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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-21 were previously pending. By virtue of the 27 January 2026 Preliminary Amendment, claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-21 were amended. No claims were added or cancelled.
Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-21 are pending and currently under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement (IDS)
The IDS (1) filed on 06 February 2025 has been considered by the examiner. A signed copy is enclosed.
Priority
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s claim to the following priority:
PNG
media_image1.png
89
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 11, 12, 14, and 19 are objected to.
Claims 2 and 14 are objected to for inconsistent formatting of the claimed variables. A non-limiting example includes use of R19 and R19 within the same claim. This type of formatting inconsistency occurs throughout the claims.
Claims 11 contains a presumed typographical error: “…wherein the one ore more…”
Claim 12 contains a presumed typographical error: “Claim 12 (currently amended)”…”
Claim 19 contains a presumed typographical error: “…said formulae being as defined in claims 2…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 8, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Further, use of the phrase “notably” in claim 2 appears to introduce narrower species/classes after a broader genus and it is unclear whether the material following “notably” is mandatory claim limitation or merely exemplary or preferred subject matter. Thus, one of ordinary skill cannot determine with reasonable certainty whether the limitations of claim 2 encompass the entire preceding genus or are limited to the subsequently identified species following the phrases “such as” and “notably.”
Claim 8, which depends from claim 1, recites the limitation “comprising one or more additional anionic surfactants…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 does not necessarily require the anionic surfactant (“one or more surfactants chosen from one or more anionic surfactants and one or more amphoteric surfactants”).
The formulas set forth in claim 14 are of such poor quality that one of ordinary skill in the art could not reasonably determine the metes and bounds of the claimed limitations. Non-limiting examples include formula on page 8 and on page 12, as shown below:
PNG
media_image2.png
161
355
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
114
474
media_image3.png
Greyscale
whereby some of the variables contained within the formulas are illegible. Furthermore, some variables contained within the formulas are not defined.
Claim 16, which depends from claim 1, recites the limitation “…the total content of the two or more silicones…” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 1 only requires one silicone.
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 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesaulnier (WO 2018/234444 A1; published: 27 December 2018) in view of Roy (US 2020/0268621 A1; published: 27 August 2020) and Johnson (US 2006/0210509 A1; published: 21 September 2006).
Lesaulnier teaches a cosmetic composition for conditioning hair comprising two different cationic surfactants and a silicone system (abstract).
Regarding claim 1 –
Lesaulnier’s Example 3 contains:
1 wt% dicetyldimethylammonium chloride;
1 wt% cetyltrimethylammonium chloride;
2 wt% of the silicone emulsion as prepared in Example 1 corresponding to 0.8 wt% silicone and 0.2 wt% aminosilicone;
Together with cetearyl alcohol and water (pp. 27-28).
Thus, Lesaulnier expressly teaches the claimed compositional architecture of at least two different cationic surfactants and silicone in a rinse-off hair conditioning composition.
While Lesaulnier does not expressly teach the presently claimed low-level anionic/amphoteric surfactant component or the > 7 total cationic to total silicone weight ratio, this limitation is made obvious over Roy and Johnson.
Roy teaches hair cosmetic compositions for conditioning hair comprising one or more anionic, nonionic, and/or amphoteric surfactants together with a silicone mixture comprising a triakylsilyl-terminated diakylpolysiloxane and an amino silicone (abstract). The preferred amphoteric surfactant materials of Roy include cocoylamidopropylbetaine and related betaines and amphoacetates ([0149], [0150]). Further, the compositions of Roy are capable of depositing a high amount of silicone on hair even when the composition contains a small amount of silicone ([0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate a conventional anionic and/or amphoteric surfactant taught by Roy into the two cationic surfactant/silicone conditioner of Lesaulnier to obtain the known washing, formulation, and conditioning benefits associated with those surfactants while retaining silicone conditioning.
Johnson teaches a silicone-based hair conditioner comprising 0.1 to 15 wt% cationic conditioning surfactants and 0.01 wt% to 10 wt% silicone ([0009]). The disclosed cationic and silicone ranges encompass compositions having the claimed ratio. This assertion is strengthened by Johnson’s stated desire to improve silicone hair conditioners by increasing the efficiency of the silicone component in order to reduce the amount of silicone that is incorporated into the composition ([0005]). Thus, the lower proposed range of silicone throughout the proposed range of cationic surfactants produces a ratio of 10 to 1,500, which encompasses the instantly claimed range of > 7.
Johnson also expressly teaches the most important factor impacting the effectiveness of the silicone hair conditioner is the ability of the silicone to deposit upon the hair fiber ([0005]). Furthermore, Johnson teaches the addition of anionic and amphoteric emulsifier/surfactants to improve the stability, texture/consistency, and other aesthetic properties ([0042]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the two cationic surfactant/silicone conditioner of Lesaulnier by incorporating an anionic and/or amphoteric surfactant as taught by Roy and/or Johnson, and to select the relative amounts of cationic surfactant and silicone from the known concentration ranges of Johnson so as to reduce silicone while retaining effective conditioning. Such routine optimization encompasses a total cationic surfactant to total silicone weight ratio of at least 7. The motivation would have been the expressly recognized benefits of maintaining hair conditioning effectiveness while reducing silicone content and improving silicone deposition efficiency.
Regarding claim 2 –
Lesaulnier teaches the addition of one or more cationic surfactants chosen from:
Formula Ib (p. 5, lines 5-35);
Quaternary ammonium salts of imidazoline, such as those of formula (II) (p. 5, lines 36-37; p. 6, lines 1-16);
Di- or tri- quaternary ammonium salts of formula (III) (p. 6, lines 18-30); and
Quaternary ammonium salts containing at least one ester function of formula (IV) (p. 7, lines 1-35; p. 8, lines 1-12).
The formulas of Lesaulnier correspond with claim 2 formulas (II), (III), (IV), and (V), respectively. Further, Lesaulnier teaches species of cationic surfactants, such as dicetyldimethylammonium chloride and cetyltrimethylammonium chloride which are species of the genus encompassed by claimed formula (II) (p. 4, lines 8-25).
Regarding claim 7 –
Lesaulnier’s Example 3 expressly contains 1 wt% dicetyldimethylammonium chloride and 1 wt% cetyltrimethylammonium chloride for a total cationic surfactant content of 2 wt% (Example 3, p. 27-28). Lesaulnier also teaches cationic surfactants of formula (Ia) preferentially in an amount from 0.5 to 5 wt% and cationic surfactants of formula (Ib) preferentially from 0.5 to 5 wt% (p. 9, lines 34-41), thereby overlapping with the instantly claimed range in claim 7.
Johnson independently teaches cationic surfactants in a preferable range of 1 to 5 wt% ([0009]).
Regarding claim 8 –
Roy expressly teaches sulfate anionic surfactants including alkyl sulfates, alkyl ether sulfates, alkylamido ether sulfates, and related C6-C30, particularly C12-C28, materials ([0061]-[0074]).
Regarding claim 10 –
Roy expressly teaches embodiments of the invention comprise amphoteric surfactants ([0030]).
Regarding claims 11 and 12 –
Roy expressly teaches the amphoteric surfactants in a quantity ranging from 0.1 wt% to 15 wt% ([0155]), thereby overlapping with the claimed ranges. The claimed concentration would have been prima facie obvious absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results associated specifically with the claimed boundary.
Regarding claim 13 –
Lesaulnier’s Example 3 expressly contains an amino silicone (p. 27).
Roy likewise expressly requires a silicone mixture containing a trialkylsilyl-terminated dialkylpolysiloxane plus an amino silicone (abstract).
Regarding claim 14 –
Lesaulnier teaches an amino functional dimethylsiloxane copolymer, specifically dimethylsiloxane/aminoethylaminopropylmethylsiloxane polymer having trimethylsilyl end groups, together with ordinary dimethylsiloxane (p. 12, lines 14-17). Structurally, the copolymer disclosed by Lesaulnier corresponds to that which is claimed in formula (III).
Regarding claim 15 –
Johnson expressly teaches total silicone content in a preferable range of 0.1 to 2.5 wt% ([0010]). Lesaulnier’s Example 3 independently teaches 1 wt% total active silicone (p. 27).
Regarding claim 16 –
As previously discussed under the rejection of claim 1, Johnson teaches preferred ranges include 1 to 5 wt% cationic surfactants and silicone down to 0.1 wt% ([0009], [0019]). A selection of 1 wt% cationic surfactant and 0.1 wt% silicone gives a ratio of 10, which lies in the claimed range of claim 16. The reason to move toward the lower portion of Johnson’s disclosed silicone range is not hindsight as Johnson expressly seeks improved silicone deposition to reduce the amount of silicone required. Ray similarly teaches achieving high silicone deposition even with small silicone amounts. It would have been obvious to optimize the known relative levels of cationic conditioning surfactant and silicone within the expressly disclosed ranges toward a reduced silicone content while retaining effective hair conditioning performance. Such optimization includes a ratio of 10, which lies within the instantly claimed range in claim 16.
Regarding claim 17 –
Lesaulnier’s Example 3 contains 6 wt% cetearyl alcohol (p. 27).
Regarding claim 18 –
Lesaulnier expressly teaches applying its composition to keratin fibers, particularly hair, optionally allowing a leave-on period, followed by rinsing and drying (p. 34, claim 17).
Regarding claim 19 –
Lesaulnier teaches Examples containing cationic surfactants dicetyldimethylammonium chloride and cetyltrimethylammonium chloride (p. 24-27), both falling under the claimed genus of formula II.
In view of the foregoing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the hair-conditioning composition of Lesaulnier by incorporating an anionic and/or amphoteric surfactant as taught by both Johnson and Ray. It would have further been obvious to select the relative amounts of cationic surfactant and silicone within the known formulation ranges as taught by Johnson. The references are directed to closely related hair treatment compositions and employ the recited surfactants and silicones for the same known conditioning, cleansing, deposition, stability, and aesthetic functions. Lesaulnier teaches use of at least two different cationic surfactants together with a silicone conditioning system in a hair treatment composition; Ray teaches the use of anionic and/or amphoteric surfactants with silicone hair compositions and recognizes that effective conditioning and silicone deposition can be achieved with relatively low silicone levels; and Johnson teaches cationic conditioning surfactant and silicone concentration ranges that encompass the claimed ratios within the presently claimed range while further teaching anionic and amphoteric surfactants for use in hair conditioners. One of ordinary skill would have had reason to combine these teachings to obtain a stable and effective hair conditioning composition having the claimed surfactant system and relative cationic/silicone amounts, with a reasonable expectation of achieving the known conditioning, deposition, and formulation benefits taught by these references. Accordingly, the claimed subject matter in instant claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10-19 would have been obvious for the reasons stated above.
Claims 4, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesaulnier, Roy, and Johnson as applied to claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10-19 above, and further in view of Gregolin (US 2019/0240130 A1; published 08 August 2019).
Lesaulnier, Roy, and Johnson are discussed above. While Lesaulnier teaches examples containing cationic surfactants dicetyldimethylammonium chloride and cetyltrimethylammonium chloride, both falling under the claimed genus of formula II, Gregolin provides basis to choose a cationic surfactant from the claimed formula (II) genus and a cationic surfactant from the claimed formula (V) genus.
Gregolin expressly teaches hair conditioning compositions containing cationic surfactants and silicone (abstract, [0065]). Specifically, Gregolin teaches a rinse-off conditioner containing:
0.8 wt% cetrimonium chloride; and
1.35 wt% dipalmitoylethyl hydroxyethylmonium methosulfate ([0357]).
Dipalmitoylethyl hydroxyethylmonium methosulfate is an ester-containing quaternary ammonium surfactant within the claimed diacyloxyethylhydroxyethylmethylammonium class for use in hair conditioning compositions.
Thus, it would have been obvious to employ the known combination of an ester-containing quaternary ammonium surfactant and an alkyltrimethylammonium surfactant taught by Gregolin in the conditioner resulting from the combination of Lesaulnier, Roy, and Johnson because both compounds were conventional cationic hair conditioning surfactants performing their established conditioning function, and Gregolin expressly demonstrates their compatibility and combined use in a rinse-off hair conditioner.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesaulnier, Roy, and Johnson as applied to claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10-19 above, and further in view of Soh (US 2017/0135927 A1; published 18 May 2017).
Lesaulnier, Roy, and Johnson are discussed above. While the combined references make obvious that which is claimed in instant claims 1, 2, 7, 8, and 10-19, the limitations of claim 9 are made obvious in further view of Soh.
Soh teaches hair conditioning compositions containing cationic surfactant and optional silicone and states that when anionic surfactant is present, its total amount is preferably 1 wt% or less ([0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use only a low amount of anionic surfactant in the cationic/silicone conditioner of Lesaulnier, Roy, and Johnson as taught by Soh. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so because Soh expressly teaches limiting the anionic surfactant to 1 wt% or less in silicone-containing cationic hair compositions to prevent gel matrix instability.
Conclusion
Claims 2, 11, 12, 14, and 19 are objected to. Claims 1, 2, 4, and 7-21 are rejected. No claim is allowed.
Communication
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Julia A. Rossi whose telephone number is (571)272-0138. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5:30.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached at (571)272-0623. 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.
/JULIA A. ROSSI/
Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights