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 . Claims included in prosecution are claims 2-7 and 9-14.
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 1/14/2026, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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 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.
1. Claims 2-7 and 9-14 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 11 recites R group R8. However, this R group is undefined in the claim. This renders the claim indefinite since one of ordinary skill in the art cannot distinctly ascertain what the claimed structure is.
In the instantly disclosed specification, (¶ [0017]) discloses that R8 is preferably hydrogen. As such, and for the sake of compact prosecution, R8 is interpreted to be a hydrogen.
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.
1. Claim(s) 2-4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooyama et al. (JP 2000319139, Nov. 12, 2000) (hereinafter Ooyama) in view of Brand et al. (US 2010/0093584, Apr. 15, 2010) (hereinafter Brand) as evidenced by Profashion (How hot is too hot?) and Pressly et al. (US 2015/0034117, Feb. 5, 2015) (hereinafter Pressly).
Ooyama discloses a hair washing composition which has an excellent effect for preventing the damage of the hair (Abstract). Preferably the composition comprises component A which is a cationic dextran polymer or a derivative thereof (¶ [0009]). The component (A) of the present invention is an α -1,6 ′ - glucoside bond-containing linear cationic polymer substance, and a cationic dextran represented by the following general formula (1) or a derivative thereof is preferably used (¶ [0013]).
PNG
media_image1.png
405
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The dextran polymer is attached at least once to a quaternary nitrogen-containing group represented by the following formula (2), wherein R1 represents hydrogen or a hydroxy-lower alkyl group, and R2, R3, and R4 each represent a lower alkyl group (satisfies quaternary ammonium groups of claim 11) (¶ [0015-0017]).
PNG
media_image2.png
210
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The content of component A is preferably from 0.01 to 5%, based on the entire hair cleansing composition (satisfies claim 2) (¶ [0020]). The composition may contain additional components such as nonionic surfactants and cationic surfactants, thickeners, and preservatives (¶ [0024]). The method for producing the composition is not particularly limited, and the blending order, addition position, addition method, temperature conditions, and the like of each component can be appropriately set (satisfies combination step of claim 11) (¶ [0025]). The molecular weight of the dextran ranged from 10,000 to 1,000,000 (¶ [0029]). In the Hair Damage Prevention test, non-permanent-waved black hair was prepared as hair tresses, and the assigned test sample was applied to each hair tress, lathered, rinsed, and then air-dried. After air drying, brushing treatment was performed 2000 times while hot air of a dryer was applied to the hair bundle from 20cm (satisfies process steps of claim 11) (¶ [0033]). The results showed that for treated hair, as compared with the cuticle of the non-treated hair, the cuticle is observed to be equivalent or slightly damaged (Table 1). All of the composition test samples contained water (satisfies carrier of claim 11) (Tables 1 & 2).
Ooyama differs from the instant claims insofar as not explicitly disclosing formula E.
However, Brand discloses cleansing compositions for use in personal care formulations comprising non-cellulosic cationically modified polysaccharides and surfactants (Abstract). Brand discloses that the cationic modifications comprise a mixture of at least two quaternary ammonium groups having a different combination of alkyl substituents (¶ [0012]). Such cationically modified polysaccharides provide conditioning and deposition benefits which are greater than the conditioning benefits of the same polymers which carry only one type of quaternary ammonium groups (¶ [0013-0019]). The non-cellulosic cationically modified polysaccharide has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) with a lower limit of about 10,000 and an upper limit of about 2,000,000 (¶ [0020]). The first quaternary ammonium groups has an alkyl chain of 1 carbon, while the 2nd group preferably has 12, 18 or 22 carbons (¶ [0023-0025]). Suitable non-cellulosic polysaccharides include dextran (¶ [0030]). The quaternary ammonium groups can be attached to the non-cellulosic polysaccharide backbone via an ether, ester, or urethane linkage (¶ [0032]). The non-cellulosic cationically modified polysaccharide of use in the present invention is an essential ingredient of the cleansing composition (¶ [0033]). Examples 6-7 and 9-11 of Brand use a combination of hydroxypropyldimethyldodecylammonium (C12) and hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium (C1).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant invention, to modify the teachings of Ooyama with those of Brand and formulate the cationically modified dextran of Ooyama to comprise at least two quaternary ammonium groups (i.e. Ooyama formula (2)), with different alkyl substitutions, one trimethyl and one dimethyldodecylammonium (reading on formula E wherein R9 is C6-22 alkyl group, R10 is methyl/ethyl and R8 is H), motivated by the desire to achieve the greater conditioning benefits than those that result from using 2 distinct quaternary ammonium groups as compared to only one group as taught by Brand. One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as both Ooyama and Brand teach hair composition which provide cleansing/washing and conditioning comprising cationically modified dextran having quaternary ammonium substitutions and Ooyama teaches that at least one quaternary ammonium group is formulated with lower alkyls, such as methyl/ethyl.
Regarding claim 11 reciting wherein R9 is a C6-22 alkyl, as evidenced by Pressly, lower alkyls contain up to 10 carbons. As discussed above, Ooyama discloses wherein R3 represents a lower alkyl group. As such, the Ooyama disclosure satisfies the limitation of the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11 reciting exposing the hair to 50-300 °C, as discussed above, Ooyama in view of Brand discloses that brushing treatment was performed 2000 times while hot air of a dryer was applied to the hair. As evidenced by Profashion, hair dryers typically heat to between 80 and 140 degrees Fahrenheit (i.e., up to 60 °C). Therefore, the disclosure of Ooyama in view of Brand meets the instantly recited limitation.
Regarding claim 11 reciting exposing the hair to heat for 1 to 30 minutes, as discussed above, Ooyama in view of Brand discloses that brushing treatment was performed 2000 times while hot air of a dryer was applied to the hair. As such it would have been reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to conclude that performing a brushing treatment 2000 times would take up time in amount that overlaps with the range recited in the instant claims.
Alternatively, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05(II)(A). Hair dryer drying time is a result effective variable, since drying time directly impacts the degree of drying. Accordingly, it would have taken no more than the relative skills of one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation to have arrived at the claimed drying time to yield the desired degree of hair dryness.
Regarding claims 3-4, the composition of Ooyama in view of Brand comprises substantially the same components and actives in amounts that overlap with those of the instant claims. Furthermore, the composition of Ooyama in view of Brand is directed towards preventing heat damage of the hair and has excellent results. Ooyama’s results showed that for treated hair, as compared with the cuticle of the non-treated hair, the cuticle is observed to be equivalent or slightly damaged. In view of Ooyama’s composition and test results, one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably conclude that the composition of Ooyama in view of Brand would result in substantially the same properties, having a higher denaturation temperature/enthalpy, as the heat protectant of the instant claims.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Ooyama and Brand, as evidenced by Profashion and Pressly, render obvious claims 2-4 and 11.
2. Claim(s) 5-7 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooyama et al. (JP 2000319139, Nov. 12, 2000) (hereinafter Ooyama) in view of Brand et al. (US 2010/0093584, Apr. 15, 2010) (hereinafter Brand) and further in view of Watson (Healthline, Sep. 23, 2019) (hereinafter Watson).
The teachings of Ooyama and Brand are discussed above.
The combined teachings of Ooyama and Brand differ from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the hair treatment method comprises washing and towel drying the hair prior to applying the thermal protectant.
However, Watson discloses that prior to exposing hair to heat sources and prior to applying a thermal protectant one must rinse their hair cool water and then towel dry. This process allows for the hair cuticles to be sealed, which aids in their protection, while also leading to less time needed to dry hair using heat sources (Page 4-5, How to prevent damage).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to have modified Ooyama’s method to include prior rinsing and towel drying motivated by the desire to seal the hair cuticles to achieve a higher degree of protection as taught by Watson.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, Ooyama discloses that brushing treatment was performed 2000 times while hot air of a dryer was applied to the hair.
Regarding claims 9-10, as discussed above, Ooyama discloses that the composition may contain additional components such as nonionic surfactants and cationic surfactants, thickeners, and preservatives.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Ooyama, Brand, and Watson render obvious claims 5-7 and 9-10.
3. Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ooyama et al. (JP 2000319139, Nov. 12, 2000) (hereinafter Ooyama) in view of Brand et al. (US 2010/0093584, Apr. 15, 2010) (hereinafter Brand) and further in view of Pawar et al. (Natural-Based Polymers for Biomedical Applications, 2008, Pages 3-53) (hereinafter Pawar).
The teachings of Ooyama and Brand are discussed above.
The combined teachings of Ooyama and Brand differ from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein 90-98 mol% of the dextran glucose units connect by α-D-1,6 linkages and 2-10% of glucose structural units connect by α-1,3-linkages.
However, Pawar teaches that dextran is the name of a large class of a-D-glucans with anhydro-D-glucopyranose units, α-1,6-linkages are predominant features of dextrans. Dextrans are composed of 95% a-1,6-glucopyranosidic linkages and 5% 1,3- linkages (Sec. 1.5).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to have modified the dextran of Ooyama in view of Brand to comprise 95% a-1,6-glucopyranosidic linkages and 5% 1,3- linkages since this is the known composition of dextrans as taught by Pawar.
Regarding claim 12 reciting a molecular weight for the dextran used, 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). As discussed above, the dextran of Ooyama in view of Brand has a molecular weight that ranges from 10,000 to 1,000,000. Accordingly, because the range recited in the instant claims overlaps with the range disclosed by Ooyama in view of Brand, the range disclosed by Ooyama in view of Brand meets the instantly recited limitations.
Therefore, the combined teachings of Ooyama, Brand, and Pawar render obvious claim 12.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14 are free of prior art. The closest prior art appears to be Ooyama in view of Brand as discussed above; however, Ooyama in view of Brand does not disclose the quaternary ammonium crosslinking groups of formulae B or D as claimed in claims 13-14.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
1. Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 8 of copending Application No. 18/264,080 in view of Ooyama et al. (JP 2000319139, Nov. 12, 2000) (hereinafter Ooyama) in view of Brand et al. (US 2010/0093584, Apr. 15, 2010) (hereinafter Brand).
The pending claims differ from the copending claims insofar as reciting a method of reducing hair damage upon exposure to heat.
However, Ooyama discloses a hair washing composition which has an excellent effect for preventing the damage of the hair (Abstract). Preferably the composition comprises component A which is a cationic dextran polymer or a derivative thereof (¶ [0009]). The component (A) of the present invention is an α -1,6 ′ - glucoside bond-containing linear cationic polymer substance, and a cationic dextran represented by the following general formula (1) or a derivative thereof is preferably used (¶ [0013]).
PNG
media_image1.png
405
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The dextran polymer is attached at least once to a quaternary nitrogen-containing group represented by the following formula (2), wherein R1 represents hydrogen or a hydroxy-lower alkyl group, and R2, R3, and R4 each represent a lower alkyl group (satisfies quaternary ammonium groups of claim 11) (¶ [0015-0017]).
PNG
media_image2.png
210
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the Hair Damage Prevention test, non-permanent-waved black hair was prepared as hair tresses, and the assigned test sample was applied to each hair tress, lathered, rinsed, and then air-dried. After air drying, brushing treatment was performed 2000 times while hot air of a dryer was applied to the hair bundle from 20cm (¶ [0033]). The results showed that for treated hair, as compared with the cuticle of the non-treated hair, the cuticle is observed to be equivalent or slightly damaged (Table 1). All of the composition test samples contained water Tables 1 & 2).
Ooyama differs from the instant claims insofar as not explicitly disclosing formula E.
However, Brand discloses cleansing compositions for use in personal care formulations comprising non-cellulosic cationically modified polysaccharides and surfactants (Abstract). Brand discloses that the cationic modifications comprise a mixture of at least two quaternary ammonium groups having a different combination of alkyl substituents (¶ [0012]). Such cationically modified polysaccharides provide conditioning and deposition benefits which are greater than the conditioning benefits of the same polymers which carry only one type of quaternary ammonium groups (¶ [0013-0019]). The non-cellulosic cationically modified polysaccharide has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) with a lower limit of about 10,000 and an upper limit of about 2,000,000 (¶ [0020]). The first quaternary ammonium groups has an alkyl chain of 1 carbon, while the 2nd group preferably has 12, 18 or 22 carbons (¶ [0023-0025]). Suitable non-cellulosic polysaccharides include dextran (¶ [0030]). The quaternary ammonium groups can be attached to the non-cellulosic polysaccharide backbone via an ether, ester, or urethane linkage (¶ [0032]). The non-cellulosic cationically modified polysaccharide of use in the present invention is an essential ingredient of the cleansing composition (¶ [0033]). Examples 6-7 and 9-11 of Brand use a combination of hydroxypropyldimethyldodecylammonium (C12) and hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium (C1).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant invention, to modify the teachings of Ooyama with those of Brand and formulate the cationically modified dextran of Ooyama to comprise at least two quaternary ammonium groups (i.e. Ooyama formula (2)), with different alkyl substitutions, one trimethyl and one dimethyldodecylammonium (reading on formula E wherein R9 is C6-22 alkyl group, R10 is methyl/ethyl and R8 is H), motivated by the desire to achieve the greater conditioning benefits than those that result from using 2 distinct quaternary ammonium groups as compared to only one group as taught by Brand. One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as both Ooyama and Brand teach hair composition which provide cleansing/washing and conditioning comprising cationically modified dextran having quaternary ammonium substitutions and Ooyama teaches that at least one quaternary ammonium group is formulated with lower alkyls, such as methyl/ethyl.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the copending composition in a method of reducing hair damage upon exposure to heat since such dextrans are known to have such an effect as disclosed by Ooyama in view of Brand.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
2. Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of copending Application No. 18/263,980 in view of Ooyama et al. (JP 2000319139, Nov. 12, 2000) (hereinafter Ooyama) in view of Brand et al. (US 2010/0093584, Apr. 15, 2010) (hereinafter Brand).
The pending claims differ from the copending claims insofar as reciting a method of reducing hair damage upon exposure to heat.
However, Ooyama discloses a hair washing composition which has an excellent effect for preventing the damage of the hair (Abstract). Preferably the composition comprises component A which is a cationic dextran polymer or a derivative thereof (¶ [0009]). The component (A) of the present invention is an α -1,6 ′ - glucoside bond-containing linear cationic polymer substance, and a cationic dextran represented by the following general formula (1) or a derivative thereof is preferably used (¶ [0013]).
PNG
media_image1.png
405
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The dextran polymer is attached at least once to a quaternary nitrogen-containing group represented by the following formula (2), wherein R1 represents hydrogen or a hydroxy-lower alkyl group, and R2, R3, and R4 each represent a lower alkyl group (satisfies quaternary ammonium groups of claim 11) (¶ [0015-0017]).
PNG
media_image2.png
210
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the Hair Damage Prevention test, non-permanent-waved black hair was prepared as hair tresses, and the assigned test sample was applied to each hair tress, lathered, rinsed, and then air-dried. After air drying, brushing treatment was performed 2000 times while hot air of a dryer was applied to the hair bundle from 20cm (¶ [0033]). The results showed that for treated hair, as compared with the cuticle of the non-treated hair, the cuticle is observed to be equivalent or slightly damaged (Table 1). All of the composition test samples contained water Tables 1 & 2).
Ooyama differs from the instant claims insofar as not explicitly disclosing formula E.
However, Brand discloses cleansing compositions for use in personal care formulations comprising non-cellulosic cationically modified polysaccharides and surfactants (Abstract). Brand discloses that the cationic modifications comprise a mixture of at least two quaternary ammonium groups having a different combination of alkyl substituents (¶ [0012]). Such cationically modified polysaccharides provide conditioning and deposition benefits which are greater than the conditioning benefits of the same polymers which carry only one type of quaternary ammonium groups (¶ [0013-0019]). The non-cellulosic cationically modified polysaccharide has a weight average molecular weight (Mw) with a lower limit of about 10,000 and an upper limit of about 2,000,000 (¶ [0020]). The first quaternary ammonium groups has an alkyl chain of 1 carbon, while the 2nd group preferably has 12, 18 or 22 carbons (¶ [0023-0025]). Suitable non-cellulosic polysaccharides include dextran (¶ [0030]). The quaternary ammonium groups can be attached to the non-cellulosic polysaccharide backbone via an ether, ester, or urethane linkage (¶ [0032]). The non-cellulosic cationically modified polysaccharide of use in the present invention is an essential ingredient of the cleansing composition (¶ [0033]). Examples 6-7 and 9-11 of Brand use a combination of hydroxypropyldimethyldodecylammonium (C12) and hydroxypropyltrimethylammonium (C1).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant invention, to modify the teachings of Ooyama with those of Brand and formulate the cationically modified dextran of Ooyama to comprise at least two quaternary ammonium groups (i.e. Ooyama formula (2)), with different alkyl substitutions, one trimethyl and one dimethyldodecylammonium (reading on formula E wherein R9 is C6-22 alkyl group, R10 is methyl/ethyl and R8 is H), motivated by the desire to achieve the greater conditioning benefits than those that result from using 2 distinct quaternary ammonium groups as compared to only one group as taught by Brand. One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as both Ooyama and Brand teach hair composition which provide cleansing/washing and conditioning comprising cationically modified dextran having quaternary ammonium substitutions and Ooyama teaches that at least one quaternary ammonium group is formulated with lower alkyls, such as methyl/ethyl.
