DETAILED ACTION
1 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/23/2026 has been entered.
2 The cancellation of claim 24 is acknowledged. Pending claims are 19-23 and 25-38.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3 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.
4 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.
Claims 19-23 and 25-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (WO 2018/053117 A1) in view of Massoni Jack (CA 2514619 A1).
Gross et al. (WO’ 117 A1) teaches a hair dyeing composition comprising at least two oxidative dye precursors comprising primary intermediates include 2-methoxymethyl-p-phenylenediamine that represents the claimed formula (I) (see page 15, line 31) and couplers include hydroxyethyl-3,4-methylenedioxyaniline represents the claimed formula (II) as claimed in claim 19 (see page 15, line 22), wherein the dyeing composition comprises oxidative dye precursors in the amounts of 0.2% to 12% as claimed in claims 20-21 (see 25, lines 27-29), wherein the dyeing composition also comprises fatty substances include liquid or non-liquid fatty substances comprises liquid petroleum jelly and non-liquid fatty alcohols as claimed in claims 26-29 (see page 7, line 20, 27-34 and page 10, lines 22 and 32-34), wherein the dyeing composition also comprises surfactants include nonionic surfactants as claimed in claims 30-32 (see page 19, lines 6-35) and wherein the dyeing composition also comprises sequestering agent as claimed in claim 33 (see page 21, lines 15-16) and alkalizing agents as claimed in claims 34-35 (see page 12, lines 15-27), wherein the dyeing composition also comprises oxidizing agents as claimed in claim 36 (see page 24, lines 10-11). Gross et al. (WO’ 117 A1) also teaches a method for dyeing hair and kits as claimed in claims 37 and 38 (see page 27, lines 20-34).
The instant claims differ from the teaching of Gross et al. (WO’ 117 A1) by reciting a dyeing composition comprising nonionic surfactant of alkyl(poly)glycoside chosen from decyl glycoside, caprylyl/capryl glucoside, lauryl glucoside, coco glucoside, or mixtures thereof.
However, Gross et al. (WO’ 117 A1) teaches a dyeing composition comprising nonionic surfactants (see page 19, lines 14-15).
Massoni Jack (CA’ 619 A1) in analogous art of hair dyeing formulation, teach a dyeing composition comprising nonionic surfactants include alkylpolyglycosides in the amounts of 5-10 wt., % which is within the claimed range as claimed in claim 25 (see page 3, lines 21-22) and wherein the preferred alkylpolyglycosides include decyl glucoside, lauryl glucoside and caprylyl/capryl glucoside as claimed in claims 19, 23, 37 and 38 (see page 5, lines 25-26).
Therefore, in view of the teaching of Massoni Jack (CA’ 619 A1), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to be motivated to modify the dyeing composition of Gross et al. (WO’ 117 A1) by incorporating the nonionic surfactants of alkyl(poly)glycoside as taught by Massoni Jack (CA’ 619 A1) to arrive at the claimed invention. Such a modification would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based on the teaching of Massoni Jack (CA’ 619 A1) that refers to use nonionic surfactants of alkyl(poly)glycosides in a dyeing composition to help achieve optimum results , and, thus, the person of the ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use nonionic surfactants of alkyl(poly)glycosides in a dyeing composition with reasonable expectation of success of achieving optimum results of the dyeing composition and would expect such a dyeing composition to have similar property and similar results to those claimed. Absent unexpected results.
5 With regards to the weight ratio between the oxidation bases and the couplers as recited in claim 22. Gross et al. (WO’ 117 A1) clearly teaches oxidative dye precursors include oxidation dyes and couplers in the amounts of 0.2% to 12% (see 25, lines 27-29). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the weight ratio between the oxidation bases and the couplers in the dyeing composition so as to get the maximum effective amounts of these dyeing ingredients in the dyeing composition. The person of ordinary skill in the art would expect such a dyeing composition to have the similar properties to those claimed, absent unexpected results.
Response to Applicant’s Arguments
6 Applicant’s arguments filed 06/23/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims under 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (WO’ 117 A1) in view of Wang Jeffrey (US’ 832 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in this Office action.
Conclusion
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 on (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