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 1-12,14 and 16-20 are pending. Claims 13 and 15 have been cancelled. Claims 1-12 and 14 have been amended. Claims 16-20 are new. Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-5 in the reply filed on September 25, 2025 is acknowledged . The traversal is on the ground(s) that JP50-127976 does not disclose the use of (A) however this is not found persuasive . The claims lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of fiber treating composition, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of DE10133203A1 cited in the rejection below. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 6-12,14 and 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1- 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Doering (DE 10133203A1). Doering teaches a hair (fiber) treating composition comprising 1% epigallocatechin (component (A)), 5% sodium chloride (salt component (B)) and water (component (C) (paragraph 0141, 0041 ,0045 ). Doering teaches using 0.5% green tea extract (component (A)), 5% sodium chloride (salt component (B)) and water (paragraph 0139). Doering teaches green tea extract comprises ca techins (paragraph 0036). Accordingly, the teachings of Doering are sufficient to anticipate the material limitations of the instant claims. 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. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doering (DE 10133203A1). Doering is relied upon as set forth above. Doering further teaches int eh examples, the molar ratio of 5% sodium chloride (5g/58.44g/mol=0.085mol) and 1% epigallocatechin (1g/458.37g/mol=0.002mol) is 0.085/.002=42.5. Doering teaches the salt, preferably sodium chloride can be added at the preferred concentrations of 1-5% as an electrolyte (paragraph 0047) and the catechin can be added at concentrations of preferably 0.001- 1 0% by weight. Doering does not the molar ratio of (B)/(A) of 0.01 or more and less than 20 in an example, but one of ordinary skill in the art can arrive at this ratio from selection of the teachings of Doering. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the amounts of the electrolyte salts and the catechins to arrive at the claimed ratio as Doering teaches 0.001- 1 0% catechin can be used as an art recognized preferred range. Substituting a 3% epigallocatechin (3g/458.37g/mol= 0.006 mol) for !% epigallocatechin in the compositions of paragraph 0141 would be obvious as to arrive at a 14.1 (B)/(A) ratio (.006/.085=14.1). Doering teaches 1-3% catechins are within an art preferred range to prevent drying of hair and for hair treatment composition which protect the hair (paragraph 0025,0105-0106,0114). Substituting art recognized concentration ranges which are known to be effective for preventing drying of hair and for protection of hair are obvious through routine experimentation. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AMINA S KHAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5573 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2817 . 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. /AMINA S KHAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761