DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/25/2026 has been entered.
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/25/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 - Obviousness
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(s) 1-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millequant et al (US 2004/0034944 A1).
Millequant taught a composition for bleaching dyed keratinous fibers (e.g., hair) [abstract], comprising glyoxalic acid [claim 7]; from about 0.01 to 30 % by weight of an amine compound (e.g., monoethanolamine) [claims 17-18]; and a solvent (e.g., water) [claim 13; see also ¶s 0232-0233].
Claim 1 is rendered prima facie obvious over the teachings of Millequant, because it is prima facie obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods, in order to yield predictable results. In the instant case, all the claimed elements (e.g., reducing agent, amine compound, solvent) were known in the prior art (e.g., Millequant) and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would yield nothing more than predictable results (e.g., a composition for bleaching dyed hair) to one of ordinary skill in the art. MPEP 2143.A.
The instant claim 1 recites from about 0.1 to about 20 % amine compound.
The instant claim 5 recites from about 5 % to about 15 % amine compound.
The instant claim 6 recites from about 1 % to about 10 % monoethanolamine.
The instant claims 9 and 18 recite from about 1 % to about 15 % monoethanolamine.
The instant claim 12 recites from about 1 % to about 12 % monoethanolamine.
The instant claim 15 recites from about 0.1 % to about 20 % amine compound.
The instant claim 17 recites from about 1 % to about 18 % amine compound.
Millequant taught from about 0.01 to 30 % by weight of an amine compound (e.g., monoethanolamine). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 A.
Millequant reads on claims 1, 5-6, 9, 12, 15 and 17-18.
Claims 2, 4, 10 and 16 are rendered prima facie obvious because Millequant taught glyoxalic acid at 0.01 to 15 % [see claims 7 and 10].
The instant claims 2 and 16 recite reducing agents from about 1 % to about 15 %.
The instant claim 4 recites reducing agents from about 3 % to about 12 %.
The instant claim 10 recites reducing agents from about 1 % to about 20 %.
Millequant taught glyoxalic acid at 0.01 to 15 %. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as discussed above.
Claims 3 and 11 are rendered prima facie obvious because Millequant taught α-ketoglutaric acid [0040].
Claims 7 and 13 are rendered prima facie obvious because Millequant taught thickening agents [claim 14].
Further regarding claims 9 and 19, the claims are rendered prima facie obvious because Millequant taught a pH between 1.8 and 6 [claim 2].
The instant claims 9 and 19 recite a pH from about 1 to 6.
Millequant taught a pH between 1.8 and 6. A prima facie case of obviousness exists because of overlap, as discussed above.
Further regarding claim 15, the claim is rendered prima facie obvious because Millequant taught rinsing the hair [claim 30; see also ¶ 0482, 0496].
Claim 20 is rendered prima facie obvious because Millequant taught oxidative dye, at the abstract and at claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, Millequant et al, requires at least one sulfinic acid, which are generally recognized as reducing agents, and which are not allowed by the limitations of the instant claims 8 and 14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CELESTE A RONEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 AM-6 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, Sahana S Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/CELESTE A RONEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights