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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-14 and 16-18 in the reply filed on 12/03/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are currently under examination and the subject of the present Office Action. Claims 15 and 19 are withdrawn from consideration without traverse.
As such, the restriction is made final.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 01/05/2024 has been considered here.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim reads “further comrpises” but should read “further comprises” in the final line. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 5 is 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 5 recites the limitation of the agent (a) contains at least one organosilicon compound of formula (II), in lines 2-3, however when looking at formula (II) there are branches that are not previously defined or mentioned in the independent claim upon which claim 5 depends. For example, R5 is not given a definition. As there is no definition of what these branches are, it is not clear what the metes and bounds of the formula are (e.g., is R5 a C1-C6 alkylene or is it even required for the formula). Further, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
One with ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of the claim as written and as such it is indefinite. For purposes of search and consideration, claim 5 is understood to be depend from claim 2, instead of claim 1.
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 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
In regards to claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13, and 17, Jaiser teaches a composition A comprising methyltrimethoxysilane and (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane (at least one organosilicon compound selected from silanes having one, two, or three silicon atoms), a compound B comprising PEG-8 (a polyethylene glycol having an average of 400 g/mol molecular weight) and PEG-32 (a polyethylene glycol having an average of 1500 g/mol molecular weight), a compound C comprising a blue pigment with a color index number of 74160, and composition D comprising ethylene/sodium acrylate copolymer (see paragraphs 0389-0394) wherein compositions A-C are mixed and applied to hair followed by composition D (see paragraphs 0395-0397). Composition D is taught to be used for sealing (i.e., comprises a sealing reagent) (see paragraph 0266).
In regards to claim 16, the composition described above is applied to strands of hair (see paragraph 0395). The composition is taught to be applied to human hair in particular (see abstract; paragraphs 0021, 0034-0035, 0182).
In regards to claim 18, the pigment in composition C is taught to be a mica or mica-based pigment coated with at least one metal oxide and/or a metal oxychloride (see claim 20).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11, 13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024) as evidenced by POLIkol 6000 (2019).
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
Further, in regards to claim 5, the composition is taught to comprise, for example, 3-(trimethoxysilyl)-N-[3-(trimethosysil)propyl)-1-propanamine (an organosilicon compound of formula (II)) among others that also meet the requirements of formula (II) (see Jaiser, paragraph 0127). 3-(trimethoxysilyl)-N-[3-(trimethosysil)propyl)-1-propanamine is taught to be a well-suited embodiment of a compound of formula (II) in the instant specification as filed (see paragraph 0078 of the instant specification as filed).
In regards to claim 10, it is taught that the composition comprises alkylene glycols, such as polyethylene glycols, in composition B with the formula AG-Ia (as shown below)(see Jaiser, paragraphs 0187-0203).
PNG
media_image1.png
64
450
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is taught that x is an integer from 1 to 800, preferably from 4-150 (see Jaiser, paragraph 0202). This would include PEG 135, which is known to have an average molecular mass of 6000 g/mol (see POLIkol 6000, main description).
Jaiser does not teach with sufficient specificity to anticipate and so the claims are obvious. It would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the teachings of Jaiser with a reasonable expectation of success to obtain the method of the instant claims.
A reference is analyzed using its broadest teachings. MPEP 2123 [R-5]. “[W]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious”. KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007)(quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976). “[W]hen the question is whether a patent claiming the combination of elements of prior art is obvious”, the relevant question is “whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.” (Id.). Addressing the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court noted that the analysis under 35 USC 103 “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007). The Court emphasized that “[a] person of ordinary skill is… a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 1742. A person of ordinary skill in the art who is not an automaton is capable of producing the method of the instant claims with predictable results.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024) as applied to claims 1-11, 13, and 16-18 above, and further in view of US PGPUB 20220339089 A1 (Krohn, 2022) as evidenced by POLIkol 6000 (2019).
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
The teachings of Jaiser are silent on agent (b) comprising the at least one dyeing compound and the at least one dyeing compound comprising at least one organic pigment selected from the group consisting of those listed in claim 14.
In regards to claim 12, Krohn teaches a pretreatment agent for hair, agent (a), comprising (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane and methyltrimethoxysilane and a dye, agent (b), comprising a pigment (i.e., Timiron ® SynWhite Satin) and Acrylates/octylacrylamide Copolymer (see Krohn, paragraphs 0477-0478). Acrylates/octylacrylamide copolymer is taught as a polymer that is a sealing regent in the instant specification as filed (see paragraphs 0138-0146 of the instant specification as filed). TImiron® is taught to be a substrate platelet comprising mica and a coating comprising at least a metal oxide (see Krohn, paragraph 0272). It is taught that the example described above is applied to hair (see Krohn, paragraph 0479-0482), which are taught to be human hair (see Krohn, paragraphs 0444-0448).
Further, in regards to claim 14, the pigment is taught to be pigment based on a lamellar substrate platelet, pigments based on lenticular substrate platelets, pigments based on substrate platelets comprising “vacuum metallized pigments” (VMP) (see Krohn, paragraph 0374).
In regards to claims 1-14 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and Krohn to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons, polyethylene glycols, pigments) for similar methods (dying of human hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the pigment type and use of Krohn with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
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 1-13 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 and 10-11 of U.S. Patent No. 12329849 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US patent 12329849 are directed to a method for dyeing keratinous material, wherein the method comprises: applying a first agent to the keratinous material, wherein the first agent comprises at least one organosilicon compound from the group of silanes having one, two, or three silicon atoms; applying a second agent to the keratinous material, wherein the second agent comprises at least one sealing reagent; and applying a third agent to the keratinous material, wherein the third agent comprises at least one hydroxyamine-functionalized silicone polymer; wherein at least one of the first and/or second agents additionally comprises at least one dyeing compound from the group consisting of pigments and/or direct dyes (claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claim 5).
12329849 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol.
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-13 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 12329849 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 12329849 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 10-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11504319 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 11504319 are directed to a process for dyeing keratinous material comprising the following steps: applying an agent (a) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (a) comprises: (a1) at least one organic silicon compound selected from the group of silanes having one, two or three silicon atoms, and (a2) at least one first colorant compound comprising at least one substrate platelet-based pigment comprising a vacuum metallized pigment, and applying an agent (b) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (b) comprises: (b 1) at least one film-forming polymer and (b2) at least one second colorant compound selected from the group of pigments and/or direct dyes (claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 4 and 6).
11504319 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol.
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-14 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 11504319 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 11504319 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 12377034 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 12377034 are directed to a method for dyeing keratinous material, comprising the following steps: applying an agent (a) to the keratinous material, the agent (a) comprising an organic silicon compound, wherein the organic silicon compound comprises a compound of formula (IV) (as described in claim 1) and applying an agent (b) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (b) comprises: (b1) a colorant compound comprising a lenticular substrate platelet-based pigment, and (b2) a film-forming polymer (see claim 1). Claim 2 further narrows the organic silicon compound to a compound selected from silanes having one, two, or three silicon atoms.
12377034 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol.
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-14 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 12377034 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 12377034 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11504321 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 11504321 are directed to a process for dyeing keratinous material comprising: applying an agent (a) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (a) comprises: (a1) at least one organic silicon compound selected from the group consisting of silanes having one, two or three silicon atoms, and (a2) at least one first colorant compound comprising at least one lenticular substrate platelet based pigment, and applying an agent (b) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (b) comprises: (b1) at least one film-forming polymer, and (b2) at least one second colorant compound selected from the group consisting of pigments and/or direct dyes (see claim 1).
11504321 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol.
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-14 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 11504321 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 11504321 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11938211 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 11938211 are directed to a process for dyeing keratinous material comprising: applying an agent (a) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (a) comprises: (a1) at least one organic silicon compound selected from the group consisting of silanes having one, two or three silicon atoms, and (a2) at least one first colorant compound comprising at least one pigment based on a lamellar substrate platelet, and applying an agent (b) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (b) comprises: (b 1) at least one film-forming polymer, and (b2) at least one second colorant compound selected from the group consisting of pigments and/or direct dyes, wherein the at least one first colorant compound (a2) and the at least one second colorant compound (b2) comprise a same colorant compound or comprise different colorant compounds (see claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 4 and 6).
11938211 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol.
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-14 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 11938211 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 11938211 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11701318 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 11701318 are directed to a process for dyeing keratinous material comprising: applying an agent (a) to the keratinous material, the agent (a) comprising at least one organic silicon compound of the formula (I) and at least one organic silicon compound of the formula (IV) (both formulas described in claim 1), and applying an agent (b) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (b) comprises: (b1) at least one colorant compound comprising at least one pigment based on a lamellar substrate platelet, and (b2) at least one film-forming polymer (see claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 4 and 6).
11701318 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol.
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-14 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 11701318 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 11701318 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-13 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 and 15-16 of U.S. Patent No. 11331258 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 11331258 are directed to a process for dyeing keratinous material comprising the following steps: applying an agent (a) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (a) comprises at least one organic silicon compound having one, two or three silicon atoms and including one or more basic chemical functions and one or more hydroxyl groups or hydrolysable groups per molecule; at least one organic silicon compound of formula (IV) (as described in claim 1) and said agent (a) further comprising at least one oligoalkylsiloxane, and applying an agent (b) to the keratinous material, the agent (b) comprising at least one coloring compound selected from the group of pigments and direct dyes (see claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 4 and 6).
11331258 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol and a sealing reagent in agent (b).
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-13 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 11331258 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 11331258 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-13 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11291622 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 11291622 are directed to a process for dyeing keratinous material comprising the steps of: applying an agent (a) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (a) comprises at least one organic silicon compound, applying an agent (b) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (b) comprises at least one colorant compound selected from the group of pigments and/or direct dyes, applying an agent (c) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (c) comprises at least one silicone oil (see claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 5, 7, and 8).
11291622 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol and a sealing reagent in agent (b).
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-13 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 11291622 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 11291622 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-13 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11564876 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 11564876 are directed to a process for dyeing keratinous material comprising the steps of: applying an agent (a) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (a) comprises at least one organic silicon compound from the group of silanes with one, two or three silicon atoms, and wherein the agent (a) further comprises at least one silicone polymer, and applying an agent (b) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (b) comprises at least one pigment, wherein the agent (a)—based on the total weight of agent (a)—comprises: about 0.5 to about 3.0 weight % of at least one first organic silicon compound selected from the group of (3-aminopropyl)trimethoxysilane, (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane, (2-aminoethyl)trimethoxysilane, (2-aminoethyl)triethoxysilane, (3-dimethylaminopropyl)trimethoxysilane, (3-dimethylaminopropyl)triethoxysilane (2-dimethylaminoethyl)trimethoxysilane and (2-dimethylaminoethyl)triethoxysilane, and about 3.2 to about 10.0% by weight of at least one second organic silicon compound selected from the group of methyltrimethoxysilane, methyltriethoxysilane, ethyltrimethoxysilane, ethyltriethoxysilane, octyltrimethoxysilane, octyltriethoxysilane, dodecyltrimethoxysilane and dodecyltriethoxysilane (see claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 5-6).
11564876 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol and a sealing reagent in agent (b).
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-13 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 11564876 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 11564876 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-13 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of U.S. Patent No. 11564876 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 11564876 are directed to a process for dyeing keratinous material comprising the steps of: applying an agent (a) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (a) comprises at least one organic silicon compound from the group of silanes with one, two or three silicon atoms, and wherein the agent (a) further comprises at least one silicone polymer, and applying an agent (b) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (b) comprises at least one pigment, wherein the agent (a)—based on the total weight of agent (a)—comprises: about 0.5 to about 3.0 weight % of at least one first organic silicon compound selected from the group of (3-aminopropyl)trimethoxysilane, (3-aminopropyl)triethoxysilane, (2-aminoethyl)trimethoxysilane, (2-aminoethyl)triethoxysilane, (3-dimethylaminopropyl)trimethoxysilane, (3-dimethylaminopropyl)triethoxysilane (2-dimethylaminoethyl)trimethoxysilane and (2-dimethylaminoethyl)triethoxysilane, and about 3.2 to about 10.0% by weight of at least one second organic silicon compound selected from the group of methyltrimethoxysilane, methyltriethoxysilane, ethyltrimethoxysilane, ethyltriethoxysilane, octyltrimethoxysilane, octyltriethoxysilane, dodecyltrimethoxysilane and dodecyltriethoxysilane (see claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 5-6).
11564876 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol and a sealing reagent in agent (b).
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-13 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 11564876 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 11564876 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 12-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11992546 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 11992546 are directed to a process for dyeing keratinous material comprising the following steps: applying an agent (a) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (a) comprises: (a1) at least one organic silicon compound selected from the group of silanes having one, two or three silicon atoms, and (a2) at least one colorant compound comprising at least one substrate platelet-based pigment comprising a vacuum metallized pigment, and applying an agent (b) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (b) comprises: (b1) at least one sealing reagent. The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 4 and 7).
11992546 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol.
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-14 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 11992546 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 11992546 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11744789 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 11744789 are directed to a method for dyeing keratinous material, comprising the following steps: application of an agent (a) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (a) comprises: (a1) at least one organic silicon compound selected from the group of silanes having one, two or three silicon atoms, and (a2) at least one coloring compound comprising at least one effect pigment, the at least one effect pigment comprising i) a substrate platelet, ii) a metal oxide (hydrate) layer provided on a surface of the substrate platelet, iii) a metal particle carrier layer provided on a surface of the metal oxide (hydrate) layer, and iv) metal particles provided on a surface of the metal particle carrier layer, and application of an agent (b) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (b) comprises: (b1) at least one sealing reagent (see claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 4, 6, and 8).
11744789 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol.
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 11744789 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 11744789 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11918665 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 11918665 are directed to a process for dyeing keratinous material, comprising: applying an agent (a) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (a) comprises: (a1) at least one organic silicon compound selected from the group of silanes having one, two or three silicon atoms, and (a2) at least one colorant compound comprising at least one effect pigment comprising α) a substrate platelet and β) a coating, wherein the coating has at least one layer that is (i) a metal oxide and/or metal oxide hydrate and (ii) a coloring compound chosen from the group of pigments; and after applying the agent (a) to the keratinous material, applying an agent (b) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (b) comprises: (b1) at least one sealing reagent. (see claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 4, 6, and 8).
11918665 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol.
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 11918665 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 11918665 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 11826586 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 11826586 are directed to a process of dyeing keratinous material comprising: treating the keratinous material with a first composition (A) comprising: (A1) one or more organic C.sub.1-C.sub.6 alkoxy silanes and/or condensation products thereof, and (A2) at least one colorant compound selected from the group consisting of pigments and direct dyes, and a second composition (B) comprising: (B1) at least one alkalizing agent (see claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 3 and 5).
11826586 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol.
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 11826586 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 11826586 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11896701 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 11896701 are directed to a method of dyeing keratinous material, the method comprising the steps of: applying a first composition (A) to the keratinous material, the first composition (A) comprising: (A1) one or more organic C.sub.1-C.sub.6 alkoxysilanes and/or condensation products thereof, and (A2) at least one colorant compound selected from the group of pigments, direct dyes, or combinations thereof, and applying a second composition (B) to the keratinous material, the second composition (B) comprising: (B1) Tannic acid (see claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 3 and 5).
11896701 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol and a sealing reagent in agent (b).
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 11896701 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 11896701 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-13 and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 12357549 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent 12357549 are directed to a method for dyeing keratinous material, the method comprising: applying a first agent to the keratinous material, wherein the first agent comprises hydrogen peroxide and water; applying a second agent to the keratinous material, wherein the second agent comprises at least one organosilicon compound selected from the group consisting of silanes having one, two, and three silicon atoms; and applying a third agent to the keratinous material, wherein the third agent comprises at least one sealing reagent, wherein at least one of the second agent or the third agent further comprises at least one dyeing compound (see claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 4 and 7).
12357549 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol.
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-13 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 12357549 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 12357549 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10, 18, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12357554 B2 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Patent application 12357554 are directed to a method for dyeing keratinous material, comprising the following steps: applying an agent (a) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (a) comprises: (a1) an organic silicon compound selected from the group of silanes having one, two or three silicon atoms, and (a2) a colorant compound comprising a pigment, wherein the pigment comprises a substrate platelet, and the substrate platelet comprises a lamellar substrate platelet and applying an agent (b) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (b) comprises: (b1) a sealing reagent (see claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 4 and 7).
12357554 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol.
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-11, 13-14, and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 12357554 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 12357554 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Claims 1-14 and 16-18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-7, 9, 13-14, and 18 of copending Application No. 17628134 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US Application17628134 are directed to a method for dyeing keratinous material, the process comprising the steps of: applying an agent (a) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (a) comprises: (al) at least one organic silicon compound of the formula (I) and at least one organic silicon compound of the formula (IV) (formulas described in claim 1) and applying an agent (b) to the keratinous material, wherein the agent (b) comprises: (bl) at least one coloring compound comprising at least one effect pigment comprising i) a substrate platelet, ii) a metal oxide layer, comprising a metal oxide and/or a metal oxide hydrate, provided on the surface of the substrate platelet, iii) a metal particle carrier layer provided on the surface of the metal layer, and iv) metal particles provided on the surface of the metal particle carrier layer, and(b2) at least one film-forming polymer (see claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 5,7, and 9).
17628134 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol.
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-14 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 17628134 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 17628134 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-13 and 16-18 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3, 5, 7-10, and 18 copending Application No. 18283471 in view of US PGPUB 20220202681 A1 (Jaiser, 2022; as submitted on IDS of 01/05/2024).
Claims of US application 18283471 are directed to a method for dyeing keratinous material, the process comprising the steps of: applying a first composition to the keratinous material, the first composition comprising one or more organic C1-C6 alkoxy silanes of formula (S-I) and one or more of organic C1-C6 alkoxysilanes of formula (S-IV), the condensation products thereof, or a mixture thereof (formulas described in claim 1) and applying a second composition to the keratin material, the second composition comprising a dyeing compound comprising at least one of a pigment or a direct dye, ;and [[-]] applying a heat treatment to the keratin material. (see claim 1). The dependent claims further narrow the limitations to specific dyes and organosilicon compounds, which are identical to the instant claims (e.g. claims 3, 5, and 18).
18283471 is silent on agent (a) comprising polyethylene glycol and a sealing reagent in agent (b).
The teachings of Jaiser have been described supra.
In regards to claims 1-13 and 16-18, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Jaiser and 18283471 to formulate the instant method as both references teach compositions comprising similar ingredients (organosilicons and pigments) for similar methods (dying of hair). "It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose .... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art." In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980). One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the method of 18283471 with the method of dyeing hair of Jaiser to yield predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success. One with ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
No claims allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYAAN A ALAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1213. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/A.A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1611
/ISIS A GHALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611