As such, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have utilized the copending composition in a method of reducing hair damage upon exposure to heat since such dextrans are known to have such an effect as disclosed by Ooyama in view of Brand.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
3. Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,622,862 in view of Ooyama et al. (JP 2000319139, Nov. 12, 2000) (hereinafter Ooyama).
The copending claims differ from the pending claims insofar as not reciting a method of reducing hair damage upon exposure to heat.
However, Ooyama discloses a hair washing composition which has an excellent effect for preventing the damage of the hair (Abstract). Preferably the composition comprises component A which is a cationic dextran polymer or a derivative thereof (¶ [0009]). The component (A) of the present invention is an α -1,6 ′ - glucoside bond-containing linear cationic polymer substance, and a cationic dextran represented by the following general formula (1) or a derivative thereof is preferably used (¶ [0013]).
PNG
media_image1.png
405
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The dextran polymer is attached at least once to a quaternary nitrogen-containing group represented by the following formula (2), wherein R1 represents hydrogen or a hydroxy-lower alkyl group, and R2, R3, and R4 each represent a lower alkyl group (satisfies quaternary ammonium groups of claim 11) (¶ [0015-0017]).
PNG
media_image2.png
210
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the Hair Damage Prevention test, non-permanent-waved black hair was prepared as hair tresses, and the assigned test sample was applied to each hair tress, lathered, rinsed, and then air-dried. After air drying, brushing treatment was performed 2000 times while hot air of a dryer was applied to the hair bundle from 20cm (¶ [0033]). The results showed that for treated hair, as compared with the cuticle of the non-treated hair, the cuticle is observed to be equivalent or slightly damaged (Table 1). All of the composition test samples contained water Tables 1 & 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant filing of the application, to have utilized the dextran polymer of the copending claims in the method in a method of reducing hair damage upon exposure to heat since modified/functionalized dextrans are known to have such an effect as disclosed by Ooyama.
4. Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 17/798,213 in view of Ooyama et al. (JP 2000319139, Nov. 12, 2000) (hereinafter Ooyama).
The copending claims recite a composition comprising a conditioning copolymer comprising a dextran polymer crosslinked with a dextran crosslinking agent of formula (B) (i.e., instantly claimed formula B)
The copending claims differ from the pending claims insofar as not reciting a method of reducing hair damage upon exposure to heat.
However, Ooyama discloses a hair washing composition which has an excellent effect for preventing the damage of the hair (Abstract). Preferably the composition comprises component A which is a cationic dextran polymer or a derivative thereof (¶ [0009]). The component (A) of the present invention is an α -1,6 ′ - glucoside bond-containing linear cationic polymer substance, and a cationic dextran represented by the following general formula (1) or a derivative thereof is preferably used (¶ [0013]).
PNG
media_image1.png
405
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The dextran polymer is attached at least once to a quaternary nitrogen-containing group represented by the following formula (2), wherein R1 represents hydrogen or a hydroxy-lower alkyl group, and R2, R3, and R4 each represent a lower alkyl group (satisfies quaternary ammonium groups of claim 11) (¶ [0015-0017]).
PNG
media_image2.png
210
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the Hair Damage Prevention test, non-permanent-waved black hair was prepared as hair tresses, and the assigned test sample was applied to each hair tress, lathered, rinsed, and then air-dried. After air drying, brushing treatment was performed 2000 times while hot air of a dryer was applied to the hair bundle from 20cm (¶ [0033]). The results showed that for treated hair, as compared with the cuticle of the non-treated hair, the cuticle is observed to be equivalent or slightly damaged (Table 1). All of the composition test samples contained water Tables 1 & 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant filing of the application, to have utilized the dextran polymer of the copending claims in the method in a method of reducing hair damage upon exposure to heat since modified/functionalized dextrans are known to have such an effect as disclosed by Ooyama.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
5. Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of copending Application No. 18/261,703 in view of Ooyama et al. (JP 2000319139, Nov. 12, 2000) (hereinafter Ooyama).
The copending claims recite a composition comprising a conditioning copolymer comprising a dextran polymer functionalized with tertiary amine groups of formula (A) (i.e., instantly claimed formula A)
The copending claims differ from the pending claims insofar as not reciting a method of reducing hair damage upon exposure to heat.
However, Ooyama discloses a hair washing composition which has an excellent effect for preventing the damage of the hair (Abstract). Preferably the composition comprises component A which is a cationic dextran polymer or a derivative thereof (¶ [0009]). The component (A) of the present invention is an α -1,6 ′ - glucoside bond-containing linear cationic polymer substance, and a cationic dextran represented by the following general formula (1) or a derivative thereof is preferably used (¶ [0013]).
PNG
media_image1.png
405
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The dextran polymer is attached at least once to a quaternary nitrogen-containing group represented by the following formula (2), wherein R1 represents hydrogen or a hydroxy-lower alkyl group, and R2, R3, and R4 each represent a lower alkyl group (satisfies quaternary ammonium groups of claim 11) (¶ [0015-0017]).
PNG
media_image2.png
210
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the Hair Damage Prevention test, non-permanent-waved black hair was prepared as hair tresses, and the assigned test sample was applied to each hair tress, lathered, rinsed, and then air-dried. After air drying, brushing treatment was performed 2000 times while hot air of a dryer was applied to the hair bundle from 20cm (¶ [0033]). The results showed that for treated hair, as compared with the cuticle of the non-treated hair, the cuticle is observed to be equivalent or slightly damaged (Table 1). All of the composition test samples contained water Tables 1 & 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant filing of the application, to have utilized the dextran polymer of the copending claims in the method in a method of reducing hair damage upon exposure to heat since modified/functionalized dextrans are known to have such an effect as disclosed by Ooyama.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
6. Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of copending Application No. 17/793,440 in view of Ooyama et al. (JP 2000319139, Nov. 12, 2000) (hereinafter Ooyama).
The copending claims differ from the pending claims insofar as not reciting a method of reducing hair damage upon exposure to heat.
However, Ooyama discloses a hair washing composition which has an excellent effect for preventing the damage of the hair (Abstract). Preferably the composition comprises component A which is a cationic dextran polymer or a derivative thereof (¶ [0009]). The component (A) of the present invention is an α -1,6 ′ - glucoside bond-containing linear cationic polymer substance, and a cationic dextran represented by the following general formula (1) or a derivative thereof is preferably used (¶ [0013]).
PNG
media_image1.png
405
920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The dextran polymer is attached at least once to a quaternary nitrogen-containing group represented by the following formula (2), wherein R1 represents hydrogen or a hydroxy-lower alkyl group, and R2, R3, and R4 each represent a lower alkyl group (satisfies quaternary ammonium groups of claim 11) (¶ [0015-0017]).
PNG
media_image2.png
210
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In the Hair Damage Prevention test, non-permanent-waved black hair was prepared as hair tresses, and the assigned test sample was applied to each hair tress, lathered, rinsed, and then air-dried. After air drying, brushing treatment was performed 2000 times while hot air of a dryer was applied to the hair bundle from 20cm (¶ [0033]). The results showed that for treated hair, as compared with the cuticle of the non-treated hair, the cuticle is observed to be equivalent or slightly damaged (Table 1). All of the composition test samples contained water Tables 1 & 2).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant filing of the application, to have utilized the dextran polymer of the copending claims in the method in a method of reducing hair damage upon exposure to heat since modified/functionalized dextrans are known to have such an effect as disclosed by Ooyama.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 are rejected.
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 Abdulrahman Abbas whose telephone number is (571)270-0878. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 - 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, Sahana S. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights