DETAILED ACTION
STATUS OF THE APPLICATION
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicants Application filed on 05/12/2026 in the matter of Application N° 18/090,154. Said documents are entered on the record. The Examiner further acknowledges the following:
Claims 68-87 remain pending. Claims 1-67 are canceled.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 May 12, 2026 has been entered.
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 68-87 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tokunaga (US20060223728), in view of Genrich et al. (WO2020094244), and Scheunemann et al. (US10933005B2).
Regarding claims 68 and 86 Tokunaga teach to enhance the feel of the hair when shampooing and its manageability, a cationic polymer, silicone derivative, oily material, and similar ingredients are added to a hair cleansing formula. For example, it is suggested that a hair cleansing formula include silicone or a cationic polymer to enhance the feel of the hair while shampooing and to make the hair easier to manage. Adding an organic acid to a hair cosmetic composition is another method for softening hair and making it easier to handle (See 0003).
Tokunaga teaches among hydroxycarboxylic, dicarboxylic, and aromatic carboxylic acids, the organic acid is chosen. Two or more of these organic acids may be used in combination. The ideal range for the component’s content is between 0.05 and 10% (See 0027 and 0028).
Tokunaga teaches depending on its intended usage, the hair cleansing composition of the current invention may incorporate ingredients found in common hair cleansing compositions. Humectants like panthenol are examples of such components (See 0065). Alcohol ethoxylate can be sulfated to create this type of sulfate surfactant, which can subsequently be neutralized using sodium hydroxide or ammonia (See 0019). A surfactant chosen from among anionic surfactants, as opposed to sulfate, cationic, nonionic, and amphoteric surfactants, may also be included in the hair cleansing composition of the current invention (See 0035). The pH of the hair should ideally be 2 or higher but less than 6 when the hair cleansing solution of the current invention is applied to the hair (See 0066).
However, Tokunaga do not teach at least about 0.5% of at least one carboxylic acid; and at least about 0.5% of panthenol.
Scheunemann et al. expressly disclose a hair treatment composition comprising citric acid in an amount of 0.5wt.% and panthenol in an amount of 0.5wt.% (See Scheunemann et al., claim 1). Thus, Scheunemann et al. expressly establish that both citric acid, which is a carboxylic acid, and panthenol were known for use in hair-treatment compositions at concentrations corresponding to the lower limits recited in the presently claimed invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date at the time of the invention, considering the combined teachings of Tokunaga et al., and Scheunemann et al., would have found it obvious to formulate a composition for treating keratin gibers comprising the claimed components, including a carboxylic acid and panthenol in amounts of at least about 0.5% because Scheunemann et al. expressly demonstrate the conventional use of citric acid and panthenol at 0.5 wt.% in a hair-treatment composition. The use of these known amounts in the composition suggested by the combined prior art would have amounted to the predictable use of known hair-treatment ingredients at concentrations already taught in the art, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining their known conditioning and hair care benefits.
Regarding claim 69, Tokunaga teaches malonic acid is one of the dicarboxylic acid examples from which the organic acid was chosen. Malic acid is one of the dicarboxylic acid examples from which the organic acid was chosen. Glutaric acid is one of the instances of a dicarboxylic acid from which the organic acid was chosen. The non-methylated form of citraconic acid shares structural similarities with maleic acid. Citric acid, maleic acid, succinic acid, adipic acid, tartaric acid, fumaric acid, and benzoic acid are hydroxycarboxylic acid examples (See 0027).
Regarding claim 70, Tokunaga teaches those with an acyl group with eight to eighteen carbon atoms are favored as fatty acid amidopropylbetaines (See 0040). Examples of the anionic surfactants other than the sulfate surfactants include sulfonate surfactants (See 0036). Sulfonate surfactants are an example of an anionic surfactant that is not sulfate. Among the particular instances are alkyl sulfosuccinates (See 0036). A surfactant chosen from among anionic surfactants other than sulfate, nonionic, amphoteric, and cationic surfactants may also be included in the hair washing composition of the current invention (See 0035).
However, in Tokunaga’s teaching, on anionic mild surfactants are mentioned, alkyl ether sulfosuccinate is not mentioned in them. Acyl isethionates, which are esters made from acyl groups obtained from fatty acids (such as stearic and lauric acids), are also not mentioned. The functional classification of acyl taurates, which include gentle cleansing agents and anionic surfactants, such as shampoos and cleansers, is also not included. Alkyl sulfonates can also be referred to as sulfonate-based surfactants.
Regarding claim 71, Tokunaga teaches a surfactant chosen from among anionic surfactants other than sulfate surfactants may also be included in the hair cleaning composition of the current invention (See 0035). In addition to the sulfate surfactants, two or more of these anionic surfactants can be combined. The ideal range for its content in the current invention’s hair washing composition is 0-10 wt.% (See 0037).
Regarding claim 72, Tokunaga teach the hair cleansing composition of the present invention may further contain a surfactant selected from amphoteric surfactants (See 0035). As the amphoteric surfactant, betaine surfactants can be used. Of these, alkyldimethylaminoacetic acid betaines and fatty acid amidopropylbetaines and alkylhydroxysulfobetaines are preferred, with fatty acid amidopropylbetaines being more preferred (See 0040).
However, in Tokunaga there is no mention of alkyl sultaines and amphoproprionates.
Regarding claim 73, Tokunaga teaches a surfactant chosen from amphoteric surfactants may be included in the hair washing composition of the current invention (See 0035). Combinations of two or more of these amphoteric surfactants are possible. Its content in the current invention’s hair washing formula should ideally range from 0.1 to 15 wt.% (See 0041).
Regarding claim 74, Genrich et al. teach PEG-20 Laurate, PEG-20 Stearate, PEG-40 Stearate, PEG-100 Stearate, PEG-8 Laurate, PEG-150 Distearate, Dimethicone PEG-7 Cocoate, PEG-10 Oleate, PEG-40 Castor Oil, Decylglucosides, Lauryl Glucoside, Cocoglucosides Chloride, Caprylyl/Capryl Glucoside, and Caprylyl Glucoside, (See 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the instant effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Genrich et al. comprising at least one nonionic surfactant chosen from decylglucoside, laurylglucoside, and cocoglucoside, etc. into the teachings of Tokunaga the hair cleansing composition which may contain elements from other hair cleansing compositions, depending on its intended use.
Regarding claim 75, Tokunaga teaches the hair cleansing composition of the present invention may further contain a surfactant selected from nonionic surfactants. it is possible to utilize two or more of these nonionic surfactants together. The current invention’s hair washing formula should ideally contain between 0.1 and 15 wt.% of it (See 0035 and 0039).
Regarding claims 76 and 82, Tokunaga teaches in order to improve the hair feel during shampooing and manageability of the hair, a cationic polymer, silicone derivative, oily substance and the like are added to a hair cleansing composition. For example, there is a proposal to incorporate a cationic polymer or silicone in a hair cleansing composition for the purpose of improving the hair feel during shampooing and combing ease of the hair (See 0003). Two or more of these cationic polymers may be used in combination. The content of the cationic polymers in the hair cleansing composition of the present invention is preferably from 0.02 to 5 wt. %, in order to improve the foam quality during cleansing and provide manageability and a smooth feel of the hair after drying (See 0053). To the hair cleansing composition of the present invention, a silicone can be added further for improving the texture and a smooth feel of foam, reducing the friction between individual hairs and smoothness of the hair after drying (See 0054).
Regarding claims 77 and 83, Genrich et al. teach the preparations according to the invention may contain electrolytes.
Regarding claim 78, Tokunaga teaches the pH of the hair should ideally be 2 or higher but not 6 when the hair cleansing solution of the current invention is applied to the hair. Examples of pH regulators are sodium hydroxide and sucrose bases (See 0066).
Regarding claims 79, 85 and 87, Tokunaga teaches an organic acid that has been chosen from among aromatic carboxylic acids, dicarboxylic acids, and hydroxycarboxylic acids (See 0008 and 0027). The hair cleansing composition of the present invention may contain, components used for ordinary hair cleansing compositions according to the using purpose of it. Examples of such components include panthenol (See 0065, and 0087).
However, in Tokunaga’s teaching there is no mention of the weight ratio of carboxylic acids panthenol ranges from about 1:3 to about 3:1.
Regarding claim 80, Tokunaga teaches malonic acid is one of the dicarboxylic acid examples from which the organic acid was chosen. Malic acid is one of the dicarboxylic acid examples from which the organic acid was chosen. Examples of the hydroxycarboxylic acids include citric acid (See 0027). These organic acids may be used in combination of two or more. The content of Component is preferably from 0.05 to 10 wt. % (See 0028). The hair cleansing composition of the present invention may contain, in addition to the above-described components, components used for ordinary hair cleansing compositions according to the using purpose of it. Examples of such components include humectants such as panthenol (See 0065). Panthenol is at least 0.05% (See 0087). Such sulfate surfactant can be prepared by sulfating an alcohol ethoxylate, which has been obtained by adding from 0.85 to 1.35 times the mole of ethylene oxide to a higher alcohol R1OH, with from 0.95 to 1.0 equivalent of SO3 and then neutralizing the resulting sulfate with sodium hydroxide (See 0019). The hair cleansing solution may also contain a surfactant selected from among amphoteric, nonionic, or anionic surfactants. when the current invention’s hair cleansing solution is applied to hair, the pH of the hair should be 2 or higher but less than 6 (See 0035 and 0066).
However, in Tokunaga’s teaching there is no mention of the weight amount of panthenol at 0.5%, while Tokunaga mentions panthenol at 0.05%. Furthermore, the entire amount of neutralizing agents, which is around 0.1%, was not mentioned.
Regarding claim 81, Tokunaga teaches the organic acid is selected from hydroxycarboxylic acids, dicarboxylic acids and aromatic carboxylic acids. Examples of the hydroxycarboxylic acids include, citric acid (See 0027).
Regarding claim 82, Tokunaga teaches a cationic polymer, silicone derivative, oily material, and the like are added to a hair washing composition to enhance the sense of manageability and the feel of the hair while shampooing. For example, it is suggested that a hair cleansing formula include silicone or a cationic polymer to enhance the feel of the hair while shampooing and to make combing easier (See 0003). Conditioning shampoo, amino-modified silicone derivative (See 0090).
Regarding claim 84, Tokunaga teaches the hair should ideally have a pH of 2 or higher but less than 6 when the hair cleansing solution of the current invention is applied to it, ideally between 3 and 5. In addition to the organic acids utilized as constituents, examples of pH regulators include inorganic acids and bases such sodium hydroxide (See 0066).
Regarding claims 85 and 87, Tokunaga teaches an organic acid that has been chosen from among aromatic carboxylic acids, dicarboxylic acids, and hydroxycarboxylic acids (See 0008 and 0027).
However, in Tokunaga’s teaching there is no mention of the weight ratio of carboxylic acids panthenol ranges from about 1:3 to about 3:1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments regarding Tokunaga et al. and Genrich et al. have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Tokunaga et al. and Genrich et al. fail to teach or suggest all of the limitations of the presently claimed compositions, particularly the requirement that the composition comprise “at least about 0.5%” panthenol. Applicant further argues that (paragraph 0064) of Tokunaga et al. relates to viscosity regulators rather than humectants and therefore does not provide support for the previously cited amount of panthenol. Applicant notes that panthenol is instead identified as a humectant in paragraph (0065) of Tokunaga et al. without an expressly disclosed concentration, and that Examples 17 and 19 disclose panthenol at 0.05 wt.%, an amount below the presently claimed lower limit.
Applicant’s argument regarding (paragraph 0064) of Tokunaga et al. is acknowledged. However, the rejection has been supplemented with the teachings of Scheunemann et al. Scheunemann et al. expressly disclose a hair treatment composition comprising citric acid in an amount of 0.5wt.% and panthenol in an amount of 0.5wt.% (See Scheunemann et al., claim 1). Thus, Scheunemann et al. expressly establish that both citric acid, which is a carboxylic acid, and panthenol were known for use in hair-treatment compositions at concentrations corresponding to the lower limits recited in the presently claimed invention.
Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, considering the combined teachings of Tokunaga et al., Genrich et al., and Scheunemann et al., would have found it obvious to formulate a composition for treating keratin gibers comprising the claimed components, including a carboxylic acid and panthenol in amounts of at least about 0.5% because Scheunemann et al. expressly demonstrate the conventional use of citric acid and panthenol at 0.5 wt.% in a hair-treatment composition. The use of these known amounts in the composition suggested by the combined prior art would have amounted to the predictable use of known hair-treatment ingredients at concentrations already taught in the art, with a reasonable expectation of obtaining their known conditioning and hair care benefits.
Applicant further argues that the presently claimed combination of carboxylic acid and panthenol provides unexpected improvements in the strengthening of keratin fibers. The evidence of unexpected results has been considered but is not persuasive because the evidence is not commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claims.
Independent claim 68 broadly requires “at least about 0.5%” of at least one carboxylic acid and “at least about 0.5%” panthenol. Thus, the claim is not limited to the particular concentrations evaluated in Applicant’s comparative testing. Applicant’s evidence evaluates compositions containing approximately 1.0% citric acid and 1.0% panthenol. Such testing does not establish that the asserted improvement would reasonably be expected throughout the substantially broader claimed concentration ranges, including compositions containing the components at or near the claimed lower limit of about 0.5%. In particular, Applicant has not provided evidence demonstrating that the asserted strengthening effect is obtained at approximately 0.5% carboxylic acid and approximately 0.5% panthenol or throughout the full scope encompassed by the open-ended “at least about 0.5%” limitations.
Moreover, the claims are not limited to citric acid. Rather, claim 68 broadly encompasses “at least one carboxylic acid.” Applicant’s comparative evidence employing citric acid does not establish that citric acid is representative of the full genus of carboxylic acids encompassed by the claims or that other carboxylic acids within the scope of the claims, when combined with panthenol, would provide the same alleged improvement in keratin-fiber strengthening. Therefore, the limited testing of compositions containing citric acid does not reasonably establish unexpected results across the full scope of the claimed genus.
Additionally, Applicant compares the tested compositions to identified “commercial” compositions rather than demonstrating the asserted unexpected results relative to the closest prior art. In particular, Scheunemann et al. disclose a composition containing 0.5 wt.% citric acid 0.5 wt.% panthenol. Applicant has not provided comparative evidence demonstrating that the claimed compositions exhibit an unexpected improvement relative to a composition representative of this pertinent prior-art teaching. Consequently, the submitted comparative evidence does not establish that the alleged improvement results from the claimed distinction over the prior art rather than from other compositional or concentration differences between the tested formulations and the commercial comparison compositions.
Accordingly, while the evidence of unexpected results has been considered, it is insufficient to outweigh the evidence of obviousness because the comparative data are limited to particular compositions containing approximately 1.0% citric acid and 1.0 % panthenol, whereas the claims broadly encompass at least about 0.5% of a genus of carboxylic acids and at least about 0.5% panthenol. Applicant has not established that the alleged unexpected strengthening effect is reasonably commensurate with this breadth or that the asserted results would have been obtained throughout the scope of the claims.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments and evidence are not persuasive, and the rejection of the claims is maintained and made FINAL.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kimberly Barber whose telephone number is (703) 756-5302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 6:30 AM to 3:30 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A. Wax, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
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.
/KIMBERLY BARBER/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights