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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on 9/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-22 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/11/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP2008201766 and Savaides (US 2014/0261518), as evidenced by SciFinder (Promois WK-GB). Both JP’766 and Savaides are cited on the 8/23/2023 IDS. The Examiner had provided a copy of the machine translation of JP’766 relied upon below.
JP’766 teaches a multi-component hair treatment agent, in particular for use as a pretreatment agent for chemical treatments such as bleach treatment, as well as a hair repair agent [0001]. The multi-component composition comprises component A, B and C [0010]. Agent C comprises proteins and/or hydrolysates thereof. Specific proteins include those derived from plants and animals such as keratin, collagen, silk, etc. Hydrolyzed keratin is preferred [0039-0040].
Experiments 1-4 and 6-7 teach application of Agent C, Agent A and Agent B in this order. The mixture is left on the hair for 10min, then agent B was applied again. In this way, the hair was pretreated with a hair pretreatment agent [0068] The permanent treatment agent was then applied to the pretreated hair, left on for 10min and then rinsed with water [0068].
Agent C is taught to be made up of Promois WK-GB and Promois WK-L (both are hydrolyzed keratins as evidenced by SciFinder), cystine bis-PG propyl silantriol, citric acid and water.
Regarding claims 1(a): JP’766 teaches pretreating a subjects hair with an aqueous mixture (i.e. agent C) comprising hydrolyzed keratins (i.e. Promois WK-GB and Promois WK-L) and a silane crosslinking agent (i.e. cystine bis-PG propyl silantriol).
Regarding claim 1(b): JP’766 teaches applying agent C to hair and then allowing the hair to rest for 10min and further teaches that the application of the multi-component systems provides the hair with a thick coating (i.e. a film) [0008-0009 and 0013].
Regarding claim 1(c): While JP’766 does not teach as step of applying a bleach composition to the hair of step (b), JP’766 teaches the multicomponent composition to be a pretreatment composition for chemical treatments such as bleaching treatments and perm treatment (i.e. permanent treatments) therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the method and create a method for bleaching hair which includes application of a pretreatment agent as described above and therefore applying a bleaching treatment to hair with a reasonable expectation of success as JP’766 contemplated pretreatment composition for bleached treatments and teaches a method of applying said pretreatment composition and then applying a chemical treatment.
Regarding claim 2: While Agent C discussed above comprises hydrolyzed keratin and not simply keratin, JP’766 teaches that proteins which include keratin and/or their hydrolysates can be used, this it would have been prima facie obvious to use a mixture of keratin and hydrolyzed keratin.
Regarding claim 3: Agent C discussed above comprises citric acid which reads on pH adjusting agent.
Regarding claim 4: Agent C discussed above comprises cystine bis-PG propyl silantriol.
While JP’766 teaches applying agent C to hair and then allowing the hair to rest for 10min, JP’766 does not specifically recite drying the hair as required in instant claim 1(b) and does not teach agent C to be a gel, cream, lotion or spray and does not recite applying the composition in the manner required by instant claim 5.
Savaides teaches formulations and methods for treating keratin fibers (Abs) by applying to the hair a keratin mixture comprising hydrolyzed keratin, water, citric acid and cystine bis-PG propyl silanetriol (Table 2 and Saviades – claim 1), this can be applied in the form of a gel, cream, lotion or spray. Savaides teaches this formulation to contain active compounds that are to be fixed and/or crosslinked to the hair [0066]. Specifically hydrolyzed keratin has the effect of being able to form strong films on the external areas of the hair [0067]. Savaides teaches applying the concentrate and after processing the hair is dried [0070].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of JP’766 with Savaides. One of skill in the art would have recognized that the agent C of JP’766 could be formulated and applied to the hair in the form of a gel, cream, lotion or spray and after application of the agent C the composition could be dried prior to bleaching the hair to form a film/coating, as taught by Savaides. One of skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as both Saviades and JP’766 teach compositions comprising hydrolyzed keratin, water, citric acid and cystine bis-PG propyl silanetriol, with the intent of forming films on the hair and its prima facie obvious to look at the teachings of Saviades for guidance on ways to form this film and formulation type.
Claim 5 recites “is applied… on previously bleached…bleaching,” while this isn’t explicitly taught by JP’977, JP’977 makes obvious applying the protection agent (i.e. agent c) to hair prior to a hair bleaching treatment, as such it would have been prima facie obvious to apply this to any type of hair (previously bleached hair and/or new growth hair close to scalp) which is to be bleached which includes just portions of the hair or all of it.
Claim 1 recites “wherein… the film is sacrificed… avoided.” This is a property of performing the claimed method with the claimed composition. The prior art makes obvious the performance of the claimed steps with the claimed composition (i.e. aqueous mixture comprising hydrolyzed keratin and cystine bis-PG propyl silantriol), therefore the composition claimed and the composition of the prior art are expected to have the same properties, absent evidence to the contrary. This is supported by the originally filed specification which teaches the formed protective film is sacrificed when the hair is exposed to a bleaching agent and damage is minimized.
Regarding claim 6: The method of JP’766 above teaches rinsing the hair with water after both the pretreatment agent and the chemical treatment are applied, this step of rinsing is expected to remove at least some of the sacrificed keratin based film.
Regarding claim 7-9: These claims recite properties of performing the claimed method with the claimed composition. The prior art makes obvious the performance of the claimed steps with the claimed composition (i.e. aqueous mixture comprising hydrolyzed keratin and cystine bis-PG propyl silantriol), therefore the composition claimed and the composition of the prior art are expected to have the same properties, absent evidence to the contrary and the resultant bleached hair is expected to have at least 10% or 20% more of cystine content and at least 10% or more of proteinogenic amino acids others than cysteine.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer A Berrios whose telephone number is (571)270-7679. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 9am-4pm and Friday 9am-3:30pm.
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 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.
/JENNIFER A BERRIOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613