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 .
Claims 4,6 and 8-24 are pending. Claim 24 is new. Claims 1-3,5 and 7 have been cancelled. Claims 4,6,8 and 15 have been amended. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 8-14 in the reply filed on May 21, 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that examining all claims does not pose a burden to the examiner. This is not found persuasive because the separate inventions require a divergent search and the coating compositions can be used as cosmetic and do not need to be applied to textiles or used in methods involving treating textiles. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 15-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 4 and 6 are now part of the coating composition of claim 8 and will be examined with claims 8-14.
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 4,6,8-14 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gawtrey (US 2010/0236569) in view of Evans (CN 109561694), Maeda (JP H05339132) and Fox (Cn 1278161).
Gawtrey teaches hair styling compositions comprising 0.05-15% chitosan derivatives as thickeners (paragraphs 0086, 0088) wherein the chitosan derivative contains monomers 0-30% (D) (applicant’s formula III), 5-50%(E) (applicant’s formula II) and 30-90% (F) (applicant’s formula I) wherein R16 has R17,18 and 19 as hydrogen or methyl and q=0 (paragraphs 0228-0230). Gawtrey teaches the compositions further comprise 0.1-20% amino silicones (hydrophilic silicone softener; paragraph 0131, 0138), and 0.01-30% cationic surfactants such as tetraalkylammonium bromides (paragraph 0084-0085) and water as a cosmetically acceptable medium (paragraph 0060). Gawtrey invites the inclusion of buffers, co-thickeners and reducing agents into the compositions (paragraph 0063).
Gawtrey does not teach the chlorhexidine acetate or polyhexamethylene biguanide or sodium bisulfate.
Evans teaches that hair styling products (page 11, next to last paragraph) advantageously contain 0.01-5% (page 8, paragraph 2) antimicrobial agents such as chlorhexidine acetate (page 4, component (ii)) and polyhexamethylene biguanide (page 7, paragraph 9), 0.01-20% cetrimonium chloride (cetyltrimethylammonium chloride; page 10, paragraph 2-3) and citric acid (sugar acid, page 10, paragraph 8).
Maeda teaches hair styling compositions conventionally comprise reducing agents such as sodium hypophosphite and sugar acids as citric acid (page 3, paragraphs 1-6).
Fox teaches hair styling compositions (page 1, abstract) conventionally comprise sodium bisulfate as electrolytes, or buffering agents at 0.5-5% (page 4, paragraph 3) and 50-99% water (page 7, paragraph 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the hair styling compositions of Gawtrey by incorporating the chlorhexidine acetate and polyhexamethylene biguanide as antimicrobial agents, cetrimonium bromide and citric acid at the claimed amounts to add antimicrobial benefits, cationic surfactant properties and pH adjusting ability to the compositions as Evens teaches these are conventional components used in hair styling compositions. While Evans teaches cetrimonium chloride, using the bromide would be obvious as halides are a analogous group and substituting bromide for chloride is known in the art (see page 7, paragraph 4 of Evans).
It would have been further obvious to incorporate the reducing agents of sodium hypophosphite of Maeda or sodium bisulfite buffers and thickeners of Fox into the hair styling compositions of Gawtrey as these agents are taught as conventional additives to hair styling compositions and Gawtrey invites the inclusion or reducing agents, buffers and thickeners. Incorporating art recognized additives at effective concentration to achieve the desired level of antimicrobial efficacy, surfactant properties, buffering, thickening and reducing is obvious through routine experimentation. It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose, see In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846,850,205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).
While the sodium bisulfate and sodium hypophosphite are not described as esterification catalysts, they are the same compounds and therefore capable of esterification. Further the claims are to a composition combining a set of components not to an esterification reaction. “Products of identical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties.” A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP 2112.01 II.
Regarding the structure of the chitosan conjugate wherein applicant’s m-2-12 or 4, the examiner asserts R16 taught by Gawtrey can be H or methyl, therefore a linear alkyl of 2 carbons or a branched alkyl of 5 carbons may be chosen. The branched alkyl is an isomer of the linear alkyl and is expected to have similar properties. Note that structurally similar compounds are generally expected to have similar properties. In re Gvurik, 596 F. 2d 1012,201 USPQ 552. Closely related homologues, analogs and isomers in chemistry may create a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Dillon USPQ 2d 1 897,1904 (Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Payne 203 USPQ 245 (CCPA 1979); In re Mills 126 USPQ 5 13 (CCPA 1960); In re Henze 85 USPQ 261 (CCPA 1950); In re Hass 60 USPQ 544 (CCPA 1944).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5573. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm 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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 571-272-2817. 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.
/AMINA S KHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights