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 .
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.
Claim Status
Applicant’s amendment of 01/20/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 19, 21, 23, 25, 28, and 28 are amended, and claims 1-18 remain cancelled. Claims 19-38 are currently pending.
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 The election is maintained and claims 37-38 remain withdrawn.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.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/23/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the Examiner.
Withdrawn Objections and Rejections
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome/rendered moot the previous 112(b) rejections. Thus, the rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 19-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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 (Claim 5).
In an exemplary embodiment (Paragraph 0245, Composition D2), 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.
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.
Gross discloses that the distearyldimethylammonium-modified hectorite is an example of a thickener, along with guar gum and derivatives thereof (Paragraph 0143). Gross specifically exemplifies hydroxypropyl guar—a nonionic guar gum as evidenced by Applicant’s instant specification, which states that hydroxypropyl guar is a preferential nonionic guar gum modified with hydroxyalkyl groups (Instant Specification, Page 8, lines 7-9)—as a suitable thickener, among 10 others (Paragraphs 0142-0148). Because Gross exemplifies a limited number of specific thickeners, one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage an embodiment wherein hydroxypropyl guar, which reads on the instantly claimed at least one guar gum recited in instant claims 19, 20, and 26, 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 the liquid petroleum jelly is a hydrocarbon with more than 16 carbon atoms (Paragraph 0042), the octyldodecanol is a liquid saturated fatty alcohol (Paragraph 0047) which reads on claims 21-22, and the oleyl alcohol is a liquid unsaturated fatty alcohol (Paragraph 0049) which also reads on claims 21-22. Therefore, the components 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 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 the monoethanolamine is an alkalizing agent (Paragraph 0093), which reads on the at least one alkaline agent recited in instant claim 34.
Gross discloses that the Poloxamer 184 is a nonionic surfactant, which reads on the at least one surfactant recited in instant claims 31 and 32.
Gross discloses that the diethylenetriaminepentaacetic acid is a chelant also known as a “sequestrant” (Paragraphs 0149 and 0159), which reads on the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33.
Gross discloses that the resorcinol and the aminohydroxytoluene are coupler components of the oxidative dye precursor (Paragraphs 0104-0113), which read on the at least one oxidation dye coupler recited in instant claim 29.
Regarding instant claim 30, Gross discloses that the one or more couplers may include 6-hydroxybenzomorphofine, 2-amino-5-ethylphenol, and hydroxyethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyaniline, among approximately 45 others (Paragraph 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. Because Gross exemplifies a limited number of specific oxidation couplers, one of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage an embodiment wherein 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 2-amino-5-ethylphenol, and/or hydroxyethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyaniline are the selected oxidation coupler(s). Note: MPEP 2131.02(II). When the species is clearly named, the species claim is anticipated no matter how many other species are additionally named. See Ex parte A, 17 USPQ2d 1716 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990).
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 (Paragraphs 0247). Composition F1 (Paragraph 0246, Table) comprises: hydrogen peroxide as an oxidizing agent (Paragraph 0178); 20% w/w liquid petroleum jelly; and 8% w/w cetearyl alcohol; among other ingredients. Cetearyl alcohol is a solid fatty substance as evidenced by Applicant’s instant specification, which states that cetearyl alcohol is a preferential solid fatty alcohol (Instant Specification, Page 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 19-36.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted on 01/20/2026 with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but were not found to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gross fails to anticipate claim 19, asserting that a “disjointed” disclosure of guar gum in a different portion of Gross does not constitute a disclosure of the claimed composition and that the “at once envisage” reasoning for anticipate is flawed and inapplicable here. Applicant asserts that the Office is impermissibly picking and choosing from disparate portions of Gross to arrive at the claimed composition and alleges that this constitutes impermissible hindsight-based reconstruction of the reference. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, Applicant cites MPEP 2131 to support the assertion that anticipation requires that a single prior art reference disclose each and every limitation of the claimed invention as arranged in the claim (emphasis added). However, MPEP 2131 explicitly states that 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)) (emphasis added).
Regarding Applicant’s argument that the “at once envisage” reasoning is flawed and inapplicable: In Kennametal, the Federal Circuit held that the reference’s express contemplation of a claimed element provided sufficient evidence that a person skilled in the art would immediately envisage a claimed combination in view of a limited number of combination possibilities, even though the reference did not explicitly disclose the specific combination as arranged in the claim. In the instant case, Gross expressly contemplates the use of hydroxypropyl guar as a thickener, among to a limited number of thickeners including hectorites. This contemplation is made within a single sentence of the disclosure, not within disparate portions of the disclosure. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that an ordinarily skilled artisan could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the thickener in Gross’ composition D2 is hydroxypropyl guar rather than the modified hectorite.
