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 .
Status of Application
Receipt of the certified Foreign Priority documents filed on December 16, 2024 is acknowledged.
The Petition to Accept Certified copy of Priority Document was granted on February 19, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
No claims have been amended.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of:
PNG
media_image1.png
252
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
390
606
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
620
618
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
316
674
media_image4.png
Greyscale
in the reply filed on July 22, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The elected species read on claims 1-9. Therefore, claims 1-9 are under examination in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on May 10, 2024 is acknowledged. A signed copy is enclosed herewith.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites an additional component (an amidoamine), therefore, the claim should recite:
The silicone-free hair care composition according to claim 1, further comprising an amidoamine of the following formula (I)
PNG
media_image5.png
276
708
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites an additional component (at least one hydroxycarboxylic acid), therefore the claim should recite:
The silicone-free hair care composition according to claim 1, further comprising at least one hydroxycarboxylic acid in a weight proportion of 0.1-5.0 wt.% with respect to the total weight of the composition.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Von Aspern et al. (DE 102015223028 A1, Jun. 30, 2016, machine translation, hereafter as “Von Aspern”) in view of Stepanquat Soleil Product Information Sheet, Adam And Partner, accessed online September 29, 2026, first available online September 17, 2021).
Regarding instant claim 1, Von Aspern discloses a hair treatment composition comprising esterquats with selected other cationic and/or cationizable compounds other than these first esterquats and to the use of these agents for the treatment of keratinic fibers (abstract).
The esterquat is present in the amount of 0.01 to 20.0 wt.% based on the weight of the total composition (page 2, 7th paragraph)
The at least one further cationic and/or cationizable compound other than the first esterquat is present in the amount of 0.01 to 20.0% by weight, based on the total composition (page 2, 7th paragraph), examples include amidoamines (page 6, 11th paragraph through page 7, 8th paragraph).
An aqueous cosmetic carrier containing at least 50% by weight of water is present (page 3, 3rd paragraph).
The esterquat formula is disclosed to be:
PNG
media_image6.png
104
172
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Herein, R1, R2, R3 and R4 are each independently and may be the same or different. The radicals R1, R2, R3 and R4 mean: A branched or unbranched alkyl radical having 1 to 4 carbon atoms, in particular methyl, ethyl, propyl, isopropyl, butyl, tert-butyl or isobutyl, more preferably methyl, ethyl, propyl, isopropyl and most preferably methyl, - the rest (-XO-CO-R5), with the proviso that at most 2 of the radicals R1, R2 R3 or R4 can stand for this radical:
The radical (-X-O-CO-R5) is contained at least once and at most twice, more preferably twice.
Where X stands for:
- (CH 2) n - where n = 1 to 20, preferably n = 1 to 10 and more preferably n = 1 - 5 and most preferably n = 2,
and R5 stands for:
a saturated branched or unbranched, an unsaturated branched or unbranched, or a cyclic saturated or unsaturated alkyl radical having 6 to 30 carbon atoms, which may contain a hydroxy group, preferably a saturated branched or unsaturated alkyl radical having 12 to 30 carbon atoms, more preferably a saturated branched alkyl having 12 to 30, more preferably 12 to 24 carbon atoms. When two radicals X-R5 are present, then R6 is most preferably both a saturated branched alkyl radical having 12 to 24 carbon atoms and simultaneously an unsaturated unbranched alkyl radical having 12 to 24 carbon atoms,
and A- represents a physiologically acceptable organic or inorganic anion. The anion of all described cationic compounds is selected from the halide ions, fluoride, chloride, bromide, iodide, sulfates of the general formula RSO3- , in which R has the meaning of saturated or unsaturated alkyl radicals having 1 to 4 carbon atoms, or anionic radicals of organic acids, such as Maleate, fumarate, oxalate, tartrate, citrate, lactate or acetate (page 3, 5th paragraph through page 4,2nd paragraph ).
A further essential ingredient is 0.1 to 20% by weight of at least one cosmetic oil, such as sunflower oil (page 12, 10th paragraph through page 13, 5th paragraph).
A particularly preferred group of ingredients in the cosmetic composition include betaines (page 24, 5th-6th paragraph; page 26, 14th paragraph). It is contained in a total amount in the amount of 0.001 to 10.0 wt.% (page 25, 5th paragraph).
Silicones can be used as cosmetic oils in the compositions according to the invention. However, it may be preferable not to use silicones (page 15, 6th paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, dioleoylisoproyl dimonium methosulfates is disclosed (page 4, 6th paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, as noted above, the cosmetic oil can comprise sunflower oil. It is noted that sunflower oil is obtained from sunflower seeds.
Regarding claims 4-5, the composition further comprises an amidoamine and/or a cationized amidoamine having the formula:
PNG
media_image7.png
86
264
media_image7.png
Greyscale
wherein R1 is an acyl or alkyl radical having 6 to 30 carbon atoms, which may be branched or unbranched, saturated or unsaturated, and wherein the acyl radical and / or the alkyl radical may contain at least one OH group, and
R2, R3 and R4 are each independently 1) hydrogen or 2) an alkyl radical having 1 to 4 C atoms, which may be identical or different, saturated or unsaturated, and 3) a branched or unbranched hydroxyalkyl group having one to 4 carbon atoms having at least one and at most three hydroxy groups, for example -CH2 OH, -CH2 CH2 OH, -CHOHCHOH, -CH2 CHOHCH3 , -CH (CH2 OH)2 , -COH (CH2 OH)2 , -CH2 CHOHCH2 OH, -CH2 CH2 CH2 OH and hydroxybutyl radicals, and A is an anion as described above and n is an integer between 1 and 10. The compound is present in the amount of 0.1 to 10 wt.% (page 6, 11th paragraph through page 7, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 6, brassicamidopropyl dimethylamine is disclosed (page 6, 12th paragraph; page 7, 8th paragraph).
Regarding claim 7, in addition, the composition preferably includes 0.1-15 wt.% of at least one ester of acids from the group comprising caproic acid, caprylic acid, 2-ethylhexanoic acid, capric acid, isotridecanoic acid, lauric acid, and myristic acid (page 30, 3rd paragraph), which are C6 to C14 triglycerides.
Regarding claim 8, the composition preferably contain emulsifiers in the amount of 0.1-20% by weight (page 23, 4th paragraph). Examples include polyglycerol poly-12-hydroxystearate (page 23, lines 3rd paragraph). It is noted that polyglycerol poly-12-hydroxystearate is a nonionic emulsifier.
Regarding claim 9, the examples discloses the use of 0.1% citric acid.
While the formulation of the instant claims is not exemplified, each component is disclosed as a preferred alternative or essential component in the hair treatment composition of Von Aspern.
Von Aspern does not disclose the esterquat and the mono, di, or triglycerides are in a mixture.
Stepanquat Soleil is disclosed to be a mixture of Dioleylethyl Hydroxyethylmonium Methosulfate (and) Sunflower Seed Oil Glycerides.
The product information sheet discloses Stepanquat Soleil smooths each individual hair strand, for super soft, manageable hair, while also providing a lower peak load, in wet combing properties.
Stepanquat is additionally disclosed to be versatile for use in multiple formats and can be incorporated into rinse off and leave on formulations.
Von Aspern and Stepenquat Soleil are drawn to hair compositions, thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the premixed esterquat and mono, di, or triglyceride mixture of Stepanquat Soleil in the formulation of Von Aspern with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Von Aspern generally teaches an esterquat and glycerides and Stepanquat Soleil particularly teaches that an esterquat and mono, di, or triglyceride mixture is effective in allowing for easy combing on wet and dry hair condition hair as well as or better than market leading conditioning agents.
Thus, the combined teachings of Von Aspern and Stepenquat Soleil render the instant claims prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
All claims have been rejected; no claims are allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASEY HAGOPIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6097. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 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, Sue Liu can be reached on 571-272-5539. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CASEY S HAGOPIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights