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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/20/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendments are in response to in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/18/2025. Applicant’s claims have been amended in the following manner: independent claim 16 adds “wherein the composition is free of silicone” to prompt a new ground of rejection, and the claim set otherwise remains unchanged. The following objections/rejections are withdrawn: the 103 rejection based on Fernandes (due to Fernandes composition’s requirement for silicone (Fernandes – claim 1)). However, a new 103 rejection is applied which is prompted by the amendment.
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Claims 29-35 are withdrawn from consideration as directed to non-elected inventions.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.
New 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).
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 is free of silicone. Claims 17-28 further narrow the composition.
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]. 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)).
Regarding claims 27-28: Bebot teaches 5-27 wt% water. The lower limit of the instant range (30 wt%) differs by 11% from Bebot’s value (27 wt%) which is close in value and prima facie obvious. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05 (I)). See Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (indicating that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close). Specifically, the concentration of component compositions claimed by the appellees in Titanium Metals differed from the values disclosed by the prior art by as much as 17% of the claimed values, and in the absence of evidence tending to establish different results were achieved by such a miniscule difference in concentrations, were upheld to be obvious permutations of the art disclosed. Id. Bebot makes no further relevant comment regarding water amounts [0248-0253].
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, creams, or pastes, and thus, their obviousness.
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) and Pantene (2019).
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 form 30-89 wt% (instant claim 28).
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 to obtain a hair styling product that imparts shine, gloss, and style (abstract).
Pantene teaches that volatile alcohols hair styling sprays have the potential to dry out hair (pg 2, ‘for curls’) and that non-aerosol 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 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. Although Bebot teaches a certain range of water with a general teaching of using water and alcohol as carriers [0248], note that Bebot does not teach away from a higher water content incorporation [0248-0253]. 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 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), according to the water content teachings of King (QS water, Example 3) 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), 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 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 considered an “associative” cationic cellulose-based polymer (Specification, pg 4, lines 5-18 and pg 7, lines 24-33).
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 (an “associative” cationic cellulose-based polymer, which reads on instant claim 19) as the 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 quaternized hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) polymers with cationic substitution of trimethyl ammonium and dimethyldodecyl ammonium 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], such that the incorporation of polyquarternium-67, as taught by Goh, would allow for optimization of product performance on the hair.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments, see pg 7-9, filed 10/20/2025, with respect to the 103 rejection of claims 16-28 under rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 103 rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration and in view of applicant’s amendments to the claims that require the composition to be free of silicone, a new ground of rejection is made in view of the Prior Art discussed above.
On page 7-9, Applicant’s arguments are moot in consideration of the withdrawal of the previous 103 rejection that required the composition to be “free of silicone”. Most of the arguments center around the new limitation, whereas with respect to the previous rejection, Applicant recites the position of the previous Office Action, and then generally disagrees. New art (i.e., especially Bebot, etc.) has been applied in the 103 rejection above in response to the amendment, which addresses Applicant’s main argument centered around the requirement of Fernandes to use silicone.
Correspondence
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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 12/1/2025
/SEAN M BASQUILL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614