DETAILED ACTION
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 16-34) in the reply filed on 20 October 2025 and the species of silicone (formula II) in the reply filed on 31 December 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the restriction is not proper as there has not been shown why the species lack unity of invention. This is not found persuasive because the species (and Groups of inventions) were shown to not have unity of invention as there is not a shared special technical feature, as the shared feature does not make a contribution in view of the prior art. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 35 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claims 20 and 25-27 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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.
Claims 16-19, 21-24, 28-31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ran et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0027851).
Ran et al. discloses personal care compositions comprising amino functionalized silicone and hydrophobic starch (abstract). Examples with these ingredients (samples 2-5, 7-8, and 10) also have propylene glycol, which is a polyol. Thus, all of the ingredients recited by independent instant claim 16 are present in this composition.
Ran et al. differs from instant claim 16 in that the amount of propylene glycol is less than the instantly recited range. However, Ran et al. suggests broader amounts for the propylene glycol, which is a cosolvent (paragraph [72]). The range of amounts suggested (paragraph [73]) overlaps the instantly recited range. And in cases involving overlapping ranges, where the instantly claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05.
Instant claims 17-19 and 21-24 further limit the silicone. The amino silicone sold under the trade name DC 8500 in samples 3-4 and 6-10 reads upon the limitations recited by instant claims 16-19 and 24. And further, Ran et al. suggests alternatively using amino functionalized silicone comprising trimethylsilyl amodimethicone of formula (VI) (paragraph [60]), which reads upon the instantly recited species of amino silicone and instant claims 16-19 and 21-24.
Instant claims 28 and 29 further limit the starch, and are read upon by the above cited samples.
Instant claims 30-31 further limit the polyol, and are addressed by the above cited disclosure of Ran et al.
Instant claim 34 further limits the amount of water present, and the above cited samples read upon this limitation.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ran et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0027851) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Schmenger et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0008242) and as evidenced by US Patent Application Publication 2024/0115486.
Instant claims 32 and 33 recite the further inclusion of an associative polymer. Ran et al. does not teach such a polymer is present. However, Ran et al. does suggest the inclusion of thickeners (paragraph [70]).
Schmenger et al. discloses hair compositions (abstract), and discusses thickeners for hair compositions (paragraphs [54-56]). Useful thickeners include PEG-150/Decyl/SMDI copolymer sold under the trade name Aculyn 44 (paragraph [56]), which reads upon the instantly recited a non-ionic associative polymer and is the elected species of a non-ionic associative polymer. Schmenger et al. further states that thickeners allow the composition to be applied to the hair without unduly dripping off the hair and causing mess (paragraph [54]). And this polymer is an associative polymer, as evidenced by US Patent Application Publication 2024/0115486 (paragraph [342]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have used the PEG-150/Decyl/SMDI copolymer sold under the trade name Aculyn 44 in the composition disclosed by Roy et al. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Further, including a thickener in this composition would allow the hair composition to be applied to the hair without unduly dripping off the hair and causing mess.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian Gulledge whose telephone number is (571) 270-5756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am - 4pm.
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at (571) 272-3311. 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.
/Brian Gulledge/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699