DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 15 is withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 5-14 are pending and represent all claims currently under consideration.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 05/12/2026 has been entered.
Claim 1 was amended. No new material was added.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous rejection of claims 1 and 5-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
The amended claims are newly rejected under 354 U.S.C. 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks (page 5), filed 05/12/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 5-14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Takahashi and Tamareselvy have been fully considered and are persuasive due to the amendment. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Takahashi and Sasao.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks (pages 6-7), filed 05/12/2026, with respect to unexpected improvements over Takahashi have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the combination of ammonia and one or more ammonium salts from the claimed list achieves a surprising and unexpected technical improvement with respect to the curl ratio of hair when compared to the same composition comprising an ammonia solution without the claimed ammonium salts (Remarks, pages 6-7). This argument is not persuasive, because in the data cited by the Applicant (instant specification, pages 21-22), the inventive composition 1 having a pH of 9.8 is being compared to a composition having a pH of 11.6. As stated in the rejection below, Takahashi teaches the composition has a pH of most preferably 8-9 (Takahashi, page 3, paragraph 0063). Therefore, the cited data is not comparative to the closest prior art, and there is no data provided to demonstrate that the improvement is not directly attributed to the difference in pH, which is taught by Takahashi. Further, Takahashi teaches a very good curl efficiency (Takahashi, pages 5-6, table 1), suggesting a high curl efficiency would also be expected, as this value is calculated in the instant specification based on an assessment of the curling efficiency.
New 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.
Claims 1 and 5-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20120141690 A1), further in view of Sasao (Translation of WO 2015068728 A1). Takahashi was previously cited by the Examiner.
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi teaches a process for treating keratin fibers comprising providing mechanical tension to the keratin fibers (i.e., step "a"), applying a composition (i.e., step "b"), placing the fibers in an occlusive space (i.e., step "c"), and heating the keratin fibers (i.e., step "d"; Takahashi, claim 1). Takahashi teaches the composition may be applied to the keratin fibers before applying mechanical tension if necessary (i.e., steps "a" and "b" are executable in either order; Takahashi, page 4, paragraph 0089). Takahashi states the heat energy is applied under occlusive conditions (Takahashi, page 4, paragraph 0086), suggesting the occlusive conditions would be removed after the heating (i.e., step “e”). Takahashi exemplifies a process wherein the final steps are removing a perma-roller (i.e., releasing the mechanical tension, step “f”) and rinsing (i.e., step “g”; Takahashi, page 5, paragraph 0110).
Takahashi teaches the composition has a pH of most preferably 8-9 (Takahashi, page 3, paragraph 0063), which lies within the claimed range. Takahashi teaches the composition does not need to contain any reducing agents (i.e., non-reducing; Takahashi, page 2, paragraph 0047) or oxidizing agent (i.e., non-oxidizing; Takahashi, page 4, paragraph 0094), suggesting the composition would not cause the reduction or oxidation of disulfide bonds. Takahashi further teaches the occlusive environment can be a film or sheet (i.e., a barrier; Takahashi, page 1, paragraph 0025) which limits the evaporation of water or moisture from the keratin fibers (i.e., a moisture barrier; Takahashi, page 2, paragraph 0046).
Takahashi does not specifically teach at least one ammonium salt from the claimed list, but does, however, teach the composition contains alkali agents commonly used in cosmetic products, such as ammonia (Takahashi, page 3, paragraph 0063). Sasao teaches a hair cosmetic composition (Sasao, abstract) comprising an alkaline agent such as ammonia and ammonium sulfate (Sasao, page 6, 5th paragraph).
Takahashi and Sasao are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention, because Takahashi, Sasao, and the instant invention are in the same field of applying cosmetic compositions to hair. 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 modified the teachings of Takahashi to include a combination of ammonia and ammonium sulfate which are both taught by Sasao as alkaline agents, because it is obvious to combine equivalents taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a composition to be used for the very same purpose. See MPEP § 2144.06(I).
Regarding claim 5, Takahashi and Sasao together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Takahashi teaches that in order to adjust the pH, the alkali agents can be used alone or in combination in an amount of 0.1 to 5% by weight (Takahashi, page 3, paragraph 0063). Based on the teachings of Takahashi, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the amounts of each alkali agent in order to achieve an optimal pH which does not damage keratin fibers (Takahashi, page 3, paragraph 0062-0063).
Regarding claim 6, Takahashi and Sasao together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Takahashi teaches the alkali agent which can be ammonia in 0.1 to 5% by weight of the composition (Takahashi, page 3, paragraph 0063), which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 7, Takahashi and Sasao together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Takahashi teaches the composition can contain one or more organic solvents (Takahashi, page 3, paragraph 0066).
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi and Sasao together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Takahashi teaches the one or more organic solvents are preferably present in 1 to 10% by weight of the composition (Takahashi, page 3, paragraph 0066), which lies within the claimed range.
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi and Sasao together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Takahashi teaches the composition may also comprise a cosmetic agent such as a fatty alcohol (i.e., a fatty compound from the claimed list; Takahashi, page 3, paragraph 0065).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi and Sasao together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Takahashi teaches the composition may also comprise one or more cosmetic agents such as an anionic, cationic, non-ionic, amphoteric, or zwitterionic surfactant (Takahashi, page 3, paragraph 0065).
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi and Sasao together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Takahashi teaches the keratin fibers are heated at 50°C to 250°C (Takahashi, page 4, paragraph 0080), which encompasses the claimed 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. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi and Sasao together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Takahashi teaches the keratin fibers are heated for preferably 1 minute to 1 hour (Takahashi, page 4, paragraph 0081), which encompasses the claimed 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. See MPEP §2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 13, Takahashi and Sasao together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Takahashi teaches the reshaping means may be a curler or a roller (Takahashi, page 1, paragraph 0026) and further teaches the reshaping means may comprise the heater (Takahashi, page 1, paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 14, Takahashi and Sasao together teach all the elements of the current invention as applied to claim 1. Takahashi teaches the occlusive environment (i.e., moisture barrier) can be a film or sheet (Takahashi, page 1, paragraph 0025) such as foil (Takahashi, page 3, paragraph 0076), which limits the evaporation of water or moisture from the keratin fibers (i.e., impermeable for water vapor; Takahashi, page 2, paragraph 0046). Takahashi further teaches the occlusive conditions allow the temperature of the keratin fibers to be increased higher than in conventional heating processes (Takahashi, page 3, paragraph 0078), which suggests the barrier material is heat resistant up to the selected process temperature as claimed.
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 CHASITY P JANOSKO whose telephone number is (703)756-5307. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-3:30 ET.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/C.P.J./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights