top of the first page of the specification unless the title is provided in an application data sheet. The title of the invention should be brief but technically accurate and descriptive, preferably from two to seven words. It may not contain more than 500 characters.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCES TO RELATED APPLICATIONS: See 37 CFR 1.78 and MPEP § 211 et seq.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT: See MPEP § 310.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. See 37 CFR 1.71(g).
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM: The specification is required to include an incorporation-by-reference of electronic documents that are to become part of the permanent United States Patent and Trademark Office records in the file of a patent application. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(5) and MPEP § 608.05. See also the Legal Framework for Patent Electronic System posted on the USPTO website (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019LegalFrameworkPES.pdf) and MPEP § 502.05
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. See 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 37 CFR 1.77.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(c). The specification should set forth the Background of the Invention in two parts:
(1) Field of the Invention: A statement of the field of art to which the invention pertains. This statement may include a paraphrasing of the applicable U.S. patent classification definitions of the subject matter of the claimed invention. This item may also be titled “Technical Field.”
(2) Description of the Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 37 CFR 1.98: A description of the related art known to the applicant and including, if applicable, references to specific related art and problems involved in the prior art which are solved by the applicant’s invention. This item may also be titled “Background Art.”
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(d). A brief summary or general statement of the invention as set forth in 37 CFR 1.73. The summary is separate and distinct from the abstract and is directed toward the invention rather than the disclosure as a whole. The summary may point out the advantages of the invention or how it solves problems previously existent in the prior art (and preferably indicated in the Background of the Invention). In chemical cases it should point out in general terms the utility of the invention. If possible, the nature and gist of the invention or the inventive concept should be set forth. Objects of the invention should be treated briefly and only to the extent that they contribute to an understanding of the invention.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S): See MPEP § 608.01(f). A reference to and brief description of the drawing(s) as set forth in 37 CFR 1.74.
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION: See MPEP § 608.01(g). A description of the preferred embodiment(s) of the invention as required in 37 CFR 1.71. The description should be as short and specific as is necessary to describe the invention adequately and accurately. Where elements or groups of elements, compounds, and processes, which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art, they should not be described in detail. However, where particularly complicated subject matter is involved or where the elements, compounds, or processes may not be commonly or widely known in the field, the specification should refer to another patent or readily available publication which adequately describes the subject matter.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS: See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP § 608.01(m). The claim or claims must commence on a separate sheet or electronic page (37 CFR 1.52(b)(3)). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. See 37 CFR 1.75 and MPEP 608.01(i) - (p).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE: See 37 CFR 1.72 (b) and MPEP § 608.01(b). The abstract is a brief narrative of the disclosure as a whole, as concise as the disclosure permits, in a single paragraph preferably not exceeding 150 words, commencing on a separate sheet following the claims. In an international application which has entered the national stage (37 CFR 1.491(b)), the applicant need not submit an abstract commencing on a separate sheet if an abstract was published with the international application under PCT Article 21. The abstract that appears on the cover page of the pamphlet published by the International Bureau (IB) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) is the abstract that will be used by the USPTO. See MPEP § 1893.03(e).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING: See 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825 and MPEP §§ 2421 - 2431. The requirement for a sequence listing applies to all sequences disclosed in a given application, whether the sequences are claimed or not. See MPEP § 2422.01.
The new specification filed 05/20/2026 does not include the “Cross Reference to Related Application” section from the Amendments to the Specification filed 02/22/2022.
Maintained 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.
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.
Claims 23-25, 27-28, 30-31, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colaco (US 20130291883 A1), as evidenced by Ataman Chemicals. The references were previously cited by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 23, Colaco teaches a composition comprising a cosmetic particulate to shape or style (i.e., treat) a keratin fiber (Colaco, claim 1), wherein the particulate can be silicon-based particulates comprising polydimethylsiloxanes (i.e., a non-amino silicone of “formula III”; Colaco, page 3, paragraph 0040), pigments (i.e., a coloring agent), or combinations thereof (Colaco, claim 1). Polydimethylsiloxanes are evidenced by Ataman Chemicals have the chemical formula CH3[Si(CH3)2O]nSi(CH3)3 (Ataman Chemicals, page 1, line 3), wherein “n” represents an unspecified number of repeating monomer units (i.e., a non-amino silicone of “formula III” in which R1, R2, R3, and A are alkyl groups containing 1 carbon atom; m = 2; n = 1; X is a hydrogen atom; p=1; q, k, j, t, and y = 0; and x, y, and z can be any integer, overlapping the claimed range of x+y+z ≥ 4; Ataman Chemicals, page 1, last paragraph). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). Colaco exemplifies a composition comprising 12% water by weight (Colaco, page 9, table 2), which lies within the claimed range. Colaco further teaches the particles may contain tetraethoxysilane (i.e., an alkoxysilane of “formula I” in which R’a, R’b, R’c, and R’d are alkyl groups containing 2 carbon atoms), n-octyltriethoxysilane (i.e., an alkoxysilane of “formula II” in which R0 is an alkyl group containing 8 carbon atoms, R’ is an alkyl group containing 2 carbon atoms, and p is 1), or mixtures thereof (Colaco, page 3, paragraph 0038).
Colaco is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because both are in the same field of alkoxysilane-containing compositions for treating keratin fibers. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the teachings of Colaco to combine and use the siloxane and two silanes together, arriving at the claimed invention, because Colaco teaches mixtures of these compounds are appropriate for use (Colaco, page 3, paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 24, Colaco teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 23. Colaco teaches tetraethoxysilane (i.e., an alkoxysilane of “formula I” in which R’a, R’b, R’c, and R’d are identical and denote ethyl radicals; Colaco, page 3, paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 25, Colaco teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 23. Colaco teaches tetraethoxysilane (Colaco, page 3, paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 27, Colaco teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 23. Colaco teaches n-octyltriethoxysilane (i.e., an alkoxysilane of “formula II” in which R’ are identical alkyl groups containing 2 carbon atoms and p is 1; Colaco, page 3, paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 28, Colaco teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 27. Colaco teaches n-octyltriethoxysilane (i.e., an alkoxysilane of “formula II” in which R0 is an alkyl group containing 8 carbon atoms; Colaco, page 3, paragraph 0038).
Regarding claim 30, Colaco teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 23. Colaco teaches polydimethylsiloxanes (i.e., a non-amino silicone of “formula III” in which R2 and R3 are alkyl groups containing 1 carbon atom; and j, k = 0; Colaco, page 3, paragraph 0040).
Regarding claim 31, Colaco teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 30. Colaco teaches polydimethylsiloxanes (i.e., a non-amino silicone of “formula III”). As above, polydimethylsiloxanes as evidenced by Ataman Chemicals have the chemical formula CH3[Si(CH3)2O]nSi(CH3)3 (Ataman Chemicals, page 1, line 3), wherein “n” represents an unspecified number of repeating monomer units (i.e., a non-amino silicone of “formula III” in which R1 and R2 are alkyl groups containing 1 carbon atom; m = 2; n = 1; j, y = 0; and x and z can be any integer, overlapping the claimed range of x+z ≥ 4; Ataman Chemicals, page 1, last paragraph). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 37, Colaco teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 23. Colaco teaches ethyl alcohol (i.e., an organic solvent chosen from C1-C4 lower alkanols; Colaco, page 10, paragraph 0129, “example VII”).
Claims 26 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colaco (US 20130291883 A1) as applied to claims 23-25, 27-28, 30-31, and 37, further in view of Cauvin (WO 2015122989 A1). The references were previously cited by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 26, Colaco teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 23. Colaco teaches tetraethoxysilane (i.e., an alkoxysilane of “formula I”; Colaco, page 3, page 8, paragraph 0038), but does not specify an amount. Cauvin teaches organopolysiloxanes for use in hair care compositions (i.e., compositions for treating keratin fibers; Cauvin, page 1, paragraph 0003), including a branching agent which can be a tetraalkoxysilane such as tetraethoxysilane (Cauvin, page 9, paragraph 0040) in 0.05-10% by weight (Cauvin, page 16, paragraph 0068).
Colaco and Cauvin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because all are in the same field of siloxane-containing hair care compositions. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Colaco to have included the specified amount of tetraalkoxysilane taught by Cauvin to be preferable (Cauvin, page 16, paragraph 0068), because it would be within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan to formulate a cosmetic with an appropriate amount of the silane.
Regarding claim 34, Colaco teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 23. Colaco teaches siloxane compounds, but not those which specifically match the chemical structure of “formula IIIc”. Cauvin, however, teaches substantially linear organopolysiloxanes to have a chemical formula of X1-A-X2, wherein X1 and X2 can be Si(ORb)3 and Rb is an alkyl group (i.e., R2, R’2, and R’’2 are alkyl groups containing 1 carbon atom; Cauvin, page 6, paragraph 0029); and A is a polymer chain (Cauvin, page 6, paragraph 0029) which can be polydiorganosiloxane of units of “-R22SiO-“, wherein R2 can be a hydrocarbon with 1 carbon (i.e., R1 is an alkyl group containing 1 carbon atom; Cauvin, page 6-7, paragraph 0030). The term “polymer chain” suggests repeating units of the formula “-R22SiO-“, or greater than 1 unit, which overlaps the claimed range of “n+i = 0-510”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the siloxane compound taught by Colaco for the alternative of formula X1-A-X2 taught by Cauvin, because combining branching agents and substantially linear organopolysiloxanes is considered a simple and inexpensive method of making branched organopolysiloxanes for hair care products (Cauvin, page 2, paragraphs 0010-0011).
Regarding claim 35, Colaco teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 34. Colaco teaches siloxane compounds, but not specifically matching the chemical structure of “formula IIIc”. As above, Cauvin teaches the organopolysiloxane to have a chemical formula of X1-A-X2, wherein X1 and X2 can be Si(ORb)3 and Rb is an alkyl group (i.e., R2, R’2, and R’’2 are alkyl groups containing 1 carbon atom; Cauvin, page 6, paragraph 0029); and A is a polymer chain (Cauvin, page 6, paragraph 0029) which can be polydiorganosiloxane of units of “-R22SiO-“, wherein R2 can be a hydrocarbon with 1 carbon (i.e., R1 is an alkyl group containing 1 carbon atom; Cauvin, page 6-7, paragraph 0030). The term “polymer chain” suggests repeating units of the formula “-R22SiO-“, or greater than 1 unit, which overlaps the claimed range of “n+i ≥ 4”. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). As above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the siloxane compound taught by Colaco for the alternative of formula X1-A-X2 taught by Cauvin, because combining branching agents and substantially linear organopolysiloxanes is considered a simple and inexpensive method of making branched organopolysiloxanes for hair care products (Cauvin, page 2, paragraphs 0010-0011).
Claims 29, 32-33 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Colaco (US 20130291883 A1) as applied to claims 23-25, 27-28, 30-31, and 37, further in view of Khenniche (Translation of FR 2966355 A1; IDS reference, 07/26/2022), as evidenced by Ataman Chemicals. The references were previously cited by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 29, Colaco teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 23. Colaco teaches n-octyltriethoxysilane (i.e., an alkoxysilane of “formula II”; Colaco, page 3, paragraph 0038), but does not specify an amount. Khenniche teaches a composition comprising at least one alkoxysilane and at least one silicone (Khenniche claims 1-3) as a treatment of keratin fiber (Khenniche, abstract). Khenniche further teaches the alkoxysilane is octyltriethoxysilane (i.e., an alkoxysilane of “formula (II)”; Khenniche, claim 5) and is present in 0.1-20% and most preferably from 2-15%, overlapping the claimed range of 0.1-30%. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Colaco and Khenniche are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because all are in the same field of alkoxysilane-containing compositions for treating keratin fibers. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Colaco to have included the specified amount of octyltriethoxysilane taught by Khenniche to be preferable (Khenniche, claim 5), because it would be within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan to formulate a cosmetic with an appropriate amount of the silane.
Regarding claim 32, Colaco teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 30. Colaco teaches polydimethylsiloxanes (i.e., a non-amino silicone; Colaco, page 3, paragraph 0040), but does not specify a structure of formula (IIIa). Polydimethylsiloxanes are evidenced by Ataman Chemicals to have the chemical formula CH3[Si(CH3)2O]nSi(CH3)3 (Ataman Chemicals, page 1, line 3), wherein “n” represents an unspecified number of repeating monomer units (i.e., a non-amino silicone of “formula III” in which a and b can be any integer, overlapping the claimed ranges of a = 0-10, b = 0-500, and a+b ≥ 4; Ataman Chemicals, page 1, last paragraph). Khenniche teaches polydimethylsiloxanes with either trimethylsilyl end groups or dimethylsilanol end groups (i.e., a non-amino silicone of “formula IIIa” in which R’2 and R’’2 are alkyl groups containing 1 carbon atom; Khenniche, claim 8). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Colaco to have included the structure of formula (IIIa) as taught by Khenniche in place of the structure of formula (III) taught by Colaco, because Khenniche presents either trimethylsilyl end groups or dimethylsilanol end groups to be alternatives (Khenniche, claim 8).
Regarding claim 33, Colaco teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 32. As above, Colaco teaches polydimethylsiloxanes (i.e., a non-amino silicone; Colaco, page 3, paragraph 0040), but does not specify a structure of formula (IIIa). Polydimethylsiloxanes are evidenced by Ataman Chemicals to have the chemical formula CH3[Si(CH3)2O]nSi(CH3)3 (Ataman Chemicals, page 1, line 3), wherein “n” represents an unspecified number of repeating monomer units (i.e., a non-amino silicone of “formula III” in which a and b can be any integer, overlapping the claimed ranges of a = 0-5 and b = 0-10; Ataman Chemicals, page 1, last paragraph). Khenniche teaches polydimethylsiloxanes with either trimethylsilyl end groups or dimethylsilanol end groups (i.e., a non-amino silicone of “formula IIIa” in which R’2 and R’’2 are alkyl groups containing 1 carbon atom; Khenniche, claim 8). In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Colaco to have included the structure of formula (IIIa) as taught by Khenniche in place of the structure of formula (III) taught by Colaco, because Khenniche presents either trimethylsilyl end groups or dimethylsilanol end groups to be alternatives (Khenniche, claim 8).
Regarding claim 36, Colaco teaches all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 23. Colaco teaches polydimethylsiloxanes (i.e., a non-amino silicone of “formula III”; Colaco, page 3, paragraph 0040), but does not specify an amount. Khenniche further teaches the silicone is polydimethylsiloxanes with trimethylsilyl end groups (i.e., a non-amino silicone of “formula (III)”; Khenniche, claim 8) and teaches the silicone in at least 0.01% by weight and most preferably from 0.1-7% (Khenniche, claim 9), overlapping the claimed range of 0.1-25% by weight. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP §2144.05(I). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Colaco to have included the specified amount of polydimethylsiloxanes taught by Khenniche to be preferable (Khenniche, claim 9) , because it would be within the technical grasp of a skilled artisan to formulate a cosmetic with an appropriate amount of the siloxane.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHASITY P JANOSKO whose telephone number is (703)756-5307. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 ET.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/C.P.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights