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 of Group I, claims 1-13,in the reply filed on 8/04/2026 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)); and, therefore, made final.
Claim 14 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/04/2026.
Claims 1-13 as filed on 8/04/2026 are under examination in the instant office action.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by the document “Professional Scalp Total Care Fresh Cleansing Treatment” (IDS reference; Mintel Database accession number 4779265, April 2017, pages 1-5).
The cited document discloses a cosmetic composition comprising several antioxidants as intended for hair treatment comprising: Camelia japonica extract, Camelia sinensis (or green tea) extract, Phyllanthus emblica fruit extract and ginkgo extract (see page 2, section “ingredients”).
Thus, the cited document anticipates claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 6, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated KR 20110029613 (Kim et al) (IDS reference).
The cited document KR 20110029613 (Kim et al) discloses a cosmetic composition comprising several antioxidants as intended for skin treatment and protection from damage comprising Camelia japonica extract and Camelia sinensis (or green tea) extract in amounts 0.0001-30% (see English abstract).
Thus, the cited document anticipates claimed invention.
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.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the document “Professional Scalp Total Care Fresh Cleansing Treatment” (IDS reference; Mintel Database accession number 4779265, April 2017, pages 1-5) in view of FR 3008890 (Chollet et al), US 6,261,605 (Singh-Verna) and IDS reference KR 20110029613 (Kim et al).
The cited document “Professional Scalp Total Care Fresh Cleansing Treatment” discloses a cosmetic composition comprising several antioxidants as intended for hair treatment comprising: Camelia japonica extract, Camelia sinensis (or green tea) extract, Phyllanthus emblica fruit extract and ginkgo extract (see page 2, section “ingredients”).
Thus, the cited document is silent about incorporation of Quercus petraea fruit extract and amounts of beneficial plant extracts.
However, these plants extracts have been knonw for their antioxidant properties and their amounts have been known, taught or suggested in cosmetic compositions intended for skin and hair treatment.
For example: FR 3008890 (Chollet et al) teaches incorporation of Quercus petraea or oak extract for its antioxidant properties into cosmetic composition in amount 3% as intended for treating hair (see English abstract).
For example: US 6,261,605 (Singh-Verna) teaches a cosmetic composition or a hair care product comprising extract from Phyllanthus emblica in amount 1-20% (see abstract; see page 3, line 25-26; see page 7, lines 30-34).
For example: KR 20110029613 (Kim et al) teaches incorporation of Camelia japonica extract and Camelia sinensis (or green tea for their antioxidant properties into cosmetic composition in amount 0.0001-30% as intended for prevent skin damage (see English abstract).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to filed to add extracts of Quercus to the hair “Professional Scalp product” comprising Camelia japonica extract, Camelia sinensis, Phyllanthus emblica and ginkgo extracts with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a beneficial cosmetic composition with antioxidant properties as intended for hair treatment and skin protection. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to filed to optimize amounts of plants extracts in cosmetic compositions with antioxidant properties as intended for hair treatment and skin protection because these amounts have been knonw and/or suggested as demonstrated buy the cited prior art.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The claimed subject matter fails to patentably distinguish over the state art as represented be the cited references. Therefore, the claims are properly rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the document “Professional Scalp Total Care Fresh Cleansing Treatment” (IDS reference; Mintel Database accession number 4779265, April 2017, pages 1-5), FR 3008890 (Chollet et al), US 6,261,605 (Singh-Verna) and IDS reference KR 20110029613 (Kim et al) as applied to claims 1-13 above, and further in view of US 8,501,162 (Barton et al) and CN 108201513 (Fu et al).
All cited documents “Professional Scalp Total Care Fresh Cleansing Treatment”, FR 3008890 (Chollet et al), US 6,261,605 (Singh-Verna) and KR 20110029613 (Kim et al) teach and/or suggest cosmetic compositions comprising one or more plants extract with antioxidant properties as intended for skin and hair treatment. The reference are silent about some claim-recited additional or optional components.
However, all claim-recited additional or optional components have been knonw and used in various combinations in cosmetic compositions.
For example: US 8,501,162 (Barton et al) discloses a cosmetic composition with antioxidant properties comprising 4 pending claim-recited components that are dimethylmethoxy chromanol (analogue of vitamins E), pine (Pinus pinaster), emblica (Phyllanthus emblica) and ginkgo extract (see abstract).
For example: CN 108201513 (Fu et al) discloses a cosmetic composition with antioxidant properties and intended for hair treatment and growth comprising 4 pending claim-recited components that are Argania spinosa leaf extract, resveratrol, gingko extract, tea extract, pine bark extract and vitamin E as analogue of dimethylmethoxy chromanol (see English abstract equivalent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to filed to combine all pending claim-recited extracts with a reasonable expectation of success in providing a beneficial cosmetic composition with antioxidant properties as intended for hair treatment and skin protection because all ingredients have been knonw and suggested to be used for the same purpose.
Thus, the claimed invention as a whole was clearly prima facie obvious, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The claimed subject matter fails to patentably distinguish over the state art as represented be the cited references. Therefore, the claims are properly rejected under 35 USC § 103.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a product of nature without significantly more.
The claims recite a product comprising several natural plants extracts. Thus, the claimed product is a simple combination of natural products.
Thus, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because it is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERA AFREMOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-0914. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8.30am-5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sharmila Landau can be reached at (571) 272-0614. 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.
Vera Afremova
August 21, 2026
/VERA AFREMOVA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights