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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/10/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 06/10/2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments are in response to in the Final Office Action mailed 12/11/2025. Applicant’s claims have been amended in the following manner: independent claim 1 has been modified by inclusion of “wherein the composition comprises water in an amount of at least 30% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition” that is supported by the amounts of claim 29. There is no fundamental change to the rejection because the limitation of claim 16 is largely derived by the water limitation already found in claim 28. Thus, the claim scope is patently indistinct from the previous claim scope.
The 103 claim rejections have been modified on the basis of some persuasive arguments (i.e., the argument against the titanium metals rationale is persuasive and that position has been withdrawn; however, the rejection below is modified into a 103 rejection that combines Bebot, King, Detert, and Pantene). Thus, Detert was discovered in this round of searching, and considered relevant to the instant claim scope. Furthermore, Keenan and Zhou were discovered in this round of searching, as also relevant to the instant claim scope (see separate, additional 103 rejection below).
The following objections/rejections are withdrawn: 103 rejection (based on Bebot alone; which is replaced by a new 103 rejection).
The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
Claims 16-35 are pending.
Claims 29-35 are withdrawn from consideration as directed to non-elected inventions.
Claims 16-28 are presented for examination and rejected as set forth below.
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 16-17 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bebot (US20130243718A1), in further view of King (US20050136020A1), Detert (EP1632219A1-machine translation provided), and Pantene (2019).
Applicants claims are directed to a composition comprising: one or more cationic cellulose-based polymers, one or more sulfonic anionic polymers, and one or more fixing polymers, wherein the composition comprises water in an amount of at least 30% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition, wherein the composition is free of silicone.
Bebot teaches a hair styling composition that does not require silicone (abstract and disclosure, Bebot – claims 14-29) for the purpose of improved styling of hair [0001-0007] that may be in the form of gels, mousses, sprays, creams, or pastes [0018].
Regarding claims 16-17, 20-25: For 16(a) - Bebot teaches one or more cationic fixing polymers (Bebot – claim 14), which can be cationic cellulose derivatives grafted with water soluble monomers [0176-0178], in 0.5-10 wt% [0247], where polyquarternium-46 serves as an example [0363]. For 16 (b) - Bebot also teaches anionic (meth)acrylic thickening polymers (Bebot – claim 17), in 0.1-10 wt% (Bebot – claim 19), that include polymerized 2-Acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulphonic acid (AMPS) [0073] and others [0071-0072]. For 16(c) – Bebot teaches the composition additionally allows one or more fixing polymers chosen among cationic, nonionic and amphoteric fixing polymers [0014] in 0.5-10 wt% [0247]. Bebot teaches 5-27 wt% water. There is no requirement for silicone from Bebot’s claim set.
Regarding claim 26: The cationic to anionic polymer ratio, based on the above ingredient amounts, ranges from 0.05-100. "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (see 2144.05(I)).
In summary, Bebot teaches the elements and desirability for a silicone-free composition comprising cationic cellulose-based polymers, sulfonic anionic polymers, and fixing polymers in water that may be in the form of gels, mousses, sprays (notably teaching away from aerosol sprays [0019]), creams, or pastes, and thus, their obviousness.
As discussed above, Bebot teaches a silicone-free composition comprising cationic cellulose-based polymers, sulfonic anionic polymers, and fixing polymers in water that may be in the form of gels, mousses, sprays, creams, or pastes. However, Bebot does not teach explicitly a water content from 30-89 wt% (instant claims 16 and 28).
King teaches silicone-free hair styling compositions [0002] that may include a non-limiting type of alcohols generally (King – claims 1-3; [0029], control compositions E of [0046]), as gels, sprays, serums, etc. (King – claim 15). King teaches about 40 to 84 wt% water (QS water in Example 3, that produces a silicone-free aqueous-based shine glaze hair care composition [0052] that outperforms silicon based products [0051]) in formulations to obtain a hair styling product that imparts shine, gloss, and style (abstract). Thus, incorporating high amounts of water in relation to an alcohol component in hair gels, sprays, and serum hair styling compositions would be an obvious consideration for a PHOSITA to apply to hair styling compositions that are silicone free and retain good hair-modifying properties.
Detert teaches hair styling compositions that comprise two fixative polymers (i.e., nonionic, amphoteric, anionic, or cationic [0001]), two cellulose derivatives (e.g., polyquaterniums [0003]), and a surfactant (Detert – claim 1). Detert provides example compositions with about 84 wt% water that have hair styling properties [0024-0025].
Pantene teaches that volatile alcohols hair styling sprays have the potential to dry out hair (pg 2, ‘for curls’) and that non-aerosol spray formulations also benefit by containing more water and less alcohol (pg 2, ‘the basics’). Thus, depending on desired outcome (i.e., final moisture of hair, non-aerosol formulation type), Pantene provides motivation for adjusting the water to alcohol solvent ratio in favor of more water and less alcohol to prevent hair from drying out and especially for non-aerosol formulation preparation.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bebot’s composition by incorporating 40 to 84 wt% water because Bebot generally allows for water and alcohol as carriers [0248] where Bebot is interested in positive hair outcomes [0022] and teaches water-based compositions (abstract), similarly to King. The selection of the water amount used by King for hair styling compositions would be obvious for a PHOSITA to select, as the water amount used in Bebot’s hair compositions.
Finally, Pantene provides motivation for adjusting the solvent ratio in favor of more water and less alcohol, to prevent hair from drying out and especially for non-aerosol spray formulation preparation of hair styling compositions (pg 2). Thus, a PHOSITA would find it obvious to increase the amount of water in the Bebot’s composition (which also teaches hair styling in sprays and other non-aerosol formulations [0018]), according to the water content teachings of King (QS water, Example 3), whereby King teaches silicone-free hair styling compositions [0002], as gels, sprays, serums, etc. (King – claim 15), and Pantene’s motivation for higher water levels for hair styling compositions that do not dry hair out.
Claims 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bebot (US20130243718A1), King (US20050136020A1), Detert (EP1632219A1-machine translation provided), and Pantene (2019), as applied to claims 16-17 and 20-28, and in further view of Goh (Cosmetics Business, 2006).
As discussed above, Bebot teaches a silicone-free composition comprising cationic cellulose-based polymers, sulfonic anionic polymers, and fixing polymers in water, wherein the cationic cellulose-based polymer can be cationic cellulose derivatives grafted with water soluble monomers [0176-0178], in 0.5-10 wt% [0247], where polyquarternium-46 serves as an example [0363]. However, Bebot does not teach the specified polyquaterniums of the claim set (instant claims 18-19).
Goh teaches polyquarternium-67 as a useful conditioning polymer (specifically a cationic conditioning polymer with a cellulose base scaffold) for hair care with superior combability for wet and dry comb and good feel (pg 2). Goh teaches polyquarternium-67 is a quaternized hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) polymer with cationic substitution of trimethyl ammonium and dimethyldodecyl ammonium (pg 2). Note that polyqaurternium-67 contains a dimethyldodecyl substituent, which is a C-12 alkyl chain, and according to Applicant’s Specification, polyquarternium-67 is defined as an “associative” cationic cellulose-based polymer (Specification, pg 4, lines 5-18 and pg 7, lines 24-33), and a compound and it properties are inseparable.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bebot’s composition by selecting polyquarternium-67 ( a cationic cellulose-based polymer, which reads on instant claim 19) described by Goh, as Bebot’s cationic cellulose-based polymer, because Bebot teaches general incorporation of cationic fixing polymers in combination with anionic thickening polymers, where the cationic fixing polymer can be a cationic cellulose-based polymer (exemplified by polyquarternium-46 [0361-0363]), and Goh teaches polyquarternium-67 is a cationic conditioning polymer with a cellulose base scaffold with superior combability for wet and dry comb, and good feel (pg 2). Bebot also demonstrates interest in cosmetic compositions for the purpose of improved styling of hair [0001-0007], and Bebot further incorporates a variety of conventional hair composition additives including softening agents (i.e., reads on conditioning agents), whereby conditioning agents are generally found recited through the document such as oils, proteins, etc. (e.g., [0255, 0341, etc.]), such that the incorporation of polyquarternium-67, as taught by Goh, would allow for optimization of product performance on the hair.
Claims 16-18 and 20-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keenan (US20060134049A1).
Keenan teaches compositions and methods for treating and modifying hair (abstract), whereby rheological modifiers are included to improve stiffness [0004] to produce creams, gels, lotions, etc. [0039]. However, Prior Art compositions that do not incorporate a rheological modifier still produce a hair styling product, albeit with more spread and/or flowability [0003].
Regarding claim 16-18 and 20-28: Keenan teaches a hair styling composition comprising one or more hair fixative resins (Keenan – claim 1), including polyquaternium-10 (reads on instant claims 16-18, and 23), poly(methacrylic acid/acrylamidomethyl propane sulfonic acid) (reads on instant claims 16 and 21-23), PVP/vinyl acetate copolymer (reads on instant claims 16 and 23-24), whereby the one or more hair fixative resins are incorporated at 0-15 wt% (reads on instant claims 20, 22, and 25-26) [0015] and water is incorporated at 0-99.9 wt% (reads on instant claims 16 and 27-28) [0051].
Note that Keenan does not require silicone (Keenan – claim 1). With regard to the numerical range, note that "[A] prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness." In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (see 2144.05(I)).
In summary, Keenan teaches the elements and desirability for the components for the instant composition, as described above, and thus, its obviousness. It must be remembered that “[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious,” the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Thus, Keenan teaches the combination of art-known elements (i.e., hair fixative resins) according to their disclosed beneficial properties (i.e., to style hair) with the resultant product nothing more than one would expect from their combination.
Claims 16-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keenan (US20060134049A1), as applied to claims 16-18 and 20-28, and in further view of Zhou (US20160008257A1).
As discussed above Keenan teaches nearly the entire composition of the claim scope as obvious, and incorporates typical hair additives [0007]. However, Keenan does not explicitly teach an “associative” cationic cellulose-based polymer such as polyquaternium-67 (instant claim 19).
Zhou teaches hair styling compositions (including gels, mousses, creams, etc. [0068]) that provide durable styling benefit [0069-0070] derived from the interaction [0001, 0063] of a cationic and anionic polymer (abstract, Zhou - claim 1). Zhou teaches polyquaternium-10 and polyquaternium-67 (Zhou – claim 11), as example cationic cellulose polymers that contribute to hair product styling performance [0062], and sulfonic acid polymers, as example anionic polymers (Zhou – claim 8, [0050]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Keenan’s composition by selecting polyquarternium-67 (an “associative” cationic cellulose-based polymer, which reads on instant claim 19), because Keenan teaches general incorporation of cationic and anionic fixative polymers (Keenan – claim 1) for use in hair styling compositions, including gels [0002-0003]. Furthermore, polyquaternium-67 as a cationic polymer would be able to interact with the anionic polymers described by Keenan in order to provide a durable styling benefit [0069-0070].
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments, see pg 7-11, filed 06/10/2026, with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 16-28 under rejection have been fully considered and are partially persuasive. Thus, the 103 rejection has been modified with respect to the persuasive arguments and amendments made to the claim set.
Further note introduction of Detert (to the 1st rejection), and Keenan/Zhou (to a 2nd rejection), as newly found Art during this round of search, that is highly related to the instant claim scope. Thus, “there is nothing unusual, certainly, about an examiner changing his viewpoint as to the patentability of claims as the prosecution of a case progresses, and so long as the rules of Patent Office practice are duly complied with an applicant has no legal ground for complaint because of such change in view. The life of a patent solicitor has always been a hard one. In re Ruschig, 154 USPQ 118, 120-21 (CCPA 1967).” In this case, search can be a complicated process, where small alterations of a term and or approach can lead to different references. However, it is important to represent the Prior Art landscape.
On page 7-8, Applicant recites case law and summarizes the current status.
On page 8-10, Applicant argues that Bebot does not teach a composition with at least 30% water, Bebot requires 70-90 % alcohol content, and the King and Pantene references do not cure Bebot’s deficiencies. First note, that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Where a rejection of a claim is based on two or more references, a reply that is limited to what a subset of the applied references teaches or fails to teach, or that fails to address the combined teaching of the applied references may be considered to be an argument that attacks the reference(s) individually. The combined Art teaches the obviousness of increase water amounts in the hair compositions of the Prior Art.
Regarding Bebot’s disclosure alone, and specifically the argument against the Examiner’s use of Titanium Metals, the Examiner finds this argument persuasive (i.e., the 5-27 wt% water amount and 70-90 wt% alcohol amount (Bebot - claim 1), would not allow water to exceed 29.999%, according to the disclosure, because a composition of 29.999 wt% water, 70 wt% alcohol, and 0.001 wt% additional items would be unable to afford space for the required one or more cationic fixing polymers and the one or more thickening polymers). Thus, this section of the rejection has been removed and revised accordingly.
With regard to Applicant’s claim that the proposed 103 modification fundamentally reformulates Bebot’s composition, the arguments are separated:
Argument on Teaching Away: Although Bebot teaches a certain range of water with a general teaching of using water and alcohol as carriers [0248], note that the additional Prior Art (whereby the combined Prior Art forms the basis of an obviousness rejection: The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. At 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Thus, King and Pantene provide rationale for incorporation of higher amounts of water in hair styling compositions generally, in comparison to Bebot (see rationale of the 103 above).
Argument on Principle of Operation: Bebot discusses hair styling compositions incorporating many of the instant ingredients [0018-0020]. Pantene provides appropriate motivation to provide high water to alcohol ratio in compositions (e.g., in non-aerosol sprays), whereby the increase of water amount actually would improve the overall formulation by preventing the hair from drying out. King teaches about 40 to 84 wt% water (QS water in Example 3, that produces a silicone-free aqueous-based shine glaze hair care composition [0052] that outperforms silicon based products [0051]) in formulations to obtain a hair styling product that imparts shine, gloss, and style (abstract). The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). Furthermore, “A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. At 420, 82 USPQ2d 1397. Thus, the combined Prior Art teaches high content water (wt%) formulations for hair styling composition comprising the instant ingredients.
Criticism of Pantene’s non-aerosol formulation that does not explicitly teach water and alcohol amounts: Note that King teaches silicone-free hair styling compositions [0002], as gels, sprays, serums, etc. (King – claim 15). King teaches about 40 to 84 wt% water (QS water in Example 3) in formulations (i.e., the alcohols of glycols are 10-40 wt% and/or glycerin 2-10 wt%) to obtain a hair styling product that imparts shine, gloss, and style (abstract). Thus, King teaches the obviousness of the water amounts, whereby the motivation to adjust the amount of water is discussed by Pantene. Thus, it is the combined Art that provides the relevant teachings, and with regard to the Pantene reference: All elements of each prior art reference need not read on the claimed invention, rather, the proper test for obviousness is what the combined teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Furthermore, Detert teaches hair styling compositions that comprise two fixative polymers (i.e., nonionic, amphoteric, anionic, or cationic [0001]), two cellulose derivatives (e.g., polyquaterniums [0003]), and a surfactant (Detert – claim 1). Detert provides example compositions with about 84 wt% water that have hair styling properties [0024-0025].
On page 10, Applicant argues that Bebot and Goh do not cure Bebot’s deficiencies. Bebot’s alleged deficiencies are addressed above, and Goh is only used to discuss the obviousness of the specific polyquarternium-67 species.
On page 10-11, Applicant concludes. The application remains under 103 rejection.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAJAN PRAGANI whose telephone number is (703)756-5319. The examiner can normally be reached 7a-5p EST (M-Th).
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, Ali Soroush can be reached on 571-272-9925. 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.
/R.P./Examiner, Art Unit 1614 7/27/2026
/SEAN M BASQUILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights