DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 28, 2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 13, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed January 28, 2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Status
Claims 34 – 41 are withdrawn.
Claim 42 has been newly added.
Claims 22 – 32 and 42 are examined here-in.
Claim Interpretation
The amended claims include the limitation “hair pretreatment” composition, which is not explicitly defined in the specification. The instant specification does say “a composition that can be used as a pretreatment composition for a dyeing or bleaching process” (page 1 lines 25 – 29) which suggests that the pretreatment occurs prior to dyeing or bleaching. Therefore, any composition that can be applied prior to dyeing or bleaching is interpreted to read on this limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 24 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 24 depends on claim 23 which depends on independent claim 22. Independent claim 22 includes the limitation of about 8 to about 12% by weight amino acids, which is not further limited by claim 24’s recitation for 8 to 12% by weight amino acids.
Claim 26 depends on claim 25 which depends on independent claim 22. Independent claim 22 includes the limitation of about 8 to about 12% by weight monoalcohols, which is not further limited by claim 26’s recitation for 8 to 12% by weight monoalcohols.
Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 22 – 32 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viscogliosi (US 12,029,810 B2, of record) and DeGeorge (US 2018/0116930 A1, of record).
Viscogliosi teaches a composition with an amino acid and an alcohol for the cosmetic treatment of hair (abstract, claim 1).
Viscogliosi teaches glycine, proline, methionine, serine, arginine, and lysine, among others (column 4 lines 1 – 9). Viscogliosi teaches the composition contains 0.1 to 20% of amino acid (column 4 lines 55 – 59).
Viscogliosi teaches the composition may contain alcohol in the amount of 1 to 50% (column 5 lines 9 – 10), where the alcohol has between 1 and 10 carbon atoms and a hydroxyl group (column 3 lines 45 – 47, column 4 lines 21 – 23).
Notably, Viscogliosi does not teach the necessary inclusion of an anionic surfactant in the composition.
Viscogliosi does not teach the pH of the composition, cationic polymers, or silicones.
DeGeorge teaches the missing elements of Viscogliosi.
DeGeorge teaches a composition for hair lightening which includes an amino acid and a cationic conditioning agent (abstract), explaining that the composition strengthens hair fibers, protects hair fibers form damage, and confers enhanced softness, shine, and conditioning (paragraphs 0011, 0012). DeGeorge teaches that the composition mitigates damage during chemical treatment, such as a lightening or bleaching process (paragraph 0012), thus suggesting that the composition is applied prior to lightening or bleaching processes.
DeGeorge teaches the pH of the composition is above 7 (paragraph 0006, 0059).
DeGeorge teaches the cationic conditioning agent of the composition is a cationic polymer (paragraph 0117-0119). DeGeorge teaches the cationic conditioning agent in the amount of 0.01 to 10 wt. % (paragraph 0064). DeGeorge teaches dialkyldiallyl ammonium salts and copolymers thereof as preferred cationic conditioning agents (paragraph 0118).
DeGeorge teaches the inclusion of volatile or non-volatile silicone oils, including aminated polysiloxanes (paragraphs 0127, 0134-0136) in the amount of 0.1 to 10 wt. % (paragraph 0050).
DeGeorge teaches that coloring agents may optionally be included, but are not necessary for the composition (paragraph 0021).
DeGeorge teaches that anionic surfactant may be included in the composition in the amount of 0.1 to 10 wt. %, however does not require inclusion of an anionic surfactant (paragraphs 0053 – 0058).
The combination of Viscogliosi and DeGeorge’s teachings renders claims 22 – 32 and 42 prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2143I(I)(a) as combining known prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Viscogliosi’s composition with DeGeorge’s teachings because DeGeorge suggests the inclusion of a cationic conditioning agent strengthens hair fibers, protects hair fibers form damage, and confers enhanced softness, shine, and conditioning (paragraphs 0011, 0012). The combination of Viscogliosi and DeGeorge’s prior art teachings for haircare compositions, yielding predictable results (i.e. a haircare composition to lighten keratin fibers) is prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2143(I)(a).
Viscogliosi’s teaching to include an amino acid in the composition in the amount of 0.1 to 20% (column 4 lines 55 – 59) and an alcohol in the amount of 1 to 50% (column 5 lines 9 – 10) in combination with DeGeorge’s teachings to include a cationic polymer (paragraph 0117-0119) in the amount of 0.01 to 10 wt. % (paragraph 0064), volatile or non-volatile silicone oils (paragraphs 0127, 0134-0136) in the amount of 0.1 to 10 wt. % (paragraph 0050), and a composition pH greater than 7 (paragraphs 0006, 0059) reads on instant claim 22. Viscogliosi’s teachings of 0.1 to 20% and 1 to 50% for amino acid and alcohol respectively (column 4 lines 55 – 59, column 5 lines 9 – 10) overlap on the instantly claimed ranges of “about 8% to about 12%” recited in claim 22. DeGeorge’s teachings for cationic polymer in the amount of 0.01 to 10 wt.% (paragraph 0064) and silicones in the amount of 0.1 to 10 wt. % (paragraph 0050) overlap on the instantly claimed ranges of about 0.00005% to about 1% and about 0.02% to about 1% for cationic polymers and silicones, respectively. Claimed ranges that overlap teachings of the prior art are prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(I).
Furthermore, Viscogliosi and DeGeorge do not teach the necessary inclusion of an anionic surfactant in the composition, reading on the instant limitation “wherein the composition is free of anionic surfactants” of amended claim 22. (DeGeorge teaches that anionic surfactant may be included in the composition in the amount of 0.1 to 10 wt. % (paragraphs 0053 – 0058), but does not require an anionic surfactant in the composition.)
DeGeorge’s teaches that the composition mitigates damage during chemical treatment, such as a lightening or bleaching process (paragraph 0012), thus suggesting that the composition is applied prior to lightening or bleaching processes, reading on the “pretreatment” limitation of claim 22.
Viscogliosi’s teaching that the amino acid may be glycine, proline, methionine, serine, arginine, or lysine, among others (column 4 lines 1 – 9) reads on instant claim 23.
Viscogliosi’s teaching of the amino acid in the amount of 0.1 to 20% (column 4 lines 55 – 59) overlaps on the claimed range of 8 to 12% by weight recited in instant claim 24.
Viscogliosi’s teaching that the alcohol included in the composition has between 1 and 10 carbon atoms and a hydroxyl group (column 3 lines 45 – 47, column 4 lines 21 – 23), reads on instant claim 25, which recites the alcohol has 2 to 4 carbon atoms and only one hydroxyl group.
Viscogliosi’s teaching that the composition may contain alcohol in the amount of 1 to 50% (column 5 lines 9 – 10), overlaps on the instantly claimed amount of about 8% to 12% by weight as recited in claim 26.
DeGeorge’s teaching that the pH of the composition is above 7 (paragraph 0006, 0059) overlaps on the instantly claimed range of “about 9” recited in claim 27.
DeGeorge’s teaching to include a cationic polymer, such as a copolymer of dialkyldiallyl ammonium salts (paragraph 0117-0119) in the amount of 0.01 to 10 wt. % (paragraph 0064) reads on instant claims 28 and 29. A copolymer of dialkyldiallyl ammonium salts reads on the description and examples of homopolymers or copolymers as denoted by the structures shown in claim 28 and described in the instant specification on page 9 line 8 to page 10 line 23. DeGeorge’s teachings of an amount in the range of 0.01 to 10 wt. % (paragraph 0064) overlaps on the instantly claimed range of 0.00007 to 0.5% as recited in claim 29.
DeGeorge’s teaching to include of volatile or non-volatile silicone oils can be animated polysiloxanes (paragraphs 0127, 0134-0136) in the amount of 0.1 to 10 wt. % (paragraph 0050) reads on instant claims 30 and 31. DeGeorge’s teachings of an amount in the range of 0.01 to 10 wt. % (paragraph 0064) overlaps on the instantly claimed range of 0.05 to 0.5% by weight as recited in claim 31.
DeGeorge’s teaching that coloring agents may optionally be included, but are not necessary for the composition (paragraph 0021) reads on instant claim 32.
The combination of Viscogliosi’s teaching to include an amino acid in the composition in the amount of 0.1 to 20% (column 4 lines 55 – 59) and an alcohol in the amount of 1 to 50% (column 5 lines 9 – 10) with DeGeorge’s teachings for a composition pH greater than 7 (paragraphs 0006, 0059) reads on instant claim 42. Viscogliosi’s teachings of 0.1 to 20% and 1 to 50% for amino acid and alcohol respectively (column 4 lines 55 – 59, column 5 lines 9 – 10) overlap on the instantly claimed ranges of “about 8% to about 12%” recited in claim 42. DeGeorge’s teaching for a pH greater than 7 (paragraphs 0006, 0059) overlaps on the instantly claimed range of 8 to 10 as recited in claim 42. Claimed ranges that overlap teachings of the prior art are prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2144.05(i).
Examiner’s Reply to Attorney Arguments Dated January 28, 2026
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection specifically addresses the claims as presently amended.
Double Patenting
The judicially created doctrine for non-statutory double patenting rejections has been described in detail in the previous action.
Double Patenting over U.S. Patent No. 12,239,726
Claims 22 – 32 and 42 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,239,726 in view of Viscogliosi (as cited above).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: instant claim 22 is drawn to a hair pretreatment composition comprising i) about 8 to 12% amino acid, ii) about 8 to 12% one or more monoalcohol, iii) about 0.00005 to 1% cationic polymer, iv) about 0.02 to 1% one or more silicones, wherein the pH of the composition is ranges from 8 to 10.
Conflicting claim 1 is drawn to a method for bleaching or dyeing keratin fibers by applying a pretreatment composition comprising amino acid in the amount of at least 5% by weight.
The instant and conflicting claims differ because instant claim 22 recites the inclusion of monoalcohol, cationic polymer, and silicones, and specifies the pH of the composition.
Regarding cationic polymer and silicones: Conflicting claim 5 recites the inclusion of cationic polymer and aminosilicone, overlapping on instant claim 22.
Regarding pH: Conflicting claim 4 specifies the pH of the composition is from 2 to 11, overlapping on the range of instant claim 22. Conflicting claim 14 specifies the pH of the composition is from 8 to 10, overlapping on the range of instant claim 22. Conflicting claim 19 specifies the pH of the composition is from 4 to 10, overlapping on the range of instant claim 22.
Viscogliosi teaches a composition with an amino acid and an alcohol for the cosmetic treatment of hair (abstract, claim 1). Viscogliosi teaches the composition includes an alcohol with 1 to 10 carbon atoms and one hydroxyl group in the amount of 1 to 50% (column 3 lines 45 – 47, column 4 lines 21 – 23, column 5 lines 9 – 10).
It would be prima facie obvious to the ordinarily skilled artisan to include, within conflicting claim 1, a monoalcohol as taught by Viscogliosi. It is prima facie obvious according to MPEP 2143(I)(a) as combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Double Patenting over U.S. Application No. 18/265,749
Claims 22 – 32 and 42 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21 – 23, 25 – 34, and 36 – 40 of copending Application No. 18/265,749.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: instant claim 22 is drawn to a hair pretreatment composition comprising i) about 8 to 12% amino acid, ii) about 8 to 12% one or more monoalcohol, iii) about 0.00005 to 1% cationic polymer, iv) about 0.02 to 1% one or more silicones, wherein the pH of the composition is ranges from 8 to 10.
Conflicting claim 21 is drawn to a method for bleaching or dyeing keratin fibers by applying a pretreatment composition comprising an amino acid and a monoalcohol, wherein the monoalcohol is in the amount of about 5 to 20% by weight.
The instant and conflicting claims differ because instant claim 22 recites the inclusion of cationic polymer and silicones, and specifies the pH of the composition.
Regarding cationic polymer and silicones: Conflicting claims 27 – 31 recite the inclusion of cationic polymer and aminosilicone, overlapping on instant claim 22.
Regarding pH: Conflicting claim 26 specifies the pH of the composition is from 2 to 11, overlapping on the range of instant claim 22.
Conflicting claim 40 recites a composition comprising 5 to 15% amino acid, 5 to 20% monoalcohol, at least one cationic polymer, at least one silicone, wherein the pH of the composition ranges from 2 to 11, reading on each of the limitations of instant claim 22.
This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Examiner’s Reply to Attorney Arguments Dated January 28, 2026
Applicant requests that the double patenting rejections be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is identified (Remarks page 9). According to MPEP 804(1), double patenting rejections should not be held in abeyance. Since no arguments were presented or terminal disclaimers filed, the non-statutory double patenting rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
All claims are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Toriana N. Vigil whose telephone number is (571)270-7549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. 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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/TORIANA N. VIGIL/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612