DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/24/2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
No claim amendments were submitted with the request for continued examination filed 08/24/2026. Claims 1-18 remain cancelled. Claims 19-38 are currently pending.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/086275 filed on 12/16/2021 and
claims foreign priority to FR2013504 filed on 12/17/2020 as reflected in the filing receipt
dated on 09/27/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by
37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
An election of invention/species was required in the instant application as detailed in the Office action dated 06/25/2025. The election is maintained and claims 37-38 remain withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 19-36 are examined on the merits herein.
Previous Rejections/Objections
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/24/2026 have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous Office Action are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied as necessitated by Applicant’s amendment to the claims. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application. Applicant’s arguments insofar as they pertain to the present grounds of rejections and/or objections are addressed herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 19-36 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.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “at least one fatty substance in a total amount of greater than or equal to 30% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition”. It is unclear how the composition can comprise fatty substance(s) in a range of at least 30% by weight, which encompasses embodiments wherein the fatty substance(s) is present in an amount of 100% by weight, and also comprise 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine and at least one guar gum, which are required components of the claimed composition. Therefore, the scope of each claim is indefinite. Claims 20-36 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 19, as they fail to resolve the ambiguity in question.
Claims 27 and 28 each recite the limitation “wherein the total amount of…fatty substance(s) is greater than or equal to 35% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition”. It is unclear how the composition can comprise fatty substance(s) in a range of at least 35% by weight, which encompasses embodiments wherein the fatty substance(s) is present in an amount of 100% by weight, and also comprise 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine and at least one guar gum, which are required components of the claimed composition. Therefore, the scope of each claim is indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
Claims 19-29 and 31-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
Gross discloses a composition for dyeing keratin fibers, comprising at least 20% by weight of fatty substances free of carboxylic acid groups relative to the total weight of the composition; at least one alkalizing agent; at least one surfactant; at least two oxidative dye precursors comprising one or more primary intermediates and one or more couplers; and at least one oxidizing agent [abstract; claims].
In an exemplary embodiment, a dyeing composition comprises: 55% w/w liquid petroleum jelly; 10% w/w octyldodecanol; 5% w/w oleyl alcohol; 1.5% w/w distearyldimethylammonium-modified hectorite; 0.25% w/w ascorbic acid; 0.5% w/w propylene carbonate; 2% w/w propylene glycol; 2.5% w/w ethanol; 1% w/w hexylene glycol; 1% w/w dipropylene glycol; 4.5% w/w monoethanolamine; 9% w/w Poloxamer 184; 1% w/w diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid; 0.050% w/w 2-methoxymethyl-p-phenylenediamine; 0.036% w/w p-aminophenol; 0.060% w/w resorcinol; 0.015% w/w aminohydroxytoluene; and demineralized water [0245, composition D2].
The 2-methoxymethyl-p-phenylenediamine reads on the instantly claimed 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine recited in instant claims 19 and 25, and the amount lies within and thus anticipates the range recited in instant claim 25.
Regarding the instantly claimed at least one guar gum recited in instant claims 19, 20, and 26, Gross specifically exemplifies guar gum and its derivative hydroxypropyl guar—a nonionic guar gum as evidenced by Applicant’s instant specification [instant spec., pg. 8, lines 7-9]—and distearyldimethylammonium-modified hectorite as a suitable thickeners, among only 9 other specifically disclosed thickeners (e.g., coconut acid diethanolamide, coconut acid monoethanolamide, oxyethylenated alkyl ether carboxylic acid monoethanolamide, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropylcellulose, carboxymethylcellulose, dimethyl alkyl ammonium hectorite, benzyl dimethyl stearyl ammonium hectorite, and aluminum magnesium silicate treated with distearyl dimethyl ammonium chloride) [0142-0148]. Because Gross discloses a limited number of specific thickeners, one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage an embodiment wherein guar gum or hydroxypropyl guar is selected as the thickener rather than the distearyldimethylammonium-modified hectorite. The amount of thickener in composition D2 lies within and thus anticipates the range recited in instant claim 26. Note: MPEP 2131.02(III). A reference disclosure can anticipate a claim when the reference describes the limitations but "'d[oes] not expressly spell out' the limitations as arranged or combined as in the claim, if a person of skill in the art, reading the reference, would ‘at once envisage’ the claimed arrangement or combination." Kennametal, Inc. v. Ingersoll Cutting Tool Co., 780 F.3d 1376, 1381, 114 USPQ2d 1250, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676, 681(CCPA 1962)).
Gross discloses that liquid petroleum jelly is a hydrocarbon with more than 16 carbon atoms [0042], octyldodecanol is a liquid saturated fatty alcohol [0047], and oleyl alcohol is a liquid unsaturated fatty alcohol [0049]. Therefore, these components of composition D2 read on the at least one fatty substance recited in instant claims 19 and 27 and the at least one liquid fatty substance recited in instant claims 21, 22, and 28. The combined amount of liquid fatty substances (70% w/w; calculated by Examiner) lies within and thus anticipates the ranges recited in instant claims 27 and 28.
Gross discloses that monoethanolamine is an alkalizing agent [0093], which reads on the at least one alkaline agent recited in instant claim 34.
Gross discloses that Poloxamer 184 is a nonionic surfactant, which reads on the at least one surfactant recited in instant claims 31 and 32.
Gross discloses that diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid is a chelant also known as a “sequestrant” [0149; 0159], which reads on the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33.
Gross discloses that resorcinol and aminohydroxytoluene are coupler components of the oxidative dye precursor [0104-0113], which read on the at least one oxidation dye coupler recited in instant claim 29.
Regarding instant claim 35, Gross’s composition D2 does not comprise a chemical oxidizing agent and, thus, reads on the limitation wherein the composition is free or essentially free of any chemical oxidizing agent.
Regarding instant claims 23, 24, and 36, Gross discloses that one part by weight of composition D2 is mixed with one part by weight of oxidizing composition F1 [00245-247]. Composition F1 comprises hydrogen peroxide as an oxidizing agent [0178]; 20% w/w liquid petroleum jelly; and 8% w/w cetearyl alcohol; among other ingredients. Cetearyl alcohol is a solid fatty alcohol as evidenced by Applicant’s instant specification [instant spec., pg. 15, lines 26-28]. Therefore, the combined amount of fatty substances in composition F1 is 28% w/w (calculated by Examiner). When mixed with composition D2 in a weight ratio of 1:1, the resulting composition comprises 49% w/w fatty substances (calculated by Examiner), which still lies within the range recited in instant claim 19. Therefore, the resulting composition reads on instant claims 23, 24, and 36.
Together, the disclosure of Gross anticipates all limitations of instant claims 19-29 and 31-36.
In the event that the disclosure of Gross is interpreted as not anticipating the instantly claimed guar gum, alternatively, it would have been prima facie obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify Gross’s composition D2 by further including guar gum and/or hydroxypropyl guar in addition to, or in place of, distearyldimethylammonium-modified hectorite in an amount ranging from 0.01% to 20% by total weight of the composition, which lies within and thus reads on the instantly claimed range, to achieve a desired consistency or viscosity. 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. There is a reasonable expectation of success because Gross teaches that its compositions may include one or more of these thickeners so long as their total content lies within the disclosed range.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
Gross anticipates or, in the alternative, renders obvious the invention(s) of claims 19-29 and 31-36 for the reasons set forth in detail above and further incorporated herein.
While Gross’s composition D2 exemplifies resorcinol and aminohydroxytoluene as oxidative couplers, the reference does not expressly teach that 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 2-amino-5-ethylphenol, and/or hydroxyethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyaniline are the oxidative couplers as recited in instant claim 30.
Regarding instant claim 30, Gross teaches that in addition to resorcinol and aminohydroxytoluene, the one or more oxidative couplers may also include 6-hydroxybenzomorphofine, 2-amino-5-ethylphenol, hydroxyethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyaniline, among others, and mixtures thereof [0110]. It is noted that 6-hydroxybenzomorphofine, which does not appear to correspond to a known chemical structure, is interpreted by the Examiner as a typographical error meant to represent 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine. It would have been prima facie obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to modify Gross’s composition D2 by further including 6-hydroxybenzomorphofine, 2-amino-5-ethylphenol, and/or hydroxyethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyaniline in addition to, or in place of, resorcinol and aminohydroxytoluene in order to obtain a desired shade as expressly encouraged by Gross [0101]. Since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art, 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 have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Note: MPEP 2141 KSR International CO. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 08/24/2026 with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103 have been fully considered in so far as they apply to the new or modified rejections of the instant Office action but were not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that guar gum is absent from Gross’s composition D2 and the “at once envisage” doctrine does not apply. Additionally, Applicant argues that Gross’s thickener list is neither short nor closed. These arguments were not found to be persuasive. As noted by Applicant, Kennametal addresses whether the disclosure of a limited number of combination possibilities discloses one of the possible combinations. In this case, and as supported by Applicant’s secondary argument which acknowledges hydroxypropyl guar as one among 11 other specifically named thickeners [Remarks, pg. 7, last para.], Gross discloses a limited selection of exemplary thickeners that are suitable for use in the composition. These include distearyldimethylammonium-modified hectorite, guar gum, hydroxypropyl guar, and only 9 others, which are described in the prior art rejections of record. Based on Gross’s short list of specifically contemplated thickeners, the Examiner maintains that one looking within the disclosure of Gross could at once envisage an embodiment wherein guar gum or hydroxypropyl guar is the thickener of choice.
Applicant further argues that Gross describes distearyldimethylammonium-modified hectorite as an emulsion aid and does not give the skilled reader any basis to assume that a guar gum would serve the same function. Later, however, Applicant asserts that “Gross groups all thickeners together without distinguishing between them” [Remarks, pg. 11, first para.]. While it appears that Applicant directly contradicts their position on the matter, Applicant provides no objective evidence to support the allegation that a guar gum would not serve the same emulsifying function as a modified clay. Because the reference clearly deems any of the specifically disclosed thickeners as suitable for use in its composition, the Examiner maintains that a skilled artisan, when reading the limited list of thickeners disclosed by Gross, could readily envision using guar gum or hydroxypropyl guar gum in place of distearyldimethylammonium-modified hectorite with a reasonable expectation of maintaining the desired thickening property.
Applicant further argues that the named-species doctrine of MPEP 2131.02(II) is inapplicable regarding claim 19. This argument is moot because the Examiner does not cite this portion of the MPEP to support the rejection of claim 19 as being anticipated by Gross.
Applicant further argues that claims 23, 24, and 36 are not anticipated because the mixture of composition D2 and composition F1 does not contain a guar gum. This argument was not found to be persuasive for the same reasons as discussed above in relation to claim 19.
Applicant further argues that claim 30 requires a second limitation to be imported into composition D2, including a selection from a list of approximately forty-five couplers disclosed by Gross. While the Examiner is persuaded that one of ordinary skill in the art may not readily envision the more limited subject matter of instant claim 30, the Examiner maintains that the claim is still obvious in view of Gross. The cited reference clearly discloses the instantly claimed oxidation couplers and expressly teaches that the couplers and primary intermediates may be varied to obtain different shades. In view of the prior art teachings, incorporating different oxidative couplers to achieve a different shade would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant further submits that the claims would not be obvious in view of Gross, arguing that the thickener is not an essential component of Gross’s invention. This argument was not found to be persuasive. First, Gross does not discourage the inclusion of a thickener but expressly discloses a selection of useful thickeners and even implements a thickener in each of its exemplary dye compositions. Thus, a skilled artisan seeking to improve Gross’s compositions would indeed consider optimizing the thickener. Furthermore, it is standard practice in the field of cosmetics to manipulate the thickness/viscosity of a composition to achieve a suitable consistency, which is often important for product stability and consumer acceptance.
Applicant further argues that Gross expressly directs the skilled artisan away from the proposed substitution by showing preference for a modified hectorite thickener. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the reference does not expressly criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed. Rather, the prior art teaches alternative embodiments. MPEP 2123(II) states “Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). ‘A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.' In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Furthermore, ‘[t]he prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….' In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004)”. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success in incorporating any of the thickeners disclosed by Gross, including guar gum and hydroxypropyl guar, which are specifically named and contemplated by the reference and would have been excluded from the disclosure altogether if they were not recognized as suitable for use in the invention.
In response to Applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., color intensity, selectivity, and grey coverage) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
To the extent that Applicant is attempting to argue unexpected results, the data presented in Applicant’s instant specification [pg. 62-63] are insufficient to establish nonobviousness. See MPEP 716.02(b). First, the data are not commensurate in scope with the instant claims. The instant claims are broadly drawn to a composition comprising any amount of 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine, any amount of any guar gum, and any combination of fatty substances in an amount of 30% by weight or greater, whereas Applicant’s exemplary dyeing composition comprises 0.9% 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine, 1% hydroxypropyl guar, and a specific combination of fatty substances (e.g., 60% liquid petroleum jelly, 1% PEG-40 hydrogenated castor oil). Further, Applicant has not demonstrated a side-by-side comparison to the closest prior art. Moreover, it is unclear based on Applicant’s data, which only evaluates color strength, that the allegedly superior color strength achieved by the instant invention is of statistical and practical significance because L* of the inventive composition (e.g., 25.46) does not appear to be a marked improvement over that of the comparative composition (e.g., 27.68).
In view of the foregoing, all features of the instantly claimed composition are anticipated by or rendered obvious in view of the cited Gross reference. Therefore, the prior art rejections of record are maintained.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 19-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,533,306 B2 (previously copending Application No. 18/704,694) in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising: a least one oxidation base chosen from 2-methoxymethyl-para-pheylenediamine of formula (I); at least one oxidation coupler chosen from 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine of formula (II); at least one amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant; and at least one solid fatty substance. The oxidation base reads on the 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine recited in instant claim 19, the oxidation coupler reads on instant claims 29 and 30, the surfactant reads on instant claim 31, and the solid fatty substance reads on the at least one fatty substance recited in instant claim 19 and the at least one solid fatty substance recited in instant claim 23. The reference claims further recite that the amount of oxidation base(s) ranges from 0.001 to 20% by weight of the total composition, which lies within and thus renders obvious the range recited in instant claim 25. The reference claims further limit the oxidation coupler(s) and the at least one amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant. The reference claims recite liquid fatty substances that read on instant claims 21 and 22 and claims 26 and 27 recite solid fatty substances that read on instant claims 23 and 24. The reference claims recite at least one surfactant chosen from anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, or mixtures of two or more thereof, which reads on instant claim 32. The reference claims recites at least one sequestrant, which reads on instant claim 33, and claims 30-32 recite at least one alkaline agent, which reads on instant claim 34. The reference claims recite that the composition is free of any chemical oxidizing agents, which reads on instant claim 35.
The reference claims differ from the instant claims in that the reference claims do not recite that the composition comprises at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28, or the oxidizing agent recited in instant claim 36.
The teachings of Gross are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding the at least one guar gum of instant claims 19, 20, and 26, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in the reference claims by including hydroxypropyl guar, as taught by Gross. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include hydroxypropyl guar because it is known in the art as a suitable thickener for use in dyeing compositions in order to optimize the viscosity of the composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of hydroxypropyl guar within the range taught by Gross, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, since the reference teaches that any amount of thickener between 0.01% to 20% by weight of the total composition is suitable for use in dyeing composition [Gross, 0144].
Regarding the amount of fatty substance(s) and liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19, 27, and 28, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of fatty substances, which may be liquid, within the range taught by Gross, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, since the reference teaches that any amount of fatty substances free of carboxylic acid groups between 30% to 55% by weight of the total composition is suitable for use in dyeing composition [Gross, 0087].
Regarding the oxidizing agent recited in instant claim 36, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the dyeing composition taught by the combination of reference claims and Gross with an oxidizing composition comprising an oxidizing agent, which react to form a hair coloring composition comprising the final dye molecules, because Gross teaches this is a routine practice in hair color by the application of dyes [Gross, 0002]. Since all of the claimed elements were known in the prior art, 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 have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Note: MPEP 2141 KSR International CO. v. Teleflex Inc. 82 USPQ 2d 1385 (Supreme Court 2007).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the composition recited in the reference claims with the teachings of Gross as proposed because all components and amounts are known in the art to be useful in formulating dyeing compositions.
Claims 19-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-36 of copending Application No. 18/266,729 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the composition comprises at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28, or the oxidizing agent recited in instant claim 36.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,533,306 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025), which is discussed in detail above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 19-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16 and 18-29 of copending Application No. 18/253,820 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the composition comprises at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28, or the type of surfactant recited in instant claim 32.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,533,306 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025), which is discussed in detail above.
Regarding the at least one surfactant recited in instant claim 32, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant, or mixtures of two or more thereof as the at least one surfactant recited in the reference claims because Gross teaches that surfactants selected from the group consisting of non-ionic surfactants, anionic surfactants and mixtures thereof, preferably, non-ionic surfactants [Gross, claim 13] are particularly useful in formulating dyeing compositions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 19-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-36 of copending Application No. 18/704,686 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the composition comprises at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, or the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,533,306 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025), which is discussed in detail above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 19-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-23 and 25-36 of copending Application No. 18/268,088 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the composition comprises at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, or the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,533,306 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025), which is discussed in detail above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 19-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 17-28 of copending Application No. 18/704,688 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the composition comprises at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28, or the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,533,306 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025), which is discussed in detail above.
Regarding the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in the reference claims by further including at least one sequestrant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a sequestrant in order to enhance the properties of the composition by reducing the amount of metals available to interact with formulation components, particularly oxidizing agents, as taught by Gross [Gross, 0149 and 0198].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 19-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,622,853 B2 (previously copending Application No. 18/717,326) in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the composition comprises at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28, or the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,533,306 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025), which is discussed in detail above.
Regarding the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in the reference claims by further including at least one sequestrant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a sequestrant in order to enhance the properties of the composition by reducing the amount of metals available to interact with formulation components, particularly oxidizing agents, as taught by Gross [Gross, 0149 and 0198].
Claims 19-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,728,089 B2 (previously copending Application No. 18/717,318) in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the composition comprises at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28, the type of surfactant recited in instant claim 32, or the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,533,306 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025), which is discussed in detail above.
Regarding the at least one surfactant recited in instant claim 32, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant, or mixtures of two or more thereof as the at least one surfactant recited in the reference claims because Gross teaches that surfactants selected from the group consisting of non-ionic surfactants, anionic surfactants and mixtures thereof, preferably, non-ionic surfactants [Gross, claim 13] are particularly useful in formulating dyeing compositions to provide an emulsion [Gross, 0122].
Regarding the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in the reference claims by further including at least one sequestrant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a sequestrant in order to enhance the properties of the composition by reducing the amount of metals available to interact with formulation components, particularly oxidizing agents, as taught by Gross [Gross, 0149 and 0198].
Claims 19-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12,558,301 B2 (previously copending Application No. 18/717,308) in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the composition comprises 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as the oxidation base as recited in instant claim 19 in the amount recited in instant claim 25, the at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28, or the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,533,306 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025), which is discussed in detail above.
Regarding the 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine recited in instant claim 19, it would have been obvious and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the composition recited in the reference claims by selecting 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as the oxidation base, which is a species of the para-phenylenediamine species recited in reference claim 3, because Gross teaches that the species is a suitable oxidative dye precursor for formulating dyeing compositions. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine within the range recited in reference claim 4, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, since the claims recite that any amount of oxidation base between 0.001% to 20% by weight of the total composition is suitable for use in the composition.
Regarding the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in the reference claims by further including at least one sequestrant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a sequestrant in order to enhance the properties of the composition by reducing the amount of metals available to interact with formulation components, particularly oxidizing agents, as taught by Gross [Gross, 0149 and 0198].
Claims 19-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-35 of copending Application No. 18/717,304 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the composition comprises 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as the oxidation base as recited in instant claim 19 in the amount recited in instant claim 25, that the at least one polysaccharide is the at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28, or the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,533,306 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025), which is discussed in detail above.
Regarding the 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine recited in instant claim 19, it would have been obvious and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the composition recited in the reference claims by selecting 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as the oxidation base, which is a species of the para-phenylenediamine species recited in reference claim 23, because Gross teaches that the species is a suitable oxidative dye precursor for formulating dyeing compositions. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine within the range recited in reference claim 24, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, since the claims recite that any amount of oxidation base between 0.001% to 20% by weight of the total composition is suitable for use in the composition.
Regarding the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in the reference claims by further including at least one sequestrant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a sequestrant in order to enhance the properties of the composition by reducing the amount of metals available to interact with formulation components, particularly oxidizing agents, as taught by Gross [Gross, 0149 and 0198].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 19-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 21-36 of copending Application No. 18/717,321 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the guar gum is non-ionic as recited in instant claim 20, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28, or the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,533,306 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025), which is discussed in detail above.
Regarding the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in the reference claims by further including at least one sequestrant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a sequestrant in order to enhance the properties of the composition by reducing the amount of metals available to interact with formulation components, particularly oxidizing agents, as taught by Gross [Gross, 0149 and 0198].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 19-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,755 B2 (previously copending Application No. 18/574,814) in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the polymeric thickener comprises at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, the type of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 22, the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28, the type of solid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 24, or the amount of 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine recited in instant claim 25.
The teachings of Gross are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Regarding the at least one guar gum of instant claims 19, 20, and 26, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in the reference claims by selecting hydroxypropyl guar, as taught by Gross, as the thickening polymer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include hydroxypropyl guar because it is known in the art as a suitable thickener for use in dyeing compositions in order to optimize the viscosity of the composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of hydroxypropyl guar within the range taught by Gross, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, since the reference teaches that any amount of thickener between 0.01% to 20% by weight of the total composition is suitable for use in dyeing composition [Gross, 0144].
Regarding the fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19, 22, 24, 27, and 28, Gross teaches that suitable fatty substances for use in dyeing compositions, other than fatty acids, include liquid fatty substances, such as liquid hydrocarbons, non-silicone oils of plant origin, liquid fatty alcohols, liquid fatty esters, silicones, or mixtures thereof [Gross, 0040], and non-liquid substances, such as fatty alcohols, esters of fatty acids and/or of fatty alcohols, and non-silicone waxes, which are preferably solid [Gross, 0071]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to select any combination of the liquid and solid fatty substance(s) disclosed by Gross for use in the composition recited in the reference claims because Gross teaches that these fatty substances are particularly useful in formulating dyeing compositions. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of fatty substances within the range taught by Gross, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, since the reference teaches that any amount of fatty substances free of carboxylic acid groups between 30% to 55% by weight of the total composition is suitable for use in dyeing composition [Gross, 0087].
Regarding the amount of 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine recited in instant claim 25, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine using 0.050% w/w as a starting point for routine optimization, as taught by Gross, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the amount of 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine because Gross teaches that the level of primary intermediates in the oxidative dye precursor within the composition dictates the level of color formed [Gross, 0120].
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the composition recited in the reference claims with the teachings of Gross as proposed because all components and amounts are known in the art to be useful in formulating dyeing compositions.
Claims 19-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. of U.S. Pat. No. 12,296,035 B2 (previously copending Application No. 18/037,247) in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the at least one thickening polymer is the at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,755 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
Claims 19-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-6, 9-17, and 22-23 of copending Application No. 18/257,841 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the para-phenylendiamine oxidation base is 2-(methyoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as recited in instant claim 19 or the amount recited in instant claim 25, that the at least one thickening polymer is the at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, or the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,755 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
Regarding the 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine recited in instant claim 19, it would have been obvious and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the composition recited in the reference claims by selecting 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as the oxidation base, which is a species of the para-phenylenediamine species recited in reference claim 23, because Gross teaches that the species is a suitable oxidative dye precursor for formulating dyeing compositions. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine within the range recited in reference claim 10, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, since the claims recite that any amount of oxidation base between 0.001% to 20% by weight of the total composition is suitable for use in the composition.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 19-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 and 21 of copending Application No. 18/257,983 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite the that the para-phenylenediamine oxidation base is 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as recited in instant claim 19, the at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, or the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,755 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
Regarding the 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine recited in instant claim 19, it would have been obvious and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the composition recited in the reference claims by selecting 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as the oxidation base, which is a species of the para-phenylenediamine species recited in reference claim 8, because Gross teaches that the species is a suitable oxidative dye precursor for formulating dyeing compositions. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine within the range recited in reference claim 9, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, since the claims recite that any amount of oxidation base between 0.001% to 20% by weight of the total composition is suitable for use in the composition.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 19-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,390,408 B2 (previously copending Application No. 18/266,726) in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the composition comprises the at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28, or the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,755 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
Regarding the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in the reference claims by further including at least one sequestrant. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include a sequestrant in order to enhance the properties of the composition by reducing the amount of metals available to interact with formulation components, particularly oxidizing agents, as taught by Gross [Gross, 0149 and 0198].
Claims 19-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,290,586 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims do not recite that the composition comprises 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as the para-phenylenediamine oxidation base as recited in instant claim 19 in the amount recited in instant claim 25, the at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the amount of fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 19 and 27, the type of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 22, the amount of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 28, the type of solid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 24, or the type of surfactant recited in instant claim 32.
The reference claims are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,755 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
Regarding the 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine recited in instant claim 19, it would have been obvious and one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the composition recited in the claims of US ‘586 by selecting 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as the oxidation base, which is a species of the para-phenylenediamine species recited in reference claim 6, because Gross teaches that the species is a suitable oxidative dye precursor for formulating dyeing compositions. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the amount of 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine within the range recited in reference claim 7, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, since the claims recite that any amount of oxidation base between 0.001% to 20% by weight of the total composition is suitable for use in the composition.
Regarding the at least one surfactant recited in instant claim 32, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant, or mixtures of two or more thereof as the at least one surfactant recited in the claims of US ‘586 because Gross teaches that surfactants selected from the group consisting of non-ionic surfactants, anionic surfactants and mixtures thereof, preferably, non-ionic surfactants [Gross, claim 13] are particularly useful in formulating dyeing compositions.
Claims 19-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 20-22 and 24-37 of copending Application No. 18/037,294 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The reference claims recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the reference claims recite that the composition comprises at least one cellulosic associative polymer and do not recite that the composition comprises at least one guar gum as recited in instant claims 19 and 20 in the amount recited in instant claim 26, the type of liquid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 22, the type of solid fatty substance(s) recited in instant claim 24, or the type of surfactant recited in instant claim 32.
The teachings of Gross are as set forth above and further incorporated herein.
Gross further teaches that one or more thickeners may be chosen from fatty acid amides, polymeric thickeners such as cellulose-based thickeners, guar gum and derivatives thereof such as hydroxpropyl guar, fumed silicas, and clays, which are preferably present in the range of 0.01% to 20% by weight of the total composition [Gross, 0143-0144].
Regarding the at least one guar gum recited in instant claims 19, 20, and 26, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in the reference claims by further including the hydroxypropyl guar thickener taught by Gross according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a dyeing composition having a desired viscosity. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the total amount of hydroxypropyl guar and cellulosic associative polymer within the range taught by Gross, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, since the reference teaches that any amount of thickener between 0.01% to 20% by weight of the total composition is suitable for use in dyeing composition.
Regarding the fatty substance(s) recited in instant claims 22 and 24, Gross teaches that suitable fatty substances for use in dyeing compositions, other than fatty acids, include liquid fatty substances, such as liquid hydrocarbons, non-silicone oils of plant origin, liquid fatty alcohols, liquid fatty esters, silicones, or mixtures thereof [Gross, 0040], and non-liquid substances, such as fatty alcohols, esters of fatty acids and/or of fatty alcohols, and non-silicone waxes, which are preferably solid [Gross, 0071]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to select any combination of the liquid and solid fatty substance(s) disclosed by Gross for use in the composition recited in the reference claims because Gross teaches that these fatty substances are particularly useful in formulating dyeing compositions.
Regarding the at least one surfactant recited in instant claim 32, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use an anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant, or mixtures of two or more thereof as the at least one surfactant recited in the reference claims because Gross teaches that surfactants selected from the group consisting of non-ionic surfactants, anionic surfactants and mixtures thereof, preferably, non-ionic surfactants [Gross, claim 13] are particularly useful in formulating dyeing compositions.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the composition recited in the reference claims with the teachings of Gross as proposed because all components and amounts are known in the art to be useful in formulating dyeing compositions.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks filed 08/24/2026, Applicant states that the non-statutory double patenting rejections over U.S. Patent Nos. 12,296,035 B2, 12,390,408 B2 and 12,290,586 B2 are premature and will be addressed when a claim is allowed. In addition, Applicant provided no response to the multiple provisional non-statutory double patenting rejections of record.
As there is no allowable subject matter indicated, the double patenting rejections of record are maintained. Applicant's apparent request for the double patenting rejections of record to be held in abeyance is acknowledged. However, this request to hold a rejection in abeyance is not a proper response to a rejection. Rather, a request to hold a matter in abeyance may only be made in response to an objection or requirements as to form (see 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP 714.02).
Since the rejections were not properly traversed, the rejections will be maintained until a terminal disclaimer is filed or claims are amended to obviate the rejections.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH CLINKSCALES WISTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-7715. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/SARAH C WISTNER/Examiner, Art Unit 1616
/Mina Haghighatian/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1616
Prosecution Insights