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 .
Applicants' arguments, filed XXXXXXX, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
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, 2-4, 10-12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al (US 2006/0088490) in view of Herrlein et al (EP 328163).
Maruyama et al teaches a method of treating hair comprising applying an inside repair agent, methylhydrogen polysiloxane, polymers of Formula 1, an acid, a coating agent comprising amino functional silicone (claim 1). The inside repair agent can be a polypeptide, including hydrolyzed vegetable protein propylene glycol propylsilanetriol (¶ 20). The amino functional silicones have a main chain of silicone and a side chain of amino group where the amino functional silicone is used for hair inside repair agent to produce easiness in combing, soft feel, and sheen, as well as protection from hair dryer (¶ 23). The protein derivative may be present from 0.01 to 1 mass%, and the amino functional silicone can be present from 0.1 to 3 mass% (¶ 37). The composition can be used to treat frizzy hair (¶ 30) and provide protection from heat damage (¶ 53).
Maruyama et al does not teach polysilicone-29, -33, or -35 as the preferred film forming amino-silicone polymers.
Herrlein et al teaches polysilicone-29 was a known amino functional silicone used in hair products (¶ 150).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute known amino functional silicones, such as taught by Herrlein et al, into the composition of Maruyama et al, given both are film forming hair components.
It would then have been obvious to vary the amount of each component based on the teaching of Maruyama et al in order to produce a hair composition having the desired effects, i.e. reducing hair frizz and protecting from heat damage.
Examiner notes that Applicants presented arguments with regards to the combination of both a amino functional silicones and protein silicone derivative, but as noted in the rejection above, Maruyama et al teaches the inclusion of both components. Thus, the showing of individual components compared to the combination do not overcome the new rejection. To overcome this rejection, a showing would have to demonstrate unexpected results with regards to the use of polysilicone-29, 33, and 35 over other amino functional silicones.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) 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 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 BENJAMIN J PACKARD whose telephone number is (571)270-3440. The examiner can normally be reached Mon 2-6pm and Tues-Fri (9am-6pm + mid-day flex).
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, Sandy Kaup can be reached at (571) 272-6897. 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.
/BENJAMIN J PACKARD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612