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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 26, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-14 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez (US 2011/0268681 A1) in view of Feng (US 2017/0000722 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gonzalez teaches a method of treating thermally and/or chemically damaged hair (Abstract), comprising treating said hair with a composition comprising:
An aminosilicone of the following general formula (I) (Abstract):
PNG
media_image1.png
42
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
General Formula (I) of Gonzalez (US 2011/0268681 A1)
Wherein R1 is an alkyl group having 12 to 50 carbon atoms, R2 is a substituted or un-substituted hydrocarbon group having 1 to about 6 carbon atoms, R3 is a 3-aminopropyl group and/or an N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyl group, x has a value of 1 to about 2,000, and y has a value of 1 to about 50.
The aminosilicone of Gonzalez reads on the claimed aminosilicone material because because of the following reasons:
The R1 substituents are essentially identical in both formulae.
The R2 in the formula of Gonzalez contains the same type of functional groups as R2-R4 in the claimed formula, and teaches that said groups have 1-6 carbon atoms which anticipates the claimed range of “1 to about 20 carbon atoms.” The R2 groups of Gonzalez are not taught as being independently selected; however, Since the claimed R2-4 may all be the same, the R2 of Gonzalez nonetheless reads on the claimed groups.
The R3 in the formula of Gonzalez fall within the scope of R5 in the claimed formula because 3-aminopropyl and/or N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyl groups are both aminoalkyl or diaminoalkyl groups which are equivalent to the claimed R5 when the claimed R6-8 are as follows: R6 is a divalent 3 carbon alkylene and R7 and R8 are both Hydrogen (in the case of a 3-aminopropyl group), and R6 is a divalent 3 carbon alkylene, R7 is Hydrogen, and R8 is -R9NH-2 where R9 is an alkylene group with 2 carbon atoms (in the case of an N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyl group).
x and y are identical in both formulae.
Additional components which may be blended into the formulation ([0052]) including inter alia thickeners such as carboxyvinyl polymer ([0052]). This component reads on the claimed “organic resin” and “acrylic resin” from the claimed list because it is an organic polymer and because it is an acrylic polymer (it contains polyacrylic acid structure(s)). Furthermore, Gonzalez teaches that the inventive composition is preferably an oil-in-water emulsion ([0023]), and teaches the incorporation of surfactants ([0039]). The composition of Gonzalez therefore meets the claimed limitation requiring the presence of a polymer resin emulsion. Regarding the compositional limitations of the claimed polymer resin emulsion, Gonzalez teaches that the surfactant is included in amounts ranging from 1 to about 40 wt% ([0046]), but differs from claim 1 because it is silent with regard to the amount of the carboxyvinyl polymer, and thus is silent with regard to the combined amounts of the surfactant and polymer resin.
In the same field of endeavor, Feng teaches an emulsion (Abstract) suitable for hair-care products ([0066]) including aminosiloxane polymers ([0066]) which may be in the form of sprays ([0068]). Feng teaches the incorporation of carboxyvinyl polymers as suspending agents ([0079]). Feng teaches the incorporation of the suspending agents in amounts ranging from 0.1 to 10 wt% ([0079]). It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents based on their art-recognized suitability for a known purpose (See MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the carboxyvinyl polymer of Gonzalez into the inventive formulation of Gonzalez in amounts ranging from 0.1 to 10 wt%, as Feng teaches the incorporation of the same component in the same amount in substantially similar formulations. The formulation of Gonzalez as modified by Feng therefore would contain between about 1.1 and about 50 wt% of surfactant and organic resin combined, which overlaps the claimed range of “about 25 to about 70 weight percent,” establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 2 and 3, as described above, Gonzalez teaches that R2 (which reads on the claimed R2-4) is a substituted or un-substituted hydrocarbon group having 1 to about 6 carbon atoms, which aligns with the claimed R2-4. The R2 groups of Gonzalez are not taught as being independently selected, however Since the claimed R2-4 may all be the same, the R2 of Gonzalez nonetheless reads on the claimed groups. Methyl, ethyl, butyl, and hexyl groups all fall within the purview of substituted or un-substituted hydrocarbons having 1-6 carbons. Gonzalez further teaches that methyl, ethyl, butyl, and and hexyl groups are included, and that methyl groups are preferable ([0026])
Regarding claims 4-6, Gonzalez teaches that the R2 group (which reads on the claimed R2-4 groups as described above) may be cycloalkyl groups, alkoxy groups, and aryl groups ([0026]). The R2 groups of Gonzalez are not taught as being independently selected; however, Since the claimed R2-4 may all be the same, the R2 of Gonzalez nonetheless reads on the claimed groups. Gonzalez further teaches that the R2 group may most preferably be methyl and phenyl ([0026]).
Regarding claims 7-9, as described above, Gonzalez teaches that the R3 group (which reads on the claimed R5 group) is selected from 3-aminopropyl and/or N-(2-aminoethyl)-3-aminopropyl groups ([0027]). Furthermore, as described above, Gonzalez teaches that R1 (which reads on the claimed R1) is an alkyl group having 12 to 50 carbons (Abstract), which anticipates the claimed ranges of “about 15 to about 20 carbons” and “30 to about 45.” Finally, as described above, Gonzalez teaches that R2 (which reads on the claimed R2-4) may most preferably be methyl groups ([0026]).
Regarding claim 10, Gonzalez teaches that x may preferably be within a range of about 10 to about 1,500 ([0030]) and that y may particularly preferably be within a range of 2 to about 40 ([0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Gonzalez teaches that the viscosity of the aminosilicone is about 1,000 to about 5,000,000 mPas ([0031]); identical to the claimed range.
Regarding claim 12, Gonzalez teaches that the nitrogen content of the aminosilicone is preferably about 0.01 to about 0.3% by weight ([0032]).
Regarding claim 13, Gonzalez teaches that the aminosilicone is an emulsion ([0023], [0036], and [0038]), and teaches the incorporation of a surfactant ([0039]).
Regarding claim 14, Gonzalez teaches the incorporation of anionic, cationic, nonionic, amphoteric, and combinations of surfactants ([0039]).
Regarding claims 20 and 21, Gonzalez teaches that the inventive aminosilicone emulsion is applied to the surface of hair ([0020]), which reads on the claimed “substrate comprising a surface.” Furthermore, Gonzalez teaches a pretreatment of hair samples using a sodium hydroxide solution ([0064]) followed by a wash with an SLS solution. Application of either of these aqueous solutions results in at least a temporary coating of at least some of the hair with the solution, even if some or all of the coating solution is subsequently removed by drying. The hair samples are subsequently dipped into inventive emulsion E1 ([0064] and Table 1). Therefore, the teachings of Gonzalez additionally read on the claimed limitation wherein the substrate is a “previously coated surface.”
Regarding claim 22, Gonzalez teaches the application of the inventive composition onto the surface of hair ([0020]), which reads on the claimed method.
pRegarding claim 23, Gonzalez teaches the formation of the inventive composition via mixing the aminosilicone to form the emulsion ([0038]), and teaches the blending of the other components, including thickeners (which read on the claimed “polymer resin”) ([0052]), which reads on the claimed method.
Regarding claim 24, Gonzalez teaches the formation of the inventive composition via mixing the aminosilicone to form the emulsion ([0038]), and teaches the blending of the other components, including thickeners (which read on the claimed “polymer resin”) ([0052]). The product of this mixing (the inventive emulsion) therefore contains a mixture of emulsions of the inventive aminosilicone and thickener, which reads on the claimed method.
Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez (US 2011/0268681 A1) in view of Feng (US 2017/0000722 A1) and further in view of Uehara (US 2011/0311471 A1).
Regarding claims 17-19, Gonzalez as modified teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as described above. Gonzalez as modified differs from claims 17-19 because it is silent with regard to the claimed ranges of aminosilicone within the composition.
In the same field of endeavor, Uehara teaches an aminosilicone hair care composition (Abstract), which can be used in the form of an emulsion ([0005]), wherein the aminosilicone component is included in amounts ranging from about 0.1 wt.% to about 15 wt.% of the composition ([0024]), which overlaps/encompasses the claimed ranges of “about 0.01 to about 10 wt.%,” “about 0.025 to about 0.5 wt.%,” and “about 1 to about 5 wt.%,” establishing prima facie cases of obviousness.
It is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known in the art as suitable for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to incorporate between 0.1 and 15 wt.% of aminosilicone within the formulation of Gonzalez, as Uehara teaches this compositional amount as suitable for the formation of an aminosilicone-based hair-care emulsion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks, filed May 26, 2026, with respect to the rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gonzalez, Feng, and Uehara, as described above.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments towards Gonzales –
Applicant argues that Gonzales’ mere mention of materials in paragraph [0052] does not teach or suggest a polymer emulsion; however, as described above and previously, Gonzales specifically teaches that the composition is in the form of an emulsion ([0023]). The claimed components are therefore present as an emulsion in the formulation of Gonzales despite Gonzales not specifically pointing out that each component is an emulsion.
Applicant states that “there is no teaching to employ an organic resin in the amounts recited in the claim,” however, the claimed range refers to the combined amounts of organic resin and surfactant; the claimed range is present in the prior art as described above.
Applicant argues that the prior art fails to contemplate “a composition formed from a polymer resin emulsion (a) and an aminosilicone provided as a separate emulsion.” However, the composition of the prior art, as described above, contains an aminosilicone in the form of an emulsion with surfactant. The prior art therefore reads on the claimed composition despite not specifically contemplating the aminosilicone as a separate emulsion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE whose telephone number is (703)756-5376. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST.
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, Robert Jones can be reached at 571-270-7733. 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.
/JOSHUA CALEB BLEDSOE/Examiner, Art Unit 1762
Prosecution Insights