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 .
Formal Matters
Receipt of Applicant’s response, dated 11/20/2025, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10, 12-14, and 16-22 are pending.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 10, 13, and 18-20 are amended.
Claims 12 and 14 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Claims 3 and 17 remain withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to nonelected species.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 13, 16, 18-22 are under consideration in the instant Office action to the extent of the elected species, i.e., the one or more compound(s) according to group a) is succinic acid, the one or more compound(s) according to group b) is serine, and the one or more conditioning compound(s) according to group c) is cetrimonium chloride.
OBJECTIONS/REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
Specification
The objections to the abstract and to the specification set forth in the Office action dated 11/12/2025 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the abstract and to the specification.
Claim Objections
The objections to claims 1-2 and 19-20 set forth in the Office action dated 11/12/2025 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The indefiniteness rejections of claims 1-2, 4-10, 13, 16, and 18-22 set forth in the Office action dated 11/12/2025 are hereby withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
REJECTION MAINTAINED
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 13, 16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahadeshwar et al (US 2018/0116942 A1, published 05/03/2018, cited in IDS dated 11/06/2023) in view of Humblebee & Me (“Cetrimonium Chloride”, published 01/07/2019, cited in Notice of References Cited dated 11/12/2025).
Mahadeshwar et al teach compositions for treating keratinous substrates, such as the hair, comprising at least one amino acid, at least one carboxylic acid, at least one amine, and at least one cationic polymer as well as kits comprising the compositions (See entire document, e.g., Abstract). The compositions are suitable for treating hair subjected to treatments including straightening, wherein the composition can be applied before, during and/or after the treatment of the hair, e.g., a hair shaping treatment such as straightening in order to alter the shape of the hair, while providing other cosmetic advantages such as shine, conditioning, fiber strength, and/or a healthy appearance to the hair and avoiding or minimizing damage to the hair (e.g., [0010], [0013]).
The at least one amino acid is chosen from glycine, alanine, serine, proline, or mixtures thereof (e.g., [0033]). The at least one amino acid may be present in an amount ranging from about 0.01% to about 20%, from about 0.1% to about 15%, from about 1% to about 12%, or from about 2% to about 10%, by weight, based on the total weight of the composition in which it is present (e.g., [0034]).
The at least one carboxylic acid may be chosen from oxalic acid, malonic acid, malic acid, glutaric acid, citraconic acid, citric acid, maleic acid, glycolic acid, succinic acid, adipic acid, tartaric acid, fumaric acid, adipic acid, sebacic acid, benzoic acid, and glyoxylic acid monohydrate, as well as combinations thereof (e.g., [0040]). The at least one carboxylic acid may be present in an amount ranging from about 0.01% to about 20%, from about 0.1% to about 15%, from about 1% to about 12%, by weight, based on the total weight of the composition in which it is present (e.g., [0042]).
The compositions may comprise a cosmetically acceptable solvent such as water (e.g., [0065]). The cosmetically acceptable solvent may be present in an amount ranging up to about 90%, such as up to about 85%, up to about 80%, up to about 75%, up to about 70%, up to about 65%, or up to about 60%, for example from about 5% to about 85% by weight, from about 10% to about 80% by weight, from about 15% to about 75% by weight, or from about 20% to about 70% by weight, based on the total weight of the composition (e.g., [0068]).
The compositions may optionally, i.e., but do not have to, be mixed with an oxidizing composition containing at least one oxidizing agent (e.g., [0073]).
At least one auxiliary agent may also be present in the compositions, wherein auxiliary agents include conditioning agents (e.g., [0164]).
The compositions can also comprise, i.e., but do not have to, at least one cosmetically acceptable additive used conventionally in compositions for application onto hair, wherein cosmetically acceptable additives that can be used include reducing agents (e.g., [0167]-[0169]).
The compositions reduce the pH of the hair after chemical treatment, i.e. neutralize the hair, so that the hair fiber is closed thus resulting in improved effects such as, for example, improved fiber strength and appearance (e.g., softening, smoothing, strengthening, protecting, etc., the hair). (e.g., [0007], [0031]). The pH of the hair after application of the compositions may be less than about 7, such as less than about 6.5, less than about 6, less than about 5.5, or less than about 5 or may range from about 2 to about 7, such as about 3 to about 6, or about 4 to about 5 (e.g., [0032]).
Mahadeshwar et al do not teach the pH of the compositions, however Mahadeshwar et al teach that the pH of an optional oxidizing composition can range from about 2 to about 12, such as from about 6 to about 11, and the pH of the composition resulting from mixing together the aforementioned composition with the optional oxidizing composition may range from about 2 to about 7, such as from about 3 to about 6.9, or from about 4 to about 6.9, or from about 4 to about 6.85, or from about 5 to about 6.8 (e.g., [0161]-[0162]).
Mahadeshwar et al teach kits for chemical treatment of keratinous fibers, such as the hair (e.g., [0186]). Mahadeshwar et al teach a kit comprising a first compartment comprising a composition comprising at least one amino acid and at least one cationic polymer and a second compartment comprising a composition comprising at least one carboxylic acid and at least one amine (e.g., [0227]-[0233]).
Mahadeshwar do not et al teach use of cetrimonium chloride as the conditioning agent.
This deficiency is made up for in the teaching of Humblebee & Me.
Humblebee & Me teaches that cetrimonium chloride is an excellent conditioning agent for hair, with anti-static, anti-frizz, and detangling properties that also functions as an emulsifier and surfactant, helping boost rinse-off and stabilize emulsions (See entire document, e.g., ‘Why do we use it in formulations?’). Cetrimonium chloride is water soluble and very useful for hair products (e.g., ‘Solubility’ and ‘Do you need it?’ on Page 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the teachings of Mahadeshwar et al and Humblebee & Me, to provide a composition for treating the hair and a kit for treating the hair, wherein the composition can be applied before, during, and/or after treatment of the hair, e.g., a hair shaping treatment such as straightening in order to alter the shape of the hair, and wherein the pH of the hair after application of the compositions may be less than about 7, such as less than about 6.5, less than about 6, less than about 5.5, or less than about 5 or may range from about 2 to about 7, such as about 3 to about 6, or about 4 to about 5, wherein the composition comprises at least one amino acid chosen from glycine, alanine, serine, proline, or mixtures thereof present from about 0.01% to about 20%, from about 0.1% to about 15%, from about 1% to about 12%, or from about 2% to about 10% by weight, at least one carboxylic acid chosen from oxalic acid, malonic acid, malic acid, glutaric acid, citraconic acid, citric acid, maleic acid, glycolic acid, succinic acid, adipic acid, tartaric acid, fumaric acid, adipic acid, sebacic acid, benzoic acid, and glyoxylic acid monohydrate, or combinations thereof present from about 0.01% to about 20%, from about 0.1% to about 15%, from about 1% to about 12% by weight, at least one amine, at least one cationic polymer, a cosmetically acceptable solvent being water present in an amount ranging up to about 90%, such as up to about 85%, up to about 80%, up to about 75%, up to about 70%, up to about 65%, or up to about 60%, for example from about 5% to about 85% by weight, from about 10% to about 80% by weight, from about 15% to about 75% by weight, or from about 20% to about 70% by weight, and a conditioning agent being cetrimonium chloride, wherein weight percents are based on the total weight of the composition, and wherein the kit comprises a first compartment comprising a composition comprising the at least one amino acid and the at least one cationic polymer and a second compartment comprising a composition comprising the at least one carboxylic acid and the at least one amine.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use cetrimonium chloride as the conditioning agent in the composition of Mahadeshwar et al because Humblebee & Me teach that cetrimonium chloride is very useful for hair products as an excellent conditioning agent for hair, with anti-static, anti-frizz, and detangling properties that also functions as an emulsifier and surfactant, helping boost rinse-off and stabilize emulsions. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because the composition of Mahadeshwar et al is an aqueous composition compatible with conditioning agents and cetrimonium chloride is water soluble.
The composition and kit of Mahadeshwar et al in view of Humblebee & Me renders obvious instant claims 1-2, 4-10, 13, 16, and 18-22.
The composition of Mahadeshwar et al in view of Humblebee & Me comprising succinic acid as the at least one carboxylic acid renders obvious the elected species of succinic acid as the one or more compound(s) according to group a) of the instant claims.
The composition of Mahadeshwar et al in view of Humblebee & Me comprising serine as the at least one amino acid renders obvious the elected species of serine as the one or more compound(s) according to group b) of the instant claims.
The composition of Mahadeshwar et al in view of Humblebee & Me not comprising at least one oxidizing agent meets the limitation of “the composition is free of oxidizing agents” of instant claim 1.
The composition of Mahadeshwar et al in view of Humblebee & Me not comprising a reducing agent meets the limitation of “the composition is free of reducing agents” of instant claim 22.
Regarding the ranges required by the instant claims, in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
The composition of Mahadeshwar et al in view of Humblebee & Me meets the limitation of “aqueous” of instant claim 1 because, as evidenced by Page 3 Lines 15-18 of the instant Specification, the term ‘aqueous’ within the meaning of the present invention requires the composition to have a water content of 50% by weight or more, preferably to have a water content of 60% by weight or more, more preferably to have a water content of 70% by weight or more, calculated to the total weight of the composition.
Regarding the requirement that the pH of the composition be in the range of 1 to 4 (instant claim 1) and in the range of 2 to 4 (instant claim 10), as discussed supra, Mahadeshwar et al do not teach the pH of the composition, however Mahadeshwar et al do teach that the pH of an optional oxidizing composition can range from about 2 to about 12, such as from about 6 to about 11, and the pH of the composition resulting from mixing together the aforementioned composition with the optional oxidizing composition may range from about 2 to about 7, such as from about 3 to about 6.9, or from about 4 to about 6.9, or from about 4 to about 6.85, or from about 5 to about 6.8 (See supra). This teaching considered with the teaching of the pH of the hair after application of the compositions may be less than about 7, such as less than about 6.5, less than about 6, less than about 5.5, or less than about 5 or may range from about 2 to about 7, such as about 3 to about 6, or about 4 to about 5 renders obvious the aforementioned limitations as it can be understood that the composition of Mahadeshwar et al in view of Humblebee & Me overlaps the recited ranges of pH required by instant claims 1 and 10.
Regarding the requirement that the weight ratio of compound(s) according to group a) to compound(s) according to group b) is in the range of 0.2 to 5 (instant claim 6) and in the range of 0.5 to 1 (instant claim 20), the composition of Mahadeshwar et al in view of Humblebee & Me comprising at least one amino acid from about 0.01% to about 20%, from about 0.1% to about 15%, from about 1% to about 12%, or from about 2% to about 10% by weight and at least one carboxylic acid from about 0.01% to about 20%, from about 0.1% to about 15%, from about 1% to about 12% by weight, wherein weight percents are based on the total weight of the composition, necessarily overlaps the recited ranges of weight ratio required by instant claims 6 and 20.
NEW GROUNDS OF OBJECTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because “and” should be deleted from the end of the second to last line for grammatical correctness.
Claim 19 is objected to because “mitures” appearing in the last line should be amended to “mixtures” in order to remedy the typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 11/20/2025 have been considered.
Applicant argues that Mahadeshwar et al teach a mixed composition comprising an oxidizing composition having a pH range from about 2 to about 7, which is in direct contrast to the presently claimed composition that is free of oxidizing agents and has a pH in the range of 1 to 4. Applicant argues that Mahadeshwar et al teach away from the presently claimed composition because the mixed composition discussed in Par. [0162] of Mahadeshwar et al specifically requires an oxidizing composition to achieve the above-mentioned pH range. Applicant argues that Humblebee & Me fails to remedy the deficiencies of Mahadeshwar et al because Humblebee & Me also fails to teach or suggest an aqueous reshaping composition that is free of oxidizing agents and has a pH in the range of 1 to 4.
The above arguments have been fully considered by the Examiner but are not found persuasive because the Examiner is not relying on the mixed composition of Mahadeshwar et al in the rejection under 35 USC 103 set forth in the Office action dated 11/12/2025 and maintained herein, but rather the Examiner points to Par. [0161]-[0162] of Mahadeshwar et al because the pH of the composition is not directly taught by Mahadeshwar et al, however Par. [0161]-[0162] provide an indirect teaching of the pH of the composition by comparison of the pH of the optional oxidizing composition to the composition resulting from mixing together the composition with the optional oxidizing composition, and these teachings considered with the teaching of the pH of the hair after application of the composition is what renders obvious the pH ranges required by the instant claims. Regarding the presently claimed composition being free of oxidizing agents, as can be seen in the maintained rejection under 35 USC 103 above, Mahadeshwar et al teach in Par. [0073] that the compositions may optionally, i.e., but do not have to, be mixed with an oxidizing composition containing at least one oxidizing agent, and therefore, the composition of Mahadeshwar et al in view of Humblebee & Me not comprising at least one oxidizing agent meets the limitation of the composition being free of oxidizing agents required by the instant claims. See the maintained rejection under 35 USC 103 over Mahadeshwar et al in view of Humblebee & Me above for more details, and for at least these reasons, the rejection under 35 USC 103 is hereby maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KAELEIGH ELIZABETH OLSEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1962. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PM.
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, David Blanchard can be reached at (571)272-0827. 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.
/K.E.O./Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights