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 . Claims included in the prosecution are claims 16-19, 22, 24-33, 35 and 37.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Applicants' arguments, filed 12/31/2025, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 16-19, 22, 24-33, 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 17, 18, 31, 32, 36 and 37 recite the limitation "the (a) inorganic compound.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 or claim 30 recites “(a) at least one inorganic compound.” Accordingly, the metes and bound of “the (a) inorganic compound” is of ambiguous scope since it is not clear whether the “(a) inorganic compound” refers to some or all of “the (a) at least one inorganic compound.”
Claims 19, 22 and 33 recite the limitation "the (b) organic compound.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 or claim 30 recites “(b) at least one organic compound.” Accordingly, the metes and bound of “the (b) organic compound” is of ambiguous scope since it is not clear whether “the (b) organic compound” refers to some or all of the “(b) at least one organic compound.”
Claims 24 and 25 recite the limitation "the (c) alkaline agent.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 recites “(c) at least one alkaline agent” Accordingly, the metes and bound of “the (c) alkaline agent” is of ambiguous scope since it is not clear whether “the (c) alkaline agent” refers to some or all of the “(c) at least one alkaline agent.”
Claims 16, 26, 27 and 30 recite the limitation "the (d) fatty material.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 16 or claim 30 recites “(d) at least one fatty material.” Accordingly, the metes and bound of “the (d) fatty material” is of ambiguous scope since it is not clear whether “the (d) fatty material” refers to some or all of the “(d) at least one fatty material.”
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 16-19, 22, 24-33, 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azizova et al. (US 2018/0153780, Jun. 7, 2018) (hereinafter Azizova) in view of Lee (US 2018/0064617, Mar. 8, 2018) and Benn et al. (US 2015/0265525, Sep. 24, 2015) (hereinafter Benn).
Azizova discloses a system and method for dyeing and/or lightening keratin-containing fibers. The system and method include a first composition, which may be a lightening composition. That composition includes (i) at least two alkali components for lightening keratin-containing fibers, wherein one of the at least two alkali components comprises sodium metasilicate and/or a metasilicate salt, and the composition comprises about 0.1 to about 10 weight percent of the at least two alkali components; and (ii) an arginine compound, wherein the arginine compound is present in an amount that would be effective to reduce irritation to a surface of a mammal having keratin-containing fibers (abstract). The first composition may comprise about 0.01 to about 3 percent by weight of the metasilicate (¶ [0012]). The second alkali component may be ethanolamine (¶ [0027]). The system may comprise about 0.1 to about 10 percent by weight of the arginine (¶ [0025]). The system may include at least one dye for coloring hair (¶ [0056]) and fatty acids or alcohols (¶ [0058]). Table 3 discloses an example of a hair color base (medium red) comprising water, 2.0% sodium metasilicate, 1.0% L-arginine, 2% ethanolamine (i.e., alkaline agent), mineral oil (i.e., fatty material), and 1-naphthol (i.e., dye (¶ [0057])). The first composition is combined with an oxidizing agent to form the system. The combined system is then applied to keratin-containing fiber (¶ [0062]).
Azizova differs from the instant claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the composition comprises glycine.
However, Lee discloses a hair-dyeing composition with an effect of minimizing hair damage and scalp irritation caused by ammonia prescription and ammonia odor (abstract). Essential amino acids such as glycine, alanine, serine, threonine, valine, leucin, phenylalanine, tyrosine, proline, methionine, cystine, cysteic acid, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, arginine, histidine, and lysine, and hydrophilic amino acids exhibit favorable hair protecting and scalp irritation alleviating effect (¶ [0047]).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Azizova discloses including arginine to reduce irritation to a surface of a mammal having keratin-containing fibers. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced arginine with glycine since glycine is a known and effective alternative to arginine for alleviating scalp irritation as taught by Lee.
The combined teachings of Azizvoa and Lee do not teach wherein the amount of mineral oil (i.e., fatty material) ranges from 40% or more and wherein the amount of water ranges from 10% to 40% by weight.
However, Benn discloses a cosmetic composition for altering the color of hair containing a fatty substance (abstract). The composition comprises from about 10% to about 80% by weight of at least one fatty substance (¶ [0011]). The at least one fatty substance may be mineral oil (¶ [0123]). The composition may comprise water as a cosmetically acceptable solvent (¶ [0189]). The cosmetically acceptable solvent may be employed in an amount ranging from about 5% to about 50% by weight (¶ [0193]).
The composition of Azizova comprises mineral oil and water but Azizova does not disclose the range of amount of these components. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated about 10% to about 80% mineral oil and about 5% to about 50% water into the composition of Azizova since these are known and effective ranges of amount for these components in a hair coloring composition as taught by Benn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that they have amended the claims in order to make the claimed composition more commensurate in scope with the results provided in the specification.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Table 1 of the instant specification shows wherein a specific composition comprising a specific inorganic compound (e.g., sodium metasilicate), a specific organic compound (e.g., glycine), a specific alkaline agent (e.g., ethanolamine), a specific fatty material (e.g., mineral oil), and water has better results in terms of bleach test, labile protein test, and cysteic acid test compared to compositions not comprising this combination. Independent claims 16 and 30 as currently recited are not limited to a specific inorganic compound, a specific alkaline agent, and a specific fatty material. Although Applicant has narrowed the inorganic compound, the alkaline agent, and the fatty material to the class that sodium metasilicate, ethanolamine, and mineral oil belong to, respectively, the claims are still not commensurate in scope with the showing. Applicant has not provided any examples showing wherein the same results may be obtained from other compounds within the same class. One of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably expect the results from the showing with any inorganic compound, alkaline agent, or fatty material within the same class as the compounds in the showing since different compounds have different chemical and physical properties, such as alkalinity, solubility, thermal stability, and reactivity which would change the results depending on which exact compound is used.
Additionally, independent claim 16 and 30 do not recite the amount of inorganic compound, organic compound, alkaline agent, and water. One of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably expect the results from the showing with any amount since alkalinity of a composition affects bleaching and amounts of each component affects alkalinity. Therefore, the amounts are critical for achieving the results in the showing. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
Claims 16-19, 22, 24-33, 35 and 37 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5 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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/TRACY LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614