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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 21 July 2025 has been entered
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Status
Applicant’s arguments in the response filed 21 July 2025 are acknowledged.
Claims 10-16, 18 and 20-31 are pending.
Claims 1-9, 17 and 19 are cancelled.
Claims 11, 16 & 20 are withdrawn.
Claims 10, 12-15, 18 and 21-31 are under consideration.
Examination on the merits is to the extent of the following species:
I. Number & type of hair treatment compositions: three (a shampoo, a gel, and a
conditioner);
Il. At least one amino acid and/or amino sulfonic acid, and/or salt thereof, & hair
treatment composition(s) that include it: taurine, included in the shampoo & the
conditioner;
Ill. At least one non-polymeric mono, di, and/or tricarboxylic acid, and/or salt thereof, &
the hair treatment composition(s) that include it: citric acid, included in the gel;
IV. At least one non-taurate surfactant & the hair treatment composition(s) that include it: sodium laureth sulfate (shampoo), and behentrimonium chloride (conditioner);
V. At least one preservative & the hair treatment composition(s) that include it: sodium benzoate (shampoo), sodium benzoate (gel), and phenoxyethanol (conditioner).
VII. Whether hair treatment composition is mixed with a shampoo or a conditioner, or
both; and whether the hair treatment composition is rinsed or not rinsed prior to
application of the first conditioner: Three individual hair treatment compositions
are used (shampoo, gel, and conditioner), which are not mixed with other
shampoos or conditioners. The hair is treated with the shampoo and rinsed.
After rinsing the shampoo, the hair is treated with the gel. Without rinsing the
gel, the hair is treated with the conditioner and the conditioner is rinsed from
the hair; -and-
VIII. The form of the hair treatment composition(s): a shampoo, a gel, and a conditioner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 19 March 2025 have been fully considered by the examiner. A signed and initialed copy of each IDS is included with the instant Office Action.
New & Maintained Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 12 and 13 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "amino acid or sulfonic acid" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "amino acid or sulfonic acid" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Applicant may wish to consider whether amendments to recite “amino acid or amino sulfonic acid” would obviate the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 10, 12-15, 18 & 21-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Punyani (US 2017/0157011; previously cited) in view of Shiseido Super Mild Hair Care - Shampoo & Conditioner Refill Set (previously cited), Mathews (U.S. Patent 4,793,992; previously cited), Tamura (US 2013/0142748; previously cited), Gold (GB 2270259; previously cited), Klar (U.S. Patent 5,853,706; previously cited) and Uehara (US 2005/0180943; previously cited).
With regard to claims 10, 12-15, 18 & 21-31, and the elected species, Punyani teaches hair care regimens comprising moisture control materials (title). With regard to the recited method, Punyani teaches the regimen refers to a method of treating hair comprising two or more steps using two or more hair care compositions these without any intermediate rinsing or washing steps which are used to reduce frizz ([0035] & [0084]; claims 10 & 18(C)). “This is because of moisture control material have accumulative effect and also method of treatment is optimized with dosage and duration of application In case of regimen, moisture control materials penetrates approximately 4 times higher than leave on in one time application to hair and approximately 3 times higher than conventional regiment comprising of shampoo, conditioner and leave on in one time application to hair” [0035]. Punyani teaches the deep conditioning composition is applied to hair, remains on hair before wiping [0038] . Punyani in claim 8 teaches a method in which the rinse off conditioner treatment is performed after the deep conditioning treatment; claim 8 ultimately depends from claim 1 which teaches a shampoo is applied, rinsed and one or more additional hair treatment steps which may be deep conditioning treatments and rinse-off hair conditioning treatments are performed (Punyani’s claim 1). Thereby, Punyani’s claims 1,3 & 8 recite a method in which the hair is cleansed with a shampoo (A), rinsed, deep conditioning treatment (C) is applied and wiped (i.e. a portion of the deep conditioning treatment will remain on hair), and a rinse-off conditioner (B) is applied and rinsed (claims 10, 18 & 30). With regard to the formulations, Punyani teaches the deep conditioning composition comprises a gel matrix (i.e. (C) is a gel; [0084]; claim 18). Punyani teaches the rinse-off and the deep conditioner comprise a gel matrix which includes a cationic surfactant system having a cationic surfactant which is preferably a mono-long alkyl quaternized
ammonium salt [0090]. Punyani teaches the appearance of frizz is undesired because the appearance of frizz and loss of shine and smoothness is associated with the perception of poor hair health [0002].
Punyani does not teach the ingredients claimed in each compositions. Punyani does not teach inclusion of taurine, amount of taurine, citric acid or sodium laureth sulfate in the shampoo; that the conditioner (B) comprises taurine and behenyltrimonium chloride or their amounts; and the amount of citric acid. Punyani does not teach that the deep conditioner (C) comprises 0.5-5 wt% of citric acid, an alkanolamine which is mono ethanolamine, and a surfactant.
Shiseido Super Mild Hair Care - Shampoo & Conditioner Refill Set teaches a shampoo and conditioner which protects hair from dryness and friction (i.e. applying a shampoo composition and a conditioner composition; pg. 1; emphasis added; claims 10 (A) 18(A), 10 (B), 18 (B), 30 (A) & 30 (B)). The shampoo comprises sodium laureth sulfate (elected species of anionic surfactant), taurine (elected species of amino sulfonic acid), sodium benzoate, hydrolyzed oat grass protein, wheat germ oil (i.e. fatty compound), citric acid, and water (claims 10, 12-15, 18, 24 and 30). The conditioner (B) comprises citric acid, steartrimoninm chloride (i.e. cationic conditioning surfactant), dimethicone (silicones), phenoxyethanol and water (claims 10, 14, 18, 24 , 27 and 30). Shiseido Super Mild Hair Care Shampoo & Conditioner Refill Set teaches the method steps of applying the shampoo to hair followed by rinsing, then applying the conditioner to hair followed by rinsing (page. 1). The compositions provide protection, protein and moisture (pg. 1, claim 31). Shiseido teaches use of the shampoo and conditioner every day for healthy hair (pg. 1).
With regard to the recited shampoo (A) and conditioner (B), Mathews teaches the cosmetics industry has used products containing hydrolyzed proteins for conditioning of hair and skin (col. 1, ll. 5-10). Mathews teaches the substantively of a given hydrolyzed protein fraction to keratinous tissue is enhanced by forming a low molecular weight "charge bridge” between the keratin proteins and the protein ingredients in a hair or skin conditioning composition (col. 3, ll. 1-15). Mathews teaches this enhanced binding is preferably mediated by taurine (col. 3, ll. 1-15) and teaches at col.34, ll. 34-35 the amount of taurine, which is 0.5-10% (claims 10(A)(a), 10(B)(a), 12, 13, 18(A), 18(B), 21-22, 30 (A)(a) & 30 (B)(a)). Mathews teaches a composition comprising taurine in the range of from 1 to 5% by weight and an approximately equimolar proportion of hydrolyzed proteins having an average molecular weight in the range of from 500 to 2,000 in a composition having from 80 to 90% water plus alcohol (col. 4, ll. 55-60; claims 10(A)(a), 10(B)(a), 12, 13, 18(A), 18(B), 21-22, 30 (A)(a) and 30(B)(a)). Mathews teaches it is particularly preferred to employ at least 1 % taurine in the composition for significant enhancement of protein binding to hair to improve its luster and texture (col. 3, ll. 40-50; claims 10(A)(a), 10(B)(a), 12, 13, 18(A), 18(B) 21, 22, and 30(A)(a) and 30 (B)(a)). Mathews warns it becomes prohibitively expensive to employ more than about 10% by weight zwitterion (i.e. taurine; col. 3, ll. 40-50; claims 10(A)(a), 10(B)(a), 12, 13, 18(A), 18(B), 21, 22, 30(A)(a) and 30 (B)(a)). Mathews teaches the compositions are preferably water based, containing of from about 50 to 85% water (claims 10(A)(d), 10(B)(d), 12, 13, 18(A), 18(B), 30 (A)(d) & 30 (B)(d); col. 4, ll. 25-30). Mathews teaches taurine may also be useful in reforming or reducing lotions employed in permanent waving of hair (col. 5, ll. 30-40). Mathews teaches wave lotions (as well as various bleaches, tints, and the like) are alkaline and often have a pH of from 8 to 10 (col. 5, Il. 30-40). Mathews explains hair absorbs alkaline materials and may look "dried out" (col. 5, Il. 35-40). Mathews teaches the alkali causes hair to swell and the cuticle to stand erect making the hair rough and dull looking (col. 5, ll. 35- 40). Mathews teaches the introduction of taurine in a permanent wave lotion, for example, improves the appearance of the hair without changing the resilience or "crispiness” valued by hairdressers (col. 5, ll. 40-50). The hair treated with such a composition does not look as dried out as usual alkaline processed hair and it retains good resilience (col. 5, Il. 40-50). Mathews also teaches the use of zwitterions (i.e. taurine) and hydrolyzed proteins may be adapted for use in a variety of pastes, creams, gels, lotions, soaps, shampoos, conditioners, rinses and the like (col. 6, ll. 10-20; claims 10(A)(a), 10(B)(a) 18(A), 18(B), 30 (A), and 30 (B)). Mathews teaches a light hair texturizer comprising hydrolyzed animal protein, tween surfactant, 1.0% citric acid and 1% taurine (col. 5, ll. 5-15; ; claims 10(A), 10(B), 12-15, 18(A), 18(B), 21, 22, 30 (A), and 30 (B)). Mathews teaches it is understood that this invention may be practiced otherwise than as specifically described (col. 6, ll. 10-20).
With regard to the recited amounts of citric acid in shampoo/Composition (A) and conditioners/ Compositions (B) & Composition (C) and monoethanolamine in gel formulations/Composition (C), Tamura teaches a cosmetic for hair and at ¶[ 0233] teaches cosmetic for cleansing the hair (shampoos, claims 10 (A),18 (A) and 30 (A)) and cosmetic for conditioning the hair (claims 10 (B),18 (B) and 30 (B), claims 10 (C),18 (C) and 30 (C)). See below for ¶¶[ 0234-0236].
PNG
media_image1.png
683
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Tamura at ¶[ 0235] teaches conditioning the hair is for “repairing damage of hair and protecting damage for hair” (claim 31). Tamura at ¶[ 0214] teaches pH adjustors and this includes claimed citric acid and claimed organic alkalizing agents and claimed monoethanolamine (elected species). The amount is 0.01-20% (claims 10(A)(b), 10(B)(b), 18 (A), 18(B), 30(A)(b) & 30 (B)(b)). Example 1 drawn to shampoo teaches claimed sodium laureth sulfate and also citric acid (claims 10(A)(c), 18(A), & and 30 (A) (c)); Example 2 drawn to conditioner teaches claimed citric acid and Example 4 drawn to hair treatment, rinse-in type also known as hair conditioner teaches claimed behentrimonium chloride (claims 10(B)(c), 18(B) (c) & and 30 (B) (c); [0342]). More broadly, Tamura teaches behenyltrimethylammonium chloride and stearyltrimethyl ammonium chloride to be cationic surfactants (Composition (B); [0130]).Tamura at ¶[ 0232] teaches formulations, which can be gels (claims 10 (C), 18 (C) and 30 (C)).
With regard to hair treatment composition (C), Gold teaches treating hair or skin and by applying an aqueous composition (abstract) and under Example 2 exemplifies hair gel and exemplifies water and the claimed citric acid in an amount of 0.5-7% (claims 10 ( C ) (a), 18 ( C) and 30 (C ) (a) , claims 14-15 and 23). Gold teaches citric acid is used to adjust the pH of the compositions to the desired range (pg. 4, ll. 15-25).
With regard to the hair treatment composition (C), Klar teaches hair gel and under abstract teaches:
PNG
media_image2.png
239
328
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Klar at col. 4, ll. 9-20 teaches claimed monoethanolamine and also citric acid as the pH adjuster and under claim 1 under b) claims monoethanolamine and the amount is 0.5-2% (claims 10 (C ) (b), 18 (C), 25, 26, 28, 29, and 30 (C ) (b)).
With regard to the hair treatment composition (C), Uehara teaches a hair conditioning composition which comprises a gel matrix (abstract). Uehara teaches the gel matrix comprises about 0.1 to about 10% of a cationic surfactants which include behenyl trimethyl ammonium chloride ([0016]-[0019] & [0072]). It is believed that cationic surfactants with the longer alkyl groups provide improved hydrophobicity on dry hair, especially to damaged hair as compared to those with alkyl chains that are short, and improved slippery and slick feel on wet hair as opposed to those having too long of alkyl group [0072].
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.
Here, at least rationale (G) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing to have modified Punyani’s method by modifying Punyani’s shampoo/cleansing composition (composition (A)) with by combining it with Shiseido’s shampoo comprising sodium laureth sulfate (elected species of anionic surfactant), taurine ( elected species of amino sulfonic acid), wheat germ oil (i.e. fatty compound), citric acid, and water because “[i]t 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.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).”
It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing to have modified the amount the amount of taurine to be 0.5-10% and water to 50-80% as suggested by Mathews and the amount of citric acid to be from 0.01-20% as suggested by Tamura because Punyani, Shiseido, Mathews and Tamura are all directed to shampoo formulations and it is obvious to modify similar compositions in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to use these reagents in art recognized quantities suitable for shampoos.
At least rationale (G) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan at the time of filing to have combined Punyani’s rinse off conditioner (Composition (B)) with Shisedo’s Rinse off conditioner because “[i]t 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.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.” In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980).” It would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan to have added 0.5-10% taurine and the amount of water to be 50-80% as taught by Mathews because Punyani, Shiseido and Mathews are directed to hair conditioners and it is obvious to modify similar compositions in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so with an expectation of success in order to improve the appearance of hair so that the hair is not as rough and dull looking through inclusion taurine in an amount of 0.5-10% and use of water in an art recognized quantity suitable for conditioners as taught by Mathews.
Here, at least rationale (B) may also be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan to have substituted the steartrimonium chloride in the rinse off conditioner (Composition (B)) with behentrimonium chloride as taught by Tamura because steartrimonium chloride and behentrimonium chloride are both cationic surfactants suitable for conditioning compositions which are for repairing damage and Punyani’s invention seeks to reduce the appearance of poor hair health.
At least rationale (G) may be employed, in which it would have been prima facie obvious to have modified the amount of citric acid in the rinse off conditioner (Composition (B)) by adjusting the amount of citric acid to be 0.01-20% by weight as suggested by Tamura because Punyani, Shiseido and Tamura are directed to hair conditioners and it is obvious to modify similar compositions in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to adjust the pH of the conditioner composition by using the citric acid pH adjustor in a quantity art recognized as suitable for doing so.
Here, at least rationale (G), may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to have modified Punyani’s deep conditioner (Composition (C)) by adding 0.5-7% citric acid as suggested by Gold, monoethanolamine in an amount of 0.5-2% as suggested by Klar, and substituting Punyani’s generically taught mono-alkyl quaternized ammonium salt with behentrimonium chloride as suggested by Uehara because Punyani, Gold, Klar, Uehara are all directed to gels/gel matrices and it is obvious to modify similar compositions in the same it. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to adjust the pH of the deep conditioning composition (Composition (C)) using citric acid and monoethanolamine as pH adjustors in amounts art recognized as suitable for gels, and to improve the wet feel/slipperiness and dry hydrophobicity of the deep hair conditioner by use of the mono-long alkyl quaternary ammonium surfactant art recognized as suitable for this purpose.
With regard to the recited amounts taurine/amino sulfonic acid in Composition (A)/shampoo; amount of citric acid/tricarboxylic acid in Composition (A)/shampoo, water in the Composition (A)/shampoo; taurine/ amino sulfonic acid in the Composition (B)/rinse off conditioner; amount of citric acid/tricarboxylic acid in Composition (B)/rinse-off conditioner; water in the Composition (B)/rinse off conditioner; amount of citric acid/tricarboxylic acid in Composition (C)/deep hair conditioner; and monoalkanolamine/monoethanolamine in Composition (C)/deep conditioner, the combined teachings of Punyani, Shiseido, Mathews, Tamura, Gold, Klar and Uehara suggest these reagents in amounts which overlap or fall within the recited range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff 16 USPQ2d 1934(Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP2144.05.1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant alleges unexpected results by pointing to examples in their specification. Applicant points to Example 10 shampoo/Composition (A) comprising taurine and citric acid resulted in hair which had a strong fiber feel, more discipline, and suppleness; Example 12 gel lotion/Composition (C) comprising citric acid and monoethanolamine which was added to a shampoo/condition cycle which resulted the hair being the most coated, having a stronger fiber feel, most disciplined, most supple, more closed ends, and most compact; and Example 4-4 to show that hair treated with conditioning composition (B) resulted in a statistically significant improvement in hair strength (reply, pg. 10-11).
This is not persuasive because Applicant is picking and choosing among disparate examples throughout the specification. No singular embodiment, using all the claimed compositions with the recited reagents in the recited amounts appear to be present in the specification. This is important because synergism may not be present by combining ‘the best” shampoo/Composition (A), with “the best” leave on treatment/Composition (C), and “the best” rinse-off conditioner/Composition (B) due to interaction amongst different reagents amongst the different compositions. This is particularly important where Composition (C) is left on the hair to interact with Composition (B) which is rinsed off.
With regard to the results of the shampoo/Composition (A), it is noted that Shiseido’s shampoo also comprises taurine, citric acid, and guar hydroxypropyltrimonium chloride. Applicant has not compared their inventive shampoo/Composition (A), to that of the closest prior art shampoo which is Shiseido. With regard to the amount of at least one amino acid (taurine), non-polymeric mono, di, and/or tricarboxylic acid/citric acid, and water recited for the shampoo, the references show that Applicant is reciting these reagents in amounts recognized as appropriate.
With regard to composition (C)/intermediate leave-on composition, claim 18 only requires the composition comprise at least 0.5-5 wt% citric acid, at least one alkanolamine, a surfactant, and water; yet the Example 12 gel lotion comprises numerous other specific reagents to achieve the gel structure and uses these reagents in singular amounts. As such, the composition and structure recited by the claims for Composition (C) is broader than the data is provided. The results are not commensurate in scope with claims. The analysis is the same for the conditioning composition (B) (i.e. Example 4-1A was examined). The examiner notes that the instant claims appear to be using art recognized reagents in art recognized amounts conventional to the haircare arts.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI K MATTISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5866. The examiner can normally be reached 9-7 (M-F).
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 J Blanchard can be reached at 5712720827. 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.
/LORI K MATTISON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/NICOLE P BABSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619