DETAILED ACTION
1 This action is responsive to the amendment filed on September 30, 2025.
2 The rejection of the claims under 103 over Gross et al. (WO 2018/053177 A1) in view of Wang Jeffery (US 2017/0027832 A1) is maintained for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action that mailed on March 31,2025.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
3 Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of the claims under 103 over Gross et al. (WO’ 177 A1) in view of Wang Jeffery (US’ 832 A1), the applicant argued that Wang (US’ 832 A1) does not teach or disclose the claimed alkyl(poly)glycosides having the claimed formula R1O-(R2O)t-(G)v as claimed in claims 23 and 24.
The examiner respectfully, disagrees with the above arguments because Wang (US’ 832 A1) teaches alkyl(poly)glycoside having the following formula:
PNG
media_image1.png
26
120
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wherein R is a C8-C30 alkyl group, S is a sugar moiety such as glucose, fructose, mannose and galactose and n is an integer of from about 1 to about 1000 (see page 20, paragraph, 0365) and when in the claimed formula:
PNG
media_image2.png
46
168
media_image2.png
Greyscale
When in the claimed formula, t is 0, then the unit “(R2O)t” is 0 and the claimed formula could be represented by the following formula:
R1O-(G)v, wherein R1 is alkyl radical, (G) represents glucose, fructose and galactose and v represents a degree of polymerization ranging from 1 to 15 as claimed. Therefore, Wang (US’ 832 A1) teaches alkyl(poly)glycoside having a formula similar to those claimed.
With regards to the applicant’s arguments that no suggestion or motivation to modify references, the examiner would like to point out that the primary reference of Gross et al. (WO’ 177 A1), teaches an oxidation dye composition comprising particularly oxidation dye precursors include 2-methoxymethyl-p-phenylenediamine and hydroxyethyl-3,4-methylenedoxyaniline as claimed in claim 19 (see page 15, lines 23-28). Therefore, these oxidation dye precursors are particularly selected compounds among other oxidation dye precursors as taught by Gross et al. (WO’ 177 A1), which would have been obvious to skilled artisan.
Further, Gross et al. (WO’ 177 A1) as a primary reference, suggests the use of one or more surfactants include nonionic surfactants in oxidation dyeing composition (see page 19, lines 6-7).
Wang (US’ 832 A1) as a secondary reference teaches alkyl(poly)glycoside having the following formula similar to the claimed formula as claimed in claims 23 and 24 (see page 20, paragraph, 0365). Wang (US’ 832 A1) also teaches that alkyl glycosides nonionic surfactants are useful nonionic surfactants (see page 20, paragraph, 0365). Therefore, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would expect that the use of nonionic surfactants of alkyl(poly)glycoside as taught by Wang (US’ 832 A1) would be similarly useful and applicable to the analogous dyeing composition taught by Gross et al. (WO’ 177 A1). Accordingly, the rejection under 103 is proper and maintained.
Applicants have not shown on record the criticality of nonionic surfactants of alkyl(poly)glycosides in the claimed invention.
4 THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EISA B ELHILO whose telephone number is (571)272-1315. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:00 AM to 3:30 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at (571)272-2817. 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.
/EISA B ELHILO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1761
Prosecution Insights