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 .
Formal Matters
Receipt of Applicant’s response dated 08/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are canceled.
Claims 21-25, 27-34, and 38-40 are amended.
Claims 39-40 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 36-37 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected species.
Claims 21-35 and 38 are under consideration in the instant Office action to the extent of the elected species, i.e., the at least one anionic surfactant is sodium lauryl ether sulfate, the at least one amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant is cocoyl betaine, the one or more polydialkylsiloxanes comprising trialkylsilyl end groups and having a viscosity at 25 °C ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 mPa.s is dimethicone, the one or more amino silicones having a viscosity at 25 °C ranging from 1,000 to 15,000 mPa.s and an amine number ranging from 2 to 10 mg of KOH per gram of amino silicone is amodimethicone, the one or more nonionic surfactants is PEG-100 stearate, and the one or more agents chosen from fatty amines, fatty acids, fatty alcohols, or mixtures thereof is stearamidopropyl dimethylamine.
Manner of Making Amendments, 37 C.F.R. 1.121
Claims 36-37 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to nonelected species, however the claim status identifier used in the claim set dated 08/04/2026 for each of claims 36-37 is “Previously Presented”. Applicant is requested to update the claim status identifiers of claims 36-37 to “Withdrawn” and is reminded to include proper claim status identifiers moving forward to avoid delays. See MPEP 714.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 06/17/2026 has been considered by the Examiner. A signed copy of the IDS is included with the present Office Action.
OBJECTIONS/REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
Claim Objections
The objections set forth in the Office action dated 05/04/2026 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The rejections set forth in the Office action dated 05/04/2026 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The rejections set forth in the Office action dated 05/04/2026 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and in favor of the new grounds of rejection set forth below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Double Patenting
The rejection set forth in the Office action dated 05/04/2026 is hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and in favor of the new grounds of rejection set forth below as necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
NEW GROUNDS OF OBJECTION/REJECTION
Claim Objections
Claim 28 is objected to because “the one or more polydialkylsiloxane” spanning lines 1-2 should be amended to “the one or more polydialkylsiloxanes” in order to improve claim consistency and readability (See claims 21, 29, and 31).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 21-35 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rughani et al (US 2018/0280270 A1, published 10/04/2018, cited in Notice of References Cited dated 05/04/2026) as evidenced by Croda Agriculture (“Arlacel™ 165”, accessed 10/07/2026).
Rughani et al teach a hair-treatment composition, that may be in the form of a shampoo, comprising at least 0.5 wt. % of at least one amino acid or amino sulfonic acid, and/or a salt thereof, one or more surfactants, preferably at least one non-taurate surfactant, and water (See entire document, e.g., [0014], [0017]-[0021]). The one or more surfactants may include cationic, anionic, amphoteric/zwitterionic, and nonionic surfactants, and a mixture thereof, and the total amount of the one or more surfactants is typically about 0.1 to about 40 wt. %, based on the total weight of the hair-treatment composition (e.g., [0041]-[0042]). The hair-treatment composition may include one or more anionic surfactants from about 1 to about 40 wt. %, one or more amphoteric surfactants from about 0.1 to about 20 wt. %, one or more cationic surfactants from about 0.1 to about 20 wt. %, one or more silicones from about 0.1 to about 40 wt. %, one or more cationic polymers from about 0.01 to about 15 wt. %, wherein wt. % is based on the total weight of the hair-treatment composition (e.g., [0043]-[0048], [0058]-[0059], [0064], [0072]). Preferred non-taurate anionic surfactants include sodium laureth sulfate (i.e., sodium lauryl ether sulfate) (e.g., [0096]). Preferred amphoteric surfactants include coco betaine (i.e., cocoyl betaine) (e.g., [0118]). Preferred cationic surfactants include stearamidopropyl dimethylamine (e.g., [0160]). Suitable nonionic surfactants are exemplified in lists including the product containing glyceryl stearate and PEG-100 stearate, marketed under the name ARLACEL 165 by Croda (e.g., [0386]). Suitable silicones are exemplified in a list including dimethicone (e.g., [0058]). Suitable cationic polymers are exemplified in a list including amodimethicone (e.g., [0066]). Rughani et al teach that it is particularly advantageous when using amino silicones to use them in the form of an oil-in-water emulsion with silicone particle size ranging from 3 nm to 500 nm (e.g., [0442]).
The specific combination of features claimed is disclosed within the broad generic ranges taught by Rughani et al but such “picking and choosing” within several variables does not necessarily give rise to anticipation (Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec., 868 F.2d 1251, 1262 (Fed. Circ. 1989)). That being said, however, it must be remembered that “[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious” (KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious,” the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ” (KSR at 1741). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton” (Id. at 1742).
Consistent with this reasoning, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have selected various combinations of various disclosed ingredients of a hair-treatment composition from within the prior art disclosure of Rughani et al and arrive at a hair-treatment composition in the form of a shampoo comprising at least 0.5 wt. % of at least one amino acid or amino sulfonic acid, and/or a salt thereof, sodium laureth sulfate as the one or more anionic surfactants from about 1 to about 40 wt. %, coco betaine as the one or more amphoteric surfactants from about 0.1 to about 20 wt. %, stearamidopropyl dimethylamine as the one or more cationic surfactants from about 0.1 to about 20 wt. %, the product containing glyceryl stearate and PEG-100 stearate, marketed under the name ARLACEL 165 by Croda, as the one or more nonionic surfactants, dimethicone as the one or more silicones from about 0.1 to about 40 wt. %, amodimethicone as the one or more cationic polymers from about 0.01 to about 15 wt. %, and water, wherein the total amount of surfactants is about 0.1 to about 40 wt. %, wherein wt. % is based on the total weight of the hair-treatment composition, and wherein the composition is in the form of an oil-in-water emulsion with silicone particle size ranging from 3 nm to 500 nm.
Regarding the ranges required by the instant claims, a prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art (In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
The limitation of “a surfactant mixture comprising one or more nonionic surfactants, wherein the surfactant mixture has an HLB ranging from 10 to 16” of instant claim 21 is met by the hair-treatment composition of Rughani et al as the hair-treatment composition of Rughani et al comprises the product containing glyceryl stearate and PEG-100 stearate, marketed under the name ARLACEL 165 by Croda, which, as evidenced by Croda Agriculture, has an HLB value of 11 (See “HLB” under “Product Details” of Croda Agriculture).
Thus, the hair-treatment composition of Rughani et al renders obvious the composition of claims 21-35 and 38 to the extent of the elected species.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-35 and 38 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 12-13, and 16-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,589,065 B2 (hereafter ‘065) in view of Rughani et al (US 2018/0280270 A1, published 10/04/2018, cited in Notice of References Cited dated 05/04/2026).
Instant claims 21-35 and 38 recite a cosmetic composition comprising: a) at least one anionic surfactant; b) at least one amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant; c) at least one oil-in-water emulsion having a particle size D50 of less than 350 nm on a volume basis, the at least one oil-in-water emulsion comprising: - a silicone mixture comprising (i) one or more polydialkylsiloxanes comprising trialkylsilyl end groups and having a viscosity at 25 °C ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 mPa.s, and (ii) one or more amino silicones having a viscosity at 25 °C ranging from 1,000 to 15,000 mPa.s and an amine number ranging from 2 to 10 mg of KOH per gram of amino silicone; - a surfactant mixture comprising one or more nonionic surfactants, wherein the surfactant mixture has an HLB ranging from 10 to 16; and - water; and d) from 0.4% to 5% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition, of one or more agents chosen from fatty amines, fatty acids, fatty alcohols, or mixtures thereof, wherein the at least one anionic surfactant is chosen from sulfate-type surfactants, wherein the at least one anionic surfactant is chosen from alkyl sulfates, alkyl ether sulfates, alkylamido sulfates, alkylamido ether sulfates, alkylaryl polyether sulfates, monoglyceride sulfates, salts thereof, or mixtures thereof, wherein the at least one anionic surfactant is chosen from alkyl sulfates, alkyl ether sulfates, or mixtures thereof, wherein the total amount of the at least one anionic surfactant ranges from 1% to 50% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition, wherein the at least one amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant is chosen from (C8-C20)alkylbetaines, (C8-C20)alkylamido(C3- C8)alkylbetaines, or mixtures thereof, wherein the total amount of the at least one amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant ranges from 0.1% to 30% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition, wherein the one or more polydialkylsiloxane comprising trialkylsilyl end groups are compounds of formula (I): R'3SiO(R'2SiO)pSiR'3 (I), wherein: - R' is independently chosen from a monovalent hydrocarbon-based radical comprising from 1 to 18 carbon atoms; and - p is an integer ranging from 500 to 2000, wherein the one or more polydialkylsiloxanes comprising trialkylsilyl end groups have a viscosity ranging from 40,000 to 70,000 mPa.s at 25 °C, wherein the one or more amino silicones are compounds of formula (II): XR2Si(OSiAR)n(OSiR2)mOSiR2X (II), wherein: - R is independently chosen from a monovalent hydrocarbon-based radical having from 1 to 18 carbon atoms; - X is independently chosen from R or a hydroxyl (OH) or a C1-C6 alkoxy group; - A is an amino radical of formula -R1-[NR2-R3-]xNR22, or the protonated form of formula -R1-[NR2-R3-]xNR22, wherein: R1 represents a C1-C6 alkylene radical, R2 is independently chosen from a hydrogen atom or a C1-C4 alkyl radical, R3 is a C1-C6 alkylene radical, and x is an integer equal to 0 or 1; - m and n are integers ranging from 50 to 1,000, wherein the silicone mixture comprises the one or more polydialkylsiloxanes in a total amount of from 70% to 90%, and the one or more amino silicones in a total amount of from 10% to 30%, wherein all amounts are measured by weight, relative to the total weight of the silicone mixture, wherein the one or more nonionic surfactants are chosen from: (i) (poly)oxyalkylenated fatty alcohols of formula: R3-(OCH2CH2)cOH wherein:- R3 represents a linear or branched alkyl or alkenyl radical comprising from 8 to 40 carbon atoms; and - c is an integer ranging from 1 to 200, (ii) (poly)oxyalkylenated (C8-C32)alkyl phenyl ethers; (iii) polyoxyalkylenated esters of C8-C32 fatty acids and of sorbitan; and (iv) polyoxyethylenated esters of C8-C32 fatty acids, wherein the at least one oil-in-water emulsion has a particle size D50 of between 100 and 300 nm, wherein the total amount of the at least one oil-in-water emulsion ranges from 0.1% to 10% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition, wherein the fatty amines are chosen from fatty amidoamines, and wherein the total amount of the one or more agents ranges from 0.4% to 3% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 12-13, and 16-17 of ‘065 recite a hair care system comprising: (A) a shampoo composition, comprising: (a) from 5 to 15 wt. % of at least one ethoxylated sulfate anionic surfactant having at least one degree of ethoxylation and/or its salt thereof; (b) from 1 to 10 wt. % of at least one non-ethoxylated sulfate anionic surfactant and/or its salt thereof; (c) from 1 to 5 wt. % of at least one amphoteric surfactant; (d) from 0.1 to 3 wt. % of at least one water-soluble quaternary ammonium compound; (e) an oil-in-water emulsion having a particle size D50 of less than 350 nm, and comprising: a silicone mixture comprising: (i) a polydialkylsiloxane comprising trialkylsilyl end groups, having a viscosity at 25° C ranging from 40,000 to 70,000 mPas; and (ii) an aminosilicone having a viscosity at 25° C ranging from 1,000 to 15,000 mPa.s and an amine number ranging from 2 to 10 mg of KOH per gram of aminosilicone; and wherein the weight ratio of the polydialkylsiloxane to the aminosilicone ranges from about 5:1 to about 1:1; a surfactant mixture comprising one or more non-ionic surfactants, said mixture having an HLB ranging from 10 to 16, and water; wherein the oil-in-water emulsion is present in the shampoo composition (A) in a total amount ranging from about 0.1% to about 10% by weight; all weights being based on the total weight of the shampoo composition, and (B) a conditioner composition, comprising: (a) from 0.5 to 2 wt. % of each of at least two different cationic surfactants, in a total amount of from 1 to 4 wt. % of cationic surfactant; (b) from 3 to 5 wt. % of at least one fatty alcohol; (c) from 2.2 to 3.1 wt. % of at least two silicones, wherein the first silicone is a polydialkylsiloxane, which is present at a range of 2.0 to 2.5 wt. % based on the total weight of the conditioner composition, and wherein the second silicone is an aminosilicone, which is present at a range of 0.2 to 0.6 wt. % based on the total weight of the conditioner composition; (d) water; all weights being based on the total weight of the conditioner composition, wherein the at least one ethoxylated sulfate anionic surfactant (a) having at least one degree of ethoxylation is selected from alkyl ether sulfates, their salts thereof, and mixtures thereof, wherein the at least one amphoteric surfactant (c) of the shampoo composition (A) is selected from betaines, alkyl amphoacetates, alkyl amphoproprionates, salts thereof, or a mixture thereof, wherein the at least one amphoteric surfactant (c) are selected from cocamidopropyl betaine, coco-betaine, or mixtures thereof, wherein the polydialkylsiloxane is selected from dimethicones, wherein the aminosilicone is selected from amodimethicones, wherein the polydialkylsiloxane comprising trialkylsilyl end groups, having a viscosity at 25° C. ranging from 51,000 to 70,000 mPa.s, and wherein the oil-in-water emulsion is present in the shampoo composition (A) in a total amount ranging from about 0.2% to about 8% by weight; the silicone mixture is present in a total amount ranging from 40% to 60% by weight relative to the total weight of the emulsion; the polydialkylsiloxane comprising trialkylsilyl end groups is present in a total amount ranging from 35% to 45% by weight relative to the total weight of the emulsion; the aminosilicone(s) is present in a total amount ranging from 5% to 15% by weight relative to the total weight of the emulsion; the surfactant mixture is present in a total amount ranging from 5% to 15% by weight relative to the total weight of the emulsion; and the water is present in a total amount ranging from 25% to 50% by weight of the emulsion.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 12-13, and 16-17 of ‘065 do not recite the at least one ethoxylated sulfate anionic surfactant being sodium lauryl ether sulfate, the one or more non-ionic surfactants being PEG-100 stearate, or the shampoo composition comprising stearamidopropyl dimethylamine from 0.01% to 5% by weight or from 0.4% to 3% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teaching of Rughani et al, which has been discussed in detail supra.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, based on the teaching of Rughani et al, to use sodium laureth sulfate as the at least one ethoxylated sulfate anionic surfactant, use the product containing glyceryl stearate and PEG-100 stearate marketed under the name ARLACEL 165 by Croda as the one or more non-ionic surfactants, and to include in the shampoo composition one or more cationic surfactants including stearamidopropyl dimethylamine from about 0.1 to about 20 wt. % based on the total weight of the hair-treatment composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so, and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success, because Rughani et al teach sodium laureth sulfate, the product containing glyceryl stearate and PEG-100 stearate marketed under the name ARLACEL 165 by Croda, and including stearamidopropyl dimethylamine as suitable/preferred anionic, nonionic, and cationic surfactants, respectively, in an analogous shampoo composition. A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art (In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Thus, claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 12-13, and 16-17 of ‘065 in view of Rughani et al render obvious instant claims 21-35 and 38 to the extent of the elected species.
Claims 21-35 and 38 are directed to an invention not patentably distinct from claims 1, 3, 6, 8, 12-13, and 16-17 of commonly assigned U.S. Patent No. 12,589,065 B2. Specifically, see above.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office may not institute a derivation proceeding in the absence of a timely filed petition. The USPTO normally will not institute a derivation proceeding between applications or a patent and an application having common ownership (see 37 CFR 42.411 ). Commonly assigned U.S. Patent No. 12,589,065 B2, discussed above, may form the basis for a rejection of the noted claims under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 if the commonly assigned case qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) and the patentably indistinct inventions were not commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention.
In order for the examiner to resolve this issue the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(i) to the effect that the subject matter and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person. Alternatively, the applicant or patent owner can provide a statement under 35 U.S.C. 102(c) and 37 CFR 1.104(c)(4)(ii) to the effect that the subject matter was developed and the claimed invention was made by or on behalf of one or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, and the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; the application must also be amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.
A showing that the inventions were commonly owned or deemed to be commonly owned not later than the effective filing date under 35 U.S.C. 100(i) of the claimed invention will preclude a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 based upon the commonly assigned case. Alternatively, applicant may take action to amend or cancel claims such that the applications, or the patent and the application, no longer contain claims directed to patentably indistinct inventions.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/04/2026 have been considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the teaching of Pinto et al are moot as the rejections relying on the teaching of Pinto et al set forth in the Office action dated 05/04/2026 have been withdrawn and the teaching of Pinto et al is not being applied as art in a rejection herein.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 103 over Rughani et al, Applicant argues that the Office action dated 05/04/2026 did not identify any disclosure in Rughani et al regarding the recited viscosity, amine numbers, or HLB value, and, therefore, the rejection is improper as every element of the claims is not identified in what is taught or suggested in Rughani et al.
The above argument has been fully considered by the Examiner but is not found persuasive because, firstly, the instant claims are being examined to the extent of the elected species which includes that the one or more polydialkylsiloxanes comprising trialkylsilyl end groups and having a viscosity at 25 °C ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 mPa.s is dimethicone and the one or more amino silicones having a viscosity at 25 °C ranging from 1,000 to 15,000 mPa.s and an amine number ranging from 2 to 10 mg of KOH per gram of amino silicone is amodimethicone, and therefore, the limitation of “a silicone mixture comprising (i) one or more polydialkylsiloxanes comprising trialkylsilyl end groups and having a viscosity at 25 °C ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 mPa.s and (ii) one or more amino silicones having a viscosity at 25 °C ranging from 1,000 to 15,000 mPa.s and an amine number ranging from 2 to 10 mg of KOH per gram of amino silicone” of instant claim 21 is met by the hair-treatment composition of Rughani et al as the hair-treatment composition of Rughani et al comprises dimethicone and amodimethicone. Secondly, the instant claims are being examined to the extent of the elected species which includes that the one or more nonionic surfactants is PEG-100 stearate, and therefore, as can be seen in the new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 above, the limitation of “a surfactant mixture comprising one or more nonionic surfactants, wherein the surfactant mixture has an HLB ranging from 10 to 16” of instant claim 21 is met by the hair-treatment composition of Rughani et al as the hair-treatment composition of Rughani et al comprises the product containing glyceryl stearate and PEG-100 stearate, marketed under the name ARLACEL 165 by Croda, which has an HLB value of 11 as evidenced by Croda Agriculture (See new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 above for more details).
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
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 KAELEIGH ELIZABETH OLSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1962. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PM.
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, David Blanchard can be reached at (571)272-0827. 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.
/K.E.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
