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 .
This action is responsive to applicants’ amendment and response received December 29, 2025. Claims 18-37 are currently pending with claim 37 being withdrawn.
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.
All rejections set forth in the previous action are withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment and response.
The examiner notes that the method has been amended from removing color to merely treating hair. This means that any hair treatment composition, including shampoos, conditioners, etc. can be the “makeup-removing” composition claimed.
Claims 18-34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lesch et al, US 2021/0007959 alone or in view of Landa et al, US 2019/0350823.
Before discussing the reference, the examiner notes that the claimed dye composition and the make-up removing composition are formed “in parallel” (see page 53, example 1 of the present specification), and so the specific make-up remover and dye composition are completely unrelated, save for the fact that the make-up remover is used on this particular dye by applicants.
With that said, Lesch et al teach a makeup remover from eyelashes (see abstract) comprising an alkylpolyglucoside surfactant, 0.7% L-Arginine, solvent mixture, and the balance water (¶169, examples 1-5). In addition to arginine, the base may be triethanolamine, NaOH, and KOH (claim 2), this makeup remover may be in water-in-oil or oil-in-water emulsified form (¶90), and these compositions may contain up to 30% alkylpolyglucoside (claim 8) and up to 10% other nonionic surfactants (¶112). Persons of ordinary skill in the art would expect a makeup remover to successfully remove any makeup from eyelashes, and so it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the makeup remover of Lesch on the dyed hair claimed. Note that all that is required of the claimed makeup remover is an alkaline agent.
In the alternative, the reference does not teach the specific dye claimed. Landa et al teach a hair coloring composition comprising 10% amino-silicone KF-862 ( a preferred silicone of the present invention) and 1.25% pigment (¶408, composition E). This dye may be used on eyelashes and eyebrows (¶387). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a proven makeup remover to remove any hair coloring from eyelashes and eyebrows, and as discussed above, any contact with the dyed hair satisfied the “treating” limitation as now amended.
Claims 18-29, and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rughani et al, US 2018/0280270 alone or in view of Landa et al, US 2019/0350823.
Before discussing the reference, the examiner notes that the claimed dye composition and the make-up removing composition are formed “in parallel” (see page 53, example 1 of the present specification), and so the specific make-up remover and dye composition are completely unrelated, save for the fact that the make-up remover is used on this particular dye by applicants.
With that said, Rughani et al teach a hair treatment composition comprising 0.8% monoethanolamine, cationic surfactant, fatty compounds (mineral oil), and the balance water (¶524, example 21). Preferred surfactants of the invention are ethoxylated alcohols (example 23). As the method now is merely treating hair, the examiner maintains that any hair treatment composition containing an alkaline agent satisfies the “makeup removing composition”. It is obvious to use a hair conditioner on hair that has been dyed, including the dyed hair claimed.
In the alternative, the reference does not teach the specific dye claimed. Landa et al teach a hair coloring composition comprising 10% amino-silicone KF-862 ( a preferred silicone of the present invention) and 1.25% pigment (¶408, composition E). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use a hair conditioner on dyed hair, including the hair colorant of Landa et al with confidence of successfully treating the hair, which is now all that is required in the claim. This hair conditioner of Rughani et al is representative of the many hair treatment compositions that contain an alkaline agent.
Conclusion
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 CHARLES I BOYER whose telephone number is (571)272-1311. The examiner can normally be reached M-S 10-430.
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, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at 5712722817. 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.
/CHARLES I BOYER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights