--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 .
Applicant’s response dated February 19, 2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
This application is divisional of 16/611,787 filed on 11/07/2019, which is a 371 of
PCT/EP2018/061575 filed on 05/04/2018, and claims foreign priority in French application
FRI 754194 filed on 05/12/2017.
Claim Status
Claims 1-21 were canceled. Claims 22-41 are examined. Claims 22 and 34 were amended.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejections of claims 22-27 and 36 are withdrawn because rejections were obviated with claim amendments. Arguments against these rejections are moot because rejections are withdrawn.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
All obviousness rejections are withdrawn because the claims were amended to require a drying step, which is not obvious over the cited references. Arguments against these rejections are moot because rejections are withdrawn.
Withdrawn Double Patenting Rejections
Rejections of claims 22-41 over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,253,459 B2 in view of Krause; rejections of claims 22-41 over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,980,682 B2 in view of Krause; rejections of claims 22-33 and 37-41 over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,138,339 B2 in view of Krause; and rejections of claims 22-41 over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,161,746 B2 in view of Krause. Arguments against these rejections are moot because rejections are withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on February 19, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of US Patent Numbers 11,253,459 B2; 11,980,682 B2; 12,138,339 B2; and 12,161,746 B2 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
Necessitated by Amendment
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.
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.
Claims 22-33 and 37-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Krause (US 2005/0226838 Published October 13, 2005 – of record in IDS dated 12/27/2022) and further in view of Hessefort (WO 02/083089 A1 Published October 24, 2002).
The claims encompass a method of altering the color of keratin fibers comprising
applying to the keratin fibers a composition comprising components i-iii.
The teachings of Krause are related to a hair treatment composition (Abstract). The hair
treatment compositions can be applied in different application forms, e.g. as leave on or as rinse-off products. They can be permanent, semi-permanent or temporary hair dye composition, e.g.
oxidative hair dye compositions or non-oxidative hair coloring compositions or hair bleaching
compositions (paragraph 0016). In one embodiment the composition further comprises a polymer
with anionic or anionizable groups in an amount of preferably from 0.01 to 20 percent by weight,
as a hair-fixing or hair-care effective ingredient. Anionizable groups are understood to be acid
groups, such as carboxylic acid, sulfuric acid or phosphoric acid groups, which can be
deprotonated by means of a conventional base, such as an organic amine or alkali metal or
alkaline earth metal hydroxide (paragraph 0018). Suitable polymers with acid groups are
especially homopolymers of acrylic acid or methacrylic acid, which are not cross-linked or crosslinked with polyfunctional agents (paragraph 0021). Preferred polymers with acid groups include copolymers of vinyl acetate, crotonic acid and vinyl propionate; copolymers of vinyl acetate, crotonic acid and vinyl neodecanoate (INCI names: VA/crotonates/vinyl propionate copolymer, VA/crotonates/vinyl neodecanoate copolymer) (paragraph 0022). Suitable cationic polymers include quaternary silicone polymers (paragraph 0028). The composition further contains at least one silicone compound including cyclomethicone, dimethicone, dimethiconol, dimethicone copolyol, phenyl trimethicone, amodimethicone, trimethylsilylamodimethicone, stearyl siloxysilicates, polymethylsilsesquioxane and dimethicone cross polymers (paragraph 0038).
Preferred silicones are cyclic dimethylsiloxanes, linear polydimethylsiloxanes, block polymers comprising polydimethyl siloxanes and polyethylene oxides and/or polypropylene oxides, polydimethyl siloxanes with terminal or side polyethylene oxide or polypropylene oxide groups, polydimethyl siloxanes with terminal hydroxy groups, phenyl substituted polydimethyl
siloxanes, silicone emulsions, silicone elastomers, silicone waxes, silicone gums and amino substituted silicones (paragraph 0039). In various other embodiments the composition can
contain at least one haircoloring pigment, which imparts color and/or a luster effect to the hair
(paragraph 0063). Krause teaches a method of treating hair comprising preparing a hair treatment
composition, applying the hair treatment composition to hair, and leaving the hair treatment
composition on the hair or rinsing out after an acting time (paragraphs 0103-0106).
Krause does not teach drying the keratin fibers at 50-220°C.
The teachings of Hessefort are related to a hair treatment method (Abstract and page 1 lines 5-9). Example 10 teaches drying the hair at 65°C (page 21 lines 22-24).
The teachings of Krause and Hessefort are related to hair treatment methods and it would have been obvious to have combined them because they are in the same field of endeavor.
Regarding claim 22, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a composition
for temporarily altering the color of hair, the composition comprising a copolymer of vinyl
acetate, crotonic acid and vinyl neodecanoate; an aminosilicone, and a pigment, with a
reasonable expectation of success because Krause teaches a composition for treating hair
comprising a copolymer of vinyl acetate, crotonic acid and vinyl neodecanoate; an
aminosilicone, and a pigment wherein the composition is intended for temporarily dying hair. It
would have been obvious to have practiced a method of temporarily altering the color of hair
comprising applying to the hair the composition as described above, with a reasonable
expectation of success because Krause teaches a method of treating hair comprising applying the
composition to hair. Krause's composition is intended for temporarily dying hair, therefore the
method of applying the composition would have been a method of temporarily dying the hair.
It would have been obvious to have rinsed the hair treatment composition out of the hair after a predetermined time because Krause teaches rinsing the hair treatment composition out of the hair after a predetermined acting time (paragraphs 0103-0106 and claim 29). It would have been further obvious to have dried the hair after rinsing because drying hair after washing was known from Hessefort. It would have been obvious to have dried the hair at a temperature of 65°C, with a reasonable expectation of success because Hessefort teaches drying washed hair at a temperature of 65°C. The selection of a known method to be suitable for its intended purpose supports obviousness. The claimed range is obvious because it encompasses 65°C.
Regarding claims 23, it would have been obvious to have formed the composition with a
mixture of different silicone compounds in a concentration of 0.01-15 wt.% because Krause
teaches that the composition contains at least one silicone compound in a concentration of 0.01-
15 wt.% where the silicone compound includes amino-substituted silicones, silicone gums,
linear polydimethylsiloxane, and silicone elastomers, among others. The claimed concentration
range is obvious because it overlaps with the prior art range.
Regarding claim 24, linear polydimethylsiloxane is dimethicone.
Regarding claim 25, Krause teaches the copolymer of vinyl acetate, crotonic acid and
vinyl neodecanoate.
Regarding claim 26, it would have been obvious to have formed the composition to
comprise a thickener selected from crosslinked copolymers of acrylic and/or methacrylic acid,
with a reasonable expectation of success because Krause teaches that the composition contains a
thickening copolymer formed of at least one first type of monomer and at least one second type
of monomer wherein the first type of monomer is acrylic or methacrylic acid (paragraph 0092).
Regarding claim 27, it would have been obvious to have formed the composition to
contain the copolymer of vinyl acetate, crotonic acid and vinyl neodecanoate in a concentration
of 0.01-20 wt.% and at least one silicone in a concentration of 0.01-15 wt.% because Krause
teaches that the composition contains a polymer with anionic or anionizable group in an amount
of 0.01-20 wt.% (paragraph 0018) and at least one silicone compound in a concentration of
0.01-15 wt.%. The weight ratio of the copolymer to the at least one silicone compound would
range from 0.01:15 to 20:0.01 which is equivalent to 1:1500 to 2000:1.
In preferred embodiments, the copolymer and the at least one silicone compound are each
present in a concentration of 0.1-5 wt. %, thus in the preferred embodiment the ratio of the two
would have ranged from 0.1 :5 to 5:0.1 or from 1 :50 to 50: 1. The claimed range of weight ratios is obvious because it overlaps with the prior art range.
Regarding claims 28 and 30, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a
composition for temporarily altering the color of hair, the composition comprising a copolymer
of vinyl acetate, crotonic acid and vinyl neodecanoate in a concentration of 0.01-20 wt.%; an
aminosilicone, and a pigment, with a reasonable expectation of success because Krause teaches a
composition for treating hair comprising a copolymer of vinyl acetate, crotonic acid and vinyl
neodecanoate in a concentration of 0.01-20 wt.%; an aminosilicone, and a pigment wherein the
composition is intended for temporarily dying hair. It would have been obvious to have practiced
a method temporarily altering the color of hair comprising applying to the hair the composition
as described above, with a reasonable expectation of success because Krause teaches a method of
treating hair comprising applying the composition to hair. Krause's composition is intended for
temporarily dying hair, therefore the method of applying the composition would have been a
method of temporarily dying the hair. The claimed concentration range is obvious because it
overlaps with the prior art range.
Regarding claim 29, it would have been obvious to have formed the composition with a
mixture of silicones in a concentration range of0.01-15 wt.%, with a reasonable expectation of
success because Krause teaches that the composition contains at least one silicone compound
which renders the claimed range of at least two obvious and wherein the at least one silicone
compound is present in a concentration range of 0.01-15 wt.%.
Regarding claim 31, it would have been obvious to have formed the composition to
comprise a thickener selected from crosslinked copolymers of acrylic and/or methacrylic acid,
with a reasonable expectation of success because Krause teaches that the composition contains a
thickening copolymer formed of at least one first type of monomer and at least one second type
of monomer wherein the first type of monomer is acrylic or methacrylic acid (paragraph 0092).
Regarding claims 32 and 33, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a
composition for temporarily altering the color of hair, the composition comprising a copolymer
of vinyl acetate, crotonic acid and vinyl neodecanoate in a concentration; at least one silicone in
a concentration of 0.01-15 wt. %, and a pigment, with a reasonable expectation of success
because Krause teaches a composition for treating hair comprising a copolymer of vinyl acetate,
crotonic acid and vinyl neodecanoate; at least one silicone compound in a concentration of 0.01-
15 wt. %, and a pigment wherein the composition is intended for temporarily dying hair. It
would have been obvious to have practiced a method temporarily altering the color of hair
comprising applying to the hair the composition as described above, with a reasonable
expectation of success because Krause teaches a method of treating hair comprising applying the
composition to hair. Krause's composition is intended for temporarily dying hair, therefore the
method of applying the composition would have been a method of temporarily dying the hair.
The claimed concentration range is obvious because it overlaps with the prior art range.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, Krause teaches a copolymer of vinyl acetate, crotonic acid
and vinyl neodecanoate which meets the limitations of (a) because it contains repeating unit
derived from crotonic acid monomer, and meets limitations of (b) because it contains vinyl
acetate and vinyl neodecanoate.
Regarding claim 39, Krause teaches at least one silicone compound which renders the
claimed at least two different silicones obvious.
Regarding claim 40, it would have been obvious to have selected aminosilicone or a
linear polydimethylsiloxane as the at least one silicone compound because Krause teaches
aminosilicone and a linear polydimethylsiloxane as suitable compounds.
Regarding claim 41, it would have been obvious to have formed the composition to
contain the copolymer of vinyl acetate, crotonic acid and vinyl neodecanoate in a concentration
of 0.01-20 wt.% and at least one silicone in a concentration of 0.01-15 wt.% because Krause
teaches that the composition contains a polymer with anionic or anionizable group in an amount
of 0.01-20 wt.% (paragraph 0018) and at least one silicone compound in a concentration of
0.01-15 wt.%. The weight ratio of the copolymer to the at least one silicone compound would
range from 0.01:15 to 20:0.01 which is equivalent to 1:1500 to 2000:1.
In preferred embodiments, the copolymer and the at least one silicone compound
are each present in a concentration of 0.1-5 wt. %, thus in the preferred embodiment the ratio of
the two would have ranged from 0.1 :5 to 5:0.1 or from I :50 to 50: 1. The claimed range of weight ratios is obvious because it overlaps with the prior art range.
Claims 34 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause and Hessefort as applied to claims 22-33 and 37-41 above, and further in view of Wakita (JP-HI 1171741-A Published June 29, 1999 - English language machine translation appended thereto).
The claims further define the method of claim 32 by requiring the at least one copolymer
to be at least one crotonic acid derivative chosen from crotonic acid esters.
The teachings of Krause and Hessefort are relied upon as summarized above, however they do not teach the limitations of claims 34 and 25.
The teachings of Wakita are related to a temporary hair dye composition (Abstract). The
composition comprises a copolymer derived from nonionic monomer units comprising vinyl
acetate, methyl crotonate, and ethyl crotonate, among others (paragraph bridging pages 4-5).
The teachings of Wakita and Krause modified with Hessefort are related to compositions for temporarily dying hair and it would have been obvious to have combined them because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to have formed the composition of Krause by adding a nonionic copolymer, with a reasonable expectation of success because Krause teaches that the composition contains a nonionic copolymer formed from vinyl pyrrolidones, vinyl caprolactam, and vinyl esters such vinyl acetate (paragraph 0036). It would have been obvious to have selected methyl crotonate as a nonionic monomer and used it form the nonionic copolymer comprising vinyl esters, with a reasonable expectation of success because it was known from Wakita that methyl crotonate is a nonionic monomer suitable for making copolymers intended to be used in temporary hair dye compositions. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose supports obviousness. Krause's nonionic copolymer would have contained methyl crotonate which meets the limitation of (a) and crotonic acid ester of the claimed formula when R' 1 is a carbon based chain containing one carbon atom; and vinyl acetate which meets the limitations of (b).
Claims 34 and 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krause and Hessefort as applied to claims 22-33 and 37-41 above, and further in view of Witte (WO 2010/124897 A2 Published November 4, 2010 - English language translation appended thereto).
The claims further define the method of claim 32 by requiring the at least one copolymer
to be at least one crotonic acid derivative chosen from crotonic acid amides.
The teachings of Krause and Hessefort are relied upon as summarized above, however they do not teach the limitations of claims 34 and 25.
The teachings Witte are related to compositions for changing hair color (Abstract). The
compositions comprise at least one non-permanently ionic copolymer which is derived from at
least one catinonizable monomer (bottom of page 3). Cationizable polymer comprises
crotonamide and N,N-dimethyl crotonic acid, among others (bottom of page 6).
The teachings of Witte and Krause modified by Hessefort are related to compositions for changing hair color and it would have been obvious to have combined them because they are in the same field of endeavor. It would have been obvious to have formed the composition of Krause by adding a cationic copolymer comprising cationic or cationizable groups, with a reasonable expectation of success because Krause teaches that the composition contains a cationic copolymer comprising cationic or cationizable groups (paragraph 0025). It would have been obvious to have selected crotonamide or N,N-dimethyl crotonamide as a cationizable monomer and used it form the cationic copolymer, with a reasonable expectation of success because it was known from Witte that crotonamide and N,N-dimethyl crotonamide are cationizable monomers suitable for making copolymers intended to be used in temporary hair dye compositions. It would have been obvious to have formed the copolymer with non-cationic monomers such as vinyl acetate because Krause teaches that the cationic or cationizable copolymer also contains repeating units derived from non-cationic monomers such as vinyl acetate. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended purpose supports obviousness. Krause's cationic copolymer would have contained crotonamide which meets the limitation of (a) and crotonic acid amide of the claimed formula when R'2 and R"2 are both a hydrogen atom; and vinyl acetate which meets the limitations of (b).
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 Alma - Pipic whose telephone number is (571)270-7459. The
examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Michael Hartley can be reached on 571-272-0616. 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.
/ALMA PIPIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617