Regarding Applicant’s argument of alleged impermissible hindsight based on picking and choosing optional components: Gross’ composition D2 clearly includes a thickener and, thus, the ingredient is not arbitrarily selected among “numerous possible choices” of optional components, as alleged by Applicant. Further, as discussed above, Gross expressly contemplates the use of a guar gum in its compositions. Because Gross clearly discloses each and every element of the composition recited in claim 19, the prior art reference anticipates the claim.
Applicant further argues that the claims are unpatentable over Gross in view of unexpected benefits, asserting that Gross does not recognize or suggest that guar gums are advantageous over other thickeners such as hydroxyethyl cellulose. Because the cited prior art anticipates Applicant’s instantly claimed invention, as discussed in detail above, rebuttal evidence including secondary considerations are not considered at this time.
Lastly, Applicant argues that claims 20-36, which depend from independent claim 19, are also patentable at least by virtue of their dependence from claim 19. This argument was not found to be persuasive for the same reasons as applied to claim 19 above.
In view of the foregoing, the prior art rejections of record art 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 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-37 of copending Application No. 18/704,694 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
App. ‘694 claim 18 recites 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. App. ‘694 claim 19 recites 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. App. ‘694 claims 21-23 further limit the oxidation coupler(s) and the at least one amphoteric or zwitterionic surfactant. App. ‘694 claims 24 and 25 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. App. ‘694 claim 28 recites at least one surfactant chosen from anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, or mixtures of two or more thereof, which reads on instant claim 32. App. ‘694 claim 29 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. App. ‘694 claim 33 recites that the composition is free of any chemical oxidizing agents, which reads on instant claim 35. App. ‘694 claims 34-37 recite a method comprising applying a mixture comprising a dyeing composition and an oxidizing composition, and kit comprising a dyeing composition and an oxidizing composition, wherein the dyeing composition comprises the components of claim 19 and the oxidizing composition comprises at least one chemical oxidizing agent. Therefore, the mixture reads on instant claim 36.
The claims of App. ‘694 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. ‘694 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 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 claims of App. ‘694 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, Paragraph 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, Paragraph 0087).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the composition recited in the claims of App. ‘694 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.
Claims 19-36 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-38 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 claims of App. ‘729 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘729 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 claims of App. ‘729 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 18-37 of copending Application No. 18/704,694 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 16-65 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 claims of App. ‘820 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘820 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 claims of App. ‘820 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 18-37 of copending Application No. 18/704,694 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 claims of App. ‘820 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 1-19 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 claims of App. ‘686 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘686 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 alkaline agent recited in instant claim 34.
The claims of App. ‘686 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 18-37 of copending Application No. 18/704,694 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 alkaline agent recited in instant claim 34, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition recited in the claims of App. ‘686 by further including at least one alkaline agent. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to include an alkaline agent because Gross teaches that the reaction of an alkalizing agent with an oxidizing agent creates a suitable environment to deliver a consumer-desired permanency of color (Gross, Paragraph 0002).
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 19-38 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 claims of App. ‘088 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘088 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 claims of App. ‘088 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 18-37 of copending Application No. 18/704,694 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 17-36 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 claims of App. ‘688 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘688 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 claims of App. ‘688 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 18-37 of copending Application No. 18/704,694 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 claims of App. ‘688 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, Paragraphs 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 21-40 of copending Application No. 18/717,326 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The claims of App. ‘326 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘326 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 claims of App. ‘326 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 18-37 of copending Application No. 18/704,694 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 claims of App. ‘326 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, Paragraphs 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 21-39 of copending Application No. 18/717,318 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The claims of App. ‘318 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘318 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 claims of App. ‘318 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 18-37 of copending Application No. 18/704,694 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 claims of App. ‘318 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, Paragraph 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 claims of App. ‘318 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, Paragraphs 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 21-40 of copending Application No. 18/717,308 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The claims of App. ‘308 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘308 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 claims of App. ‘308 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 18-37 of copending Application No. 18/704,694 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 claims of App. ‘308 by selecting 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as the oxidation base, which is a species of the para-phenylenediamine species recited in App. ‘308 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 App. ‘308 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 claims of App. ‘308 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, Paragraphs 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 19-38 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 claims of App. ‘304 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘304 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 claims of App. ‘304 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 18-37 of copending Application No. 18/704,694 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 claims of App. ‘304 by selecting 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as the oxidation base, which is a species of the para-phenylenediamine species recited in App. ‘304 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 App. ‘304 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 claims of App. ‘304 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, Paragraphs 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 1-20 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 claims of App. ‘321 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘321 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 claims of App. ‘321 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 18-37 of copending Application No. 18/704,694 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 claims of App. ‘321 by selecting 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as the oxidation base, which is a species of the para-phenylenediamine species recited in App. ‘321 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 App. ‘321 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 claims of App. ‘321 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, Paragraphs 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 24-31 and 35-43 of copending Application No. 18/574,814 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
App. ‘814 claim 1 recites a composition comprising: at least one oxidation dye chose from (i) at least one coupler chosen from 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, hydroxyethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyaniline, or 2-amino-5-ethylphenol, (ii) at least one base chosen from 2-β-hydroxyethyl-para-phenylenediamine, 2-(γ-hydroxypropyl)-para-phenylenediamine, or 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenlyenediamine, or (iii) mixtures of any or more thereof; propane-1,3-diol; at least one alkaline agent; and at least one fatty substance other than fatty acids. One of ordinary skill in the art could at once envisage an embodiment wherein the oxidation dye is a mixture of any one of the couplers, which read on those recited in instant claims 29 and 30, and 2-methyoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine, which reads on the 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine of instant claim 19. The at least one alkaline agent reads on instant claim 34, and the at least one fatty substance reads on the same recited in instant claim 19. App. ‘814 claim 25 recites that the at least one oxidation dye is chosen from the (i) coupler(s), but the comprising language of claim 24 does not exclude the inclusion of other components, such as the (ii) base(s). App. ‘814 claims 26-29 further limit the coupler(s), the propane-1,3-diol, and the at least one alkaline agent. App. ‘814 claim 30 recites at least one liquid fatty substance other than fatty acids, which reads on instant claim 21, and claim 31 recites at least one solid fatty substance, which reads on instant claim 23. App. ‘814 claim 35 recites at least one additional coupler, which also reads on the at least one oxidation coupler recited in instant claim 29. App. ‘814 claim 36 recites at least one surfactant, which reads on instant claim 31, and claim 37 recites that the at least one surfactant is chosen from anionic surfactants, nonionic surfactants, or mixtures thereof, which reads on instant claim 32. App. ‘814 claim 38 recites at least one sequestrant, which reads on instant claim 33. App. ‘814 claim 39 recites at least one thickening polymer. App. ‘814 claim 40 recites that the composition is free of any chemical oxidizing agents, which reads on instant claim 35, and claim 41 recites that the composition further comprises at least one chemical oxidizing agent, which reads on instant claim 36. App. ‘814 claims 42 and 43 recite a method comprising mixing a dyeing composition and an oxidizing composition, and kit comprising a dyeing composition and an oxidizing composition, wherein the dyeing composition comprises the components of claim 24 and the oxidizing composition comprises at least one chemical oxidizing agent.
The claims of App. ‘814 differ from the instant claims in that the claims of App. 814 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 claims of App. ‘814 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, Paragraph 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, Paragraph 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 (Paragraph 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 claims of App. ‘814 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, Paragraph 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 (Paragraph 0120).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the composition recited in the claims of App. ‘814 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.
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 (patented form of previously provisionally rejected copending Application No. 18/037,247) in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The claims of US ‘035 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of US ‘035 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 claims of US ‘035 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 24-31 and 35-43 of copending Application No. 18/574,814 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 1-21 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 claims of App. ‘841 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘841 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 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 claims of App. ‘841 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 24-31 and 35-43 of copending Application No. 18/574,814 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
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 1-33 of copending Application No. 18/703,978 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The claims of App. ‘978 recite a process for dyeing and/or lightening keratin fibers, preferably hair, comprising composition (A) comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘978 do not recite that the one or more polysaccharide(s) 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, the at least one surfactant recited in instant claims 31 and 32, or the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33.
The claims of App. ‘978 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 24-31 and 35-43 of copending Application No. 18/574,814 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
Regarding the at least one surfactant recited in instant claims 31 and 32, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include an anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant, or mixtures of two or more thereof as the at least one surfactant recited in the claims of App. ‘978 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, Paragraph 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 claims of App. ‘978 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, Paragraphs 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 1-13 and 15 of copending Application No. 18/573,764 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The claims of App. ‘764 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘764 do not recite that the one or more dyes comprises chosen from oxidations bases is 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine 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, the at least one oxidation coupler recited in instant claims 29 and 30, or the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33.
The claims of App. ‘764 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 24-31 and 35-43 of copending Application No. 18/574,814 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 App. ‘764 by selecting 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as the oxidation base 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 taught by Gross, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, since the reference teaches 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 oxidation coupler recited in instant claims 29 and 30, 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 App. ‘764 by further including 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 2-amino-5-ethylphenol, and/or hydroxyethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyaniline as an oxidation coupler because Gross teaches that the compounds are suitable for use in combination with oxidative bases, i.e. primary intermediates such as 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine, in order to obtain different shades (Gross, Paragraph 0101).
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 claims of App. ‘764 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, Paragraphs 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 1-15 and 17-20 of copending Application No. 18/573,915 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The claims of App. ‘915 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘915 do not recite that the one or more dyes comprises chosen from oxidations bases is 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine 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, that the at least one oxidation coupler is 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 2-amino-5-ethylphenol, and/or hydroxyethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyaniline as recited in instant claim 30, or the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33.
The claims of App. ‘915 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 24-31 and 35-43 of copending Application No. 18/574,814 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 App. ‘915 by selecting 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as the oxidation base 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 taught by Gross, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, since the reference teaches 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 oxidation coupler recited in instant claim 30, 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 App. ‘915 by selecting 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 2-amino-5-ethylphenol, and/or hydroxyethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyaniline as the oxidation coupler because Gross teaches that the compounds are suitable for use in combination with oxidative bases, i.e. primary intermediates such as 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine, in order to obtain different shades (Gross, Paragraph 0101).
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 claims of App. ‘915 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, Paragraphs 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 1-16 and 18-22 of copending Application No. 18/573,928 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The claims of App. ‘928 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘928 do not recite that the one or more dyes comprises chosen from oxidations bases is 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine 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, the at least one surfactant recited in instant claims 31 and 32, or the at least one sequestrant recited in instant claim 33.
The claims of App. ‘928 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 24-31 and 35-43 of copending Application No. 18/574,814 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 App. ‘928 by selecting 2-(methoxymethyl)benzene-1,4-diamine as the oxidation base 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 taught by Gross, which lies within and thus renders obvious the instantly claimed range, since the reference teaches 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 claims 31 and 32, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to further include an anionic surfactant, nonionic surfactant, or mixtures of two or more thereof as the at least one surfactant recited in the claims of App. ‘928 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, Paragraph 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 claims of App. ‘928 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, Paragraphs 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 1-20 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 claims of App. ‘983 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘983 do not recite 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 claims of App. ‘983 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 24-31 and 35-43 of copending Application No. 18/574,814 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
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 1-20 of U.S. Pat. No. 12,390,408 B2 (patented form of previously provisionally rejected copending Application No. 18/266,726) in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The claims of US ‘408 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of US ‘408 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 claims of US ‘408 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 24-31 and 35-43 of copending Application No. 18/574,814 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 claims of US ‘408 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, Paragraphs 0149 and 0198).
Claims 19-36 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,290,586 B2 in view of Gross et al. (EP3295924A1; published: 03/21/2018; PTO-892 of 06/25/2025).
The claims of US ‘586 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of US ‘586 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 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 claims of US ‘586 are rejected for the same/similar reasons as discussed above in the double patenting rejection over claims 24-31 and 35-43 of copending Application No. 18/574,814 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 US ‘586 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 US ‘586 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, 24-26, and 28-39 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 claims of App. ‘294 recite a composition comprising all components of the instantly claimed composition except that the claims of App. ‘294 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 the thickener 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 (Paragraph 0143), which are preferably present in the range of 0.01% to 20% by weight of the total composition (Paragraph 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 claims of App. ‘294 by substituting the at least one cellulosic associative polymer with the hydroxypropyl guar 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 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, Paragraph 0144).
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, Paragraph 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 (Paragraph 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 claims of App. ‘294 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 claims of App. ‘294 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 claims of App. ‘294 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
Applicant’s request in the Remarks filed 01/20/2026 for the double patenting rejections of record to be withheld until the claims are otherwise in condition for allowance 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 MPEP 37 CFR 1.111(b) and 714.02). Accordingly, the rejections will be maintained until a terminal disclaimer is filed or claims are amended to obviate the rejections.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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 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