DETAILED ACTION
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 13 July 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The rejection over Ran et al. alone is overcome in view of the amendment to claim 16. 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 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) in view of Desenne et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0165108).
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.
Ran et al. also differs from instant claim 16 in that hydrophobic starch is suggested, which can also be modified by gelatinization or phosphorylation (paragraph [63]). However, starch phosphate is not suggested by Ran et al.
Desenne et al. discloses hair care compositions (abstract). Starches useful in such compositions are discussed, including modified starches (paragraph [292]). A specific useful one suggested is distarch phosphate (paragraph [301]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have included the starch disclosed by Desenne et al. in the composition disclosed by Ran 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.
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) and Desenne et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0165108) 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.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant argues that the rejections over Ran et al. are not proper, as Ran et al. does not teach the inclusion of at least one starch phosphate. The Examiner acknowledges the arguments, and agrees that Ran et al. does not suggest the inclusion of at least one starch phosphate. However, the rejection now cite Desenne et al. See above), which does teach such an ingredient.
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 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
Prosecution Insights