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 .
Claim Status
Applicants’ amendments and arguments filed 06/24/2026 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claims 1-20 and 32 are canceled.
Claims 21-30 remain withdrawn.
Claim 41 is newly added.
Claims 31 and 33-41 are examined on the merits.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/24/2026 was filed after the mailing date. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 31 and 41 recite the limitation of “B. optionally rinsing the hair” which utilizes the term “optionally” which Examiner broadly interprets to mean anything follow “optionally” is not a limitation of the claim.
Claims 34-36 and 40 utilize the relative term "about". The term “about” is defined by the claims, the specification define the term “about” to be +/- 5% of the indicated number. Therefore, the term “about” in claims 34-36 and 40 will be broadly interpreted by the examiner to mean +/- 5%.
New Rejections Necessitated by Claim Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 31, 33-39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by over Tanabe et al. (US6358502B1, published 03/19/2002, hereafter Tanabe).
Tanabe claims a cosmetic hair composition comprising (A) glycine, (B) an acid selected from the group consisting of malic acid, maleic acid, and a mixture thereof, and (C) a cationic surfactant (claim 8 and title; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 31, 33, and 41). Tanabe claims the glycine is present in an amount of from 0.01 to 20 wt% (claim 12; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 31, 34, and 41). Tanabe teaches the hair cosmetic composition is a hair rinse or conditioner (column 3, lines 31-34; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 31 and 41). Further, Tanabe teaches that acids that are usable as component (B) to include citric acid (column 1, lines 58-65; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 39 and 41). Tanabe claims component (B) to have a concentration of 0.01 to 5 wt% (claim 13; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 31, 35, and 41). Tanabe claims the component (C) cationic surfactant has a concentrations in an amount of from 0.1 to 20 wt % (claim 14; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 36 and 41). Further, Tanabe provides multiple example compositions all comprising water (columns 5-6, Table 1 and examples 3-5; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 31 and 41). Further, Tanabe teaches the conditioners are applied to hair and then rinsed (column 3, lines 48-51; according to the claim limitations of instant claims 31 and 41). Tanabe teaches the pH of the hair composition may range from 2-6 with a pH of 2.5 to 3.5 being particularly preferred (column 3, lines 26-30; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 38 and 41). Tanabe teaches the hair composition may further comprise surfactants such as cationic polymers (column 3, lines 17-19; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 37 and 41).
A single embodiment of Tanabe teaches an example conditioning foam composition at a pH of 3.5 comprising 0.3 wt % behenyltrimethylammonium chloride, 1.0 wt % cetaryl alcohol (a fatty compound), 1.0 wt % glycine, 0.5 wt % malic acid, and water, etc. including cetearyl alcohol (reads on fatty compound) and that when it is applied to hair improved results in softness, luster, etc. are seen (column 6, example 4; according to the claim limitations of the instant claims 31, 33-38, and 41). See also additional examples 3 and 5.
Therefore, Tanabe discloses each and every element of claims 31, 33-39, and 41. Claims 31, 33-39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Tanabe.
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.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Tanabe et al. (US6358502B1, published 03/19/2002, hereafter Tanabe) in view of Bentley et al. (WO2016113316A1, published 07/21/2016, hereafter Bentley)
As outlined above, Tanabe teaches washing and rinsing hair with a composition comprising at least 0.5% of glycine, at least 0.5% citric acid, a cationic surfactant, and water.
Although Tanabe teaches washing and rinsing hair with a conditioner composition comprising citric acid, glycine, a cationic surfactant, and water, it does not teach the composition is left of the hair for a period of time from about 5 seconds to about 10 minutes as in instant claim 40.
Bentley teaches a rinse off hair treatment composition comprising a hair conditioning agent (abstract and claim 1). Bentley teaches the composition may be a conditioner, specifically conditioners with cationic surfactants (page 14, lines 10-12). Bentley teaches the method of use of the hair treatment composition comprising the following steps: applying to hair, leaving on hair for 0 to 10 minutes, and rinsing off with water (page 23, lines 27-34).
It would be obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to claim a method of washing and rinsing hair with a composition comprising at least 0.5% of glycine, at least 0.5% citric acid, a cationic surfactant, and water as outlined by Tanabe with the ready for improvement with the known technique of leaving the conditioner of the hair for 0 to 10 minutes as outlined by Bentley. Adding the forementioned step to the method of conditioning hair as claimed by instant claim 40 would yield predictable results thus making them of obviousness as modification of a known product with a known technique is within the purview of the skilled artisan.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/27/2026 have been considered by the examiner.
In regards to the 35 USC § 103 rejections, Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 ALEXANDRA NICOLE ISNOR whose telephone number is (703)756-5561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30am-3pm PST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at (571) 272-6175. 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.
/BETHANY P BARHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/A.N.I./Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights