CTFR 18/626,302 CTFR 100656 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of the Claims Amendments to the Claims and Arguments/Remarks filed 21 April 2026, in response to the Office Correspondence dated 22 January 2026, are acknowledged. The listing of Claims filed 21 April 2026, have been examined. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 5, 10, 14 and 19 are amended, and no claims have been canceled or added. Response to Amendment Amendment to the claims has been entered. The examiner has considered the applicant’s remarks concerning support in ¶[0019] and ¶[0024] of the as-filed specification. The examiner finds that the amendments to claims are 1, 5, 10, 14, and 19 supported. The applicant’s arguments have been considered and are not persuasive, as detailed below in the Response to Arguments. Accordingly, the prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are maintained as to all claims. The provisional double patenting rejections over the co-pending US Patent Application Nos. 18/084,396, 18/084,403, 18/084,404, 18/084,402, 18/626,294, 18/626,306, 18/626,281, 18/626,290, 18/626,300, 18/626,307, and 18/626,312, and the double patenting rejection over granted US Patent Application No. 17/936,431 (US Patent No. 12,458,576 B2) are maintained, as they provide an independent basis to prevent improper term extension. Maintained Rejections The following rejections are maintained from the previous Office Correspondence dated 22 January 2026, since the art which was previously cited continues to read on the amended/newly cited limitations. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-20-02-aia AIA This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3, 5-12, and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cannell et al. (US-20080085249-A1; published 10 April 2008, hereinafter referred to as “Cannell”) in view of Emiko et al. (JP-4592095-B2; published 01 December 2010, hereinafter referred to as “Emiko”) . Cannell teaches a hair color-removing composition formed by combining a first composition containing a sulfur reducing agent and a second composition containing an oxidizing agent (¶[0005], ¶[0007], ¶[0017], ¶[0029], and ¶[0041]). Specifically, Cannell discloses that acceptable sulfur reducing agents include thiolactic acid and thiosalicylic acid, as per the limitations of instant claims 2, 11, and 19 (¶[0019]). Furthermore, the reference teaches that water is a primary solvent, satisfying the at least one solvent limitation of instant claims 1, 10 and 19 (¶[0040] and the water content in ¶[0057], Examples A-D). Cannell discloses the addition of anionic surfactants in the composition (¶[0037]-[0039]; see also ¶[0057], Example A, which includes the anionic surfactant sodium C14-16 olefin sulfonate), as per the limitation of instant claim 8, and includes the organic amine monoethanolamine (¶[0024], and ¶[0057], Examples A-C). These additional components are conventional in hair compositions and would be obvious to include for formulation stability and wetting. Cannell also discloses that the pH of the final color-removing composition is between 0-5 (¶[0042]). Overlapping with the pH range of about 1-6 of instant claims 9 and 19. In the absence of evidence of criticality or unexpected results at the instant claimed pH range of 6, adjusting the pH to the ranges of the instant claims is considered obvious from the teachings of Cannell. Cannell further teaches methods of using the composition to remove artificial (oxidative) dye from hair, as recited in instant claims 10 and 18 (¶[0047] and ¶[0048]). The method step of applying the composition for a period of time of at least 5 minutes is taught in ¶[0053], encompassing the instant claim 17 range of about 5-45 minutes. The weight percentage ranges for the hair-color removing agent (i.e., sulfur reducing agent) as claimed in instant claims 3 and 12 are not explicitly listed by Cannell. However, Cannell teaches that the sulfur reducing agent can be present in the first composition in amounts from about 1-90%, and that in the final mixed composition, the amount is about half of the individual composition ranges, placing the final mixture's reducing agent content within a broad range that overlaps with or encompasses the instant claimed range of about 0.5-20% (¶[0023] and ¶[0045]). Cannell also teaches the use of thiolactic acid in compositions at 4-15% in Example C and 3.75% in Example A (¶[0057]), which is within the instant claim 19 range of from about 1-15% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition. Determining an appropriate and effective concentration range for an active agent within this broad effective range provided by Cannell is thus a matter of routine optimization within the ordinary skill of a formulator in the art. Cannell states that its compositions can contain a wide variety of optional additives as, “…can also comprise any additive usually used in the field under consideration”, including moisturizers and cosmetic and dermatological active agents, referencing U.S. patent application publication no. 20040170586 (¶[0033]), which states additional additive ingredients be found in the International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook (9th ed. 2002) (US20040170586A1, ¶[0455]), wherein these substances may be selected variously by the person skilled in the art and the amount thereof, in order to prepare a composition which has the desired properties, for example, consistency or texture (US20040170586A1, ¶[0456] and ¶[0458]) and wherein, “These additives may be present in the composition in a proportion from 0% to 20% (such as from 0.01% to 20%) relative to the total weight of the composition…” (US20040170586A1, ¶[0458]). Hyaluronic acid is a well-known and conventional moisturizing agent and cosmetic active in hair care compositions and The International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook (9th ed., 2002) certainly includes entries for the widely recognized cosmetic humectant and viscosity-increasing agent hyaluronic acid (page 706, Section 3; hyaluronic acid is listed with its primary function as a skin-conditioning agent) and sodium hyaluronate (page 1336, Section 3). However, Cannell does not explicitly disclose the inclusion of hyaluronic acid or a salt thereof in its hair color-removing compositions. Instant claims 5 and 14 also require a range of about 0.1-10 wt. % of the total composition as hyaluronic acid. Determining an effective and safe concentration range for such a conventional moisturizer additive, such as hyaluronic acid, from the 0-20% range taught by the reference citation is a matter of routine experimentation within the ordinary skill of a formulator. Furthermore, the instant claimed range is conventional for such cosmetic moisturizers and does not represent an inventive step over Cannell which includes the addition of such optional components. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to arrive at these conventional ranges through routine optimization to achieve the desired conditioning effect. Inclusion of hyaluronic acid to provide a moisturizing or conditioning benefit within the instant claimed range would have been an obvious and predictable modification to the color-removing composition taught by Cannell. Emiko is directed to hair color and removal compositions (left on for 5-30 minutes; page 2, last 2 lines). It teaches the use of hair treatment agents, like humectants, and establishes hyaluronic acid as a conventional moisturizing and conditioning agent known in the art and used in hair care compositions, such as the hair color and removal compositions of Emiko (page 3, lines 2 and lines 5-6). Emiko also clearly provides the motivation to include conventional hair treatment moisturizing and aesthetic-improving agents in other hair color and removal compositions, such as that of Cannell, by stating, “However, the hair decoloring agent…there is a concern about hair damage…and there is also a risk of hair damage…There's a problem.” (page 1, last 3 lines- page 2, first 2 lines). To mitigate this problem, Emiko teaches the optional use of various humectants, including hyaluronic acid, to improve aesthetics by providing hydration and reducing damage perception. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in the art at the time of the invention seeking to improve the conditioning properties or mitigate potential dryness from the chemical treatment or reduce potential hair damage from a color-removing treatment, such as that of Cannell, to incorporate the common effective cosmetic moisturizer hyaluronic acid. There is a reasonable expectation that adding this common cosmetic ingredient would successfully provide a conditioning benefit. Therefore, modifying the color-removing composition of Cannell by adding hyaluronic acid or its salt as a moisturizing agent to provide improved moisturization and conditioning benefits, as taught by the Emiko, to arrive at the instant invention as claimed without inventive ingenuity. The combination of a known hair-color removing agent and hyaluronic acid would have been a predictable use of these materials within the art because hyaluronic acid was widely used for conditioning/feel in hair compositions. Further, the inclusion of all other well-known, conventional hair care ingredients at standard concentration ranges claimed for the instant invention would itself have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art seeking to formulate a stable, usable, and aesthetically pleasing product. A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation of success in combining these known elements to achieve predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 4, 10, 13, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Cannell et al. (US-20080085249-A1; published 10 April 2008, hereinafter referred to as “Cannell”) in view of Emiko et al. (JP-4592095-B2; published 01 December 2010, hereinafter referred to as “Emiko”) and in further view of Asada (US-20090276964-A1; published 12 November 2009) . Cannell and Emiko teach the limitations of instant claims 1, 10 and 19, as described above, from which instant claims 4, 13 and 20 depend, respectively, however do not explicitly teach the composition comprising at least one keto acid and/or salt thereof ranging from about 0.1-20% by weight, relative to the total weight of the composition. Cannell states that its compositions can contain a wide variety of optional additives as, “…can also comprise any additive usually used in the field under consideration”, referencing U.S. patent application publication no. 20040170586 (¶[0033]), which states additional additive ingredients be found in the International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook (9th ed. 2002) (US20040170586A1, ¶[0455]), wherein these substances may be selected variously by the person skilled in the art and the amount thereof, in order to prepare a composition which has the desired properties, for example, consistency or texture (US20040170586A1, ¶[0456] and ¶[0458]) and wherein, “These additives may be present in the composition in a proportion from 0% to 20% (such as from 0.01% to 20%) relative to the total weight of the composition…” (US20040170586A1, ¶[0458]). The International Cosmetic Ingredient Dictionary and Handbook (9th ed., 2002) includes entries for keto acids such as pyruvic acid, (page 1268, section 3; pyruvic acid is listed as an ingredient functioning as a buffering agent and skin-conditioning agent; in addition to lactic acid, etc.) used in cosmetic formulations, thus effectively teaching the limitations of instant claims 4, 13, 19 and 20. In addition, keto acids, such as α-oxocarboxylic acid, is disclosed by Asada as known to be used in dye remover composition to prevent the discoloration the hair due to air oxidation after the destaining treatment (¶[002]. The reference teaches this as a known solution to a known problem of post-treatment discoloration in the field of color removal. Instant claim 20 recites a composition containing a keto acid and an organic amine, which is a combination of two optional ingredients each individually suggested by the prior art, and their combination is merely the predictable result of routine formulation. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill, aware of the problem of hair discoloration after color stripping, to incorporate the known solution of using a keto acid as taught by Asada into the obvious color-removing composition of the Cannell and Emiko to prevent this undesirable side effect. The inclusion of a keto acid and the determination of a workable concentration range for it, constitutes routine formulation activity. The instantly claimed concentration ranges for the keto acid of about 0.1-20% are typical and would be reached through routine optimization, particularly given this exact range is specifically disclosed in by Cannell (i.e., US-20040170586-A1, ¶[0458]). There is no evidence that the specific inclusion of a keto acid, within the claimed broad range, imparts any unexpected or non-obvious property to the composition. Therefore, it would have been obvious to include such as an optional ingredient. Claim Rejections – Nonstatutory 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). Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending US Application No. 18/084,396, claims 1-20 of co-pending US Application No. 18/084,403, claims 1-20 of co-pending US Application No. 18/084,404, claims 1-20 of co-pending US Application No. 18/084,402, claims 1-20 of co-pending US Application No. 18/626,294, claims 1-20 of co-pending US Application No. 18/626,306, claims 1-20 of co-pending US Application No. 18/626,281, claims 1-20 of co-pending US Application No. 18/626,290, claims 1-20 of co-pending US Application No. 18/626,300, claims 1-20 of co-pending US Application No. 18/626,307, and claims 1-20 of co-pending US Application No. 18/626,312. This is a provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1-20 are also rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent Application No. 17/936,431 (US Patent No. 12,458,576 B2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other for the reasons outlines below. All of these rejections stem from an equivalent single common inventive concept that the assignee is attempting to patent multiple times with minor variations. The core of the single common inventive concept is an acidic (i.e., pH 1-6), aqueous (i.e., solvent as water or aqueous vehicles) artificial or oxidative hair dye removing cosmetic composition based on a defined set of thiol-based reducing agents, specifically thiosalicylic and/or thiolactic acid. The listed co-pending applications and patent claim a variation of this single common core inventive concept and discloses and claims species within the single common inventive concept. The instant application and co-pending applications or patent attempt to claim multiple obvious variants of single common core inventive concept already claimed by the common assignee. Allowing these claims would permit an unjustified extension of the patent term for what is, in substance, a single core invention in the same field, for the same purpose with an identical inventive concept. The instant application claims would have been obvious if the co-pending applications or patent were prior art. The primary point of distinction of the instant application from the cited co-pending application and patent references is the explicit recitation of hyaluronic acid or a salt thereof. However, hyaluronic acid is a well-known cosmetic polymer and conditioning agent, routinely employed in hair and skin compositions for moisturizing and feel benefits. Its inclusion represents a predictable substitution or addition of a known cosmetic excipient to an otherwise unchanged hair-color removal composition. The differences between the instant claims and the cited references are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art of cosmetic chemistry. The substitution or addition of hyaluronic acid, a well-known conditioning, hydrating, and stabilizing agent, to the previously invented thiol-based color-removing systems represents an obvious variation that does not produce a patentably distinct invention. Variations in inclusion of optional/additional conventional cosmetic auxiliaries (e.g., surfactants, organic amines, organic acids, Lewis acids, amino acids, keto acids, fatty compounds, amino-sulfonic acids, thickening agents, chelators, emulsifiers, clays, etc.), concentration ranges and species optimizations of the broader hair-color removing composition are features that are expressly disclosed, inherently suggested or obvious variants of the single inventive concept directed to hair-color removal using thiol-based reducing systems formulated as cosmetic compositions in the cited co-pending applications and patent references and represent routine optimization or formulation choices that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The method claims merely apply the non-patentably distinct compositions and include identical or substantially identical methods to the co-pending application and patent references (e.g., a method for removing artificial or oxidative hair color by applying such compositions to keratinous hair fibers, optionally allowing a residence time and rinsing). These claims do not impart patentable distinctness over the cited co-pending applications and patent reference inventions. To overcome this rejection, the Applicant may file a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321, disclaiming any patent term extending beyond the expiration of the earlier patent(s) and agreeing to common ownership for the life of the patent, amend the claims to establish patentable distinctness over the cited references, or provide arguments that defeat the central premise of the rejection, proving that the requirement for hyaluronic acid transforms the core invention in a non-obvious and unexpected way that is not simply a variation specifying a specific composition constituent (e.g., chelators, emulsifiers, Lewis acids, or amino acids) (e.g., technical argument about hyaluronic acid's unique, non-obvious mechanism in this context and comparative experimental data showing the instant composition's unexpected and superior properties versus all of the cited species (thiol acid alone, thiol acid + chelator, thiol acid + emulsion, etc.). Response to Arguments Applicant Arguments/Remarks of the reply, filed 21 April 2026, have been fully considered. The applicant argues that Cannell requires the combination of a sulfur reducing agent with an oxidizing agent and therefore cannot teach or suggest a composition “free of oxidizing agents” to achieve color removal and that there is no motivation to use the reducing agent alone. The argument has been considered but is not persuasive. The applicant correctly recites the Graham factors. However, the applicant misapplies the standard by attempting to read limitations from a preferred embodiment of a prior art reference into the reference’s teaching as a whole. The relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not whether the primary reference explicitly discloses the exact invention or expressly teaches every possible modification, but whether the prior art, considered as a whole, would have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art (see KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc ., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)). The applicant’s argument improperly narrows Cannell to only its exemplified exothermic combination method, ignoring the full scope of what Cannell fairly teaches to one of ordinary skill in the art. Cannell teaches thiol-based artificial hair color removal chemistry using sulfur reducing agents including thiolactic acid and thiosalicylic acid, aqueous solvent systems, acidic pH ranges, and the use of conventional optional cosmetic additives. While Cannell’s invention is focused on a first composition with reducing agent and a second with oxidizing agent, Cannell teaches, “The present invention also relates to two compositions useful for removing artificial color from hair. The first composition comprises a sulfur reducing agent. The second composition comprises an oxidizing agent.” (¶[0007]) and “According to preferred embodiments of the present invention, the first composition is substantially free of oxidizing agents (i.e., contains less than about 1% of oxidizing agent). In another embodiment, the first composition is essentially free of oxidizing agent (i.e., contains less than about 0.3% of oxidizing agent). In another embodiment, the first composition is free of oxidizing agents (i.e., contains less than about 0.1% of oxidizing agent). In yet another embodiment, the first composition contains no oxidizing agent.” (¶[0026]). Thus, Cannell explicitly teaches a composition for removing hair color without an oxidizing agent (i.e., the first composition). While the final mixture (first and second compositions together) contains an oxidizer, a person of ordinary skill in the art reading the invention immediately understand that sulfur reducing agents alone (thioglycolate, thiolactic acid, bisulfites) are active color-removing ingredients and that the oxidizing agent is an optional additive to generate heat (exotherm) to further remove color from the hair, but are not strictly required for the chemical reduction of hair dye. The absence of an oxidizing agent does not render the reducing agent inert. Thiol-based reducing agents are well-known in the art to cleave disulfide bonds in dye molecules without an oxidizing agent, albeit potentially less aggressively. Although Cannell describes embodiments in which a reducing composition is combined with an oxidizing composition, that disclosure does not amount to a teaching away from compositions lacking oxidizing agents. For a reference to teach away from the claimed invention, it must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourages the claimed modification (see In re Gurley , 27 F.3d 551 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). Cannell does not state that oxidizing agents are indispensable thiol-based reducing compositions. Cannell also does not disclose that thiol-based reducing compositions would be ineffective, inoperative, unsuitable, undesirable, harmful or technically incompatible absent an oxidizing agent. The fact that a reference discloses the invention as a two-part exothermic system, does not constitute a teaching away from using the reducing agent alone, especially where, as here, Cannell teaches that the reducing agent itself is the primary active agent for breaking dye bonds. Thus, the applicant’s argument improperly elevates one disclosed embodiment into an exclusive requirement and is unpersuasive. The amendments adding the negative limitation excluding oxidizing agents is not patentably significant, because the prior art composition otherwise teaches substantially the same formulation and the excluded component is non-critical. The instant claimed compositions remain centered on thiol-based color-removing agents, aqueous or solvent-containing cosmetic vehicles, acidic pH, and conventional cosmetic auxiliaries. The newly introduced exclusion merely removes one known optional formulation constituent from otherwise conventional thiol-based color-removing systems. Where omission of a known component yields no newly demonstrated structural incompatibility, no new mode of action, and no evidence that the omitted material was required for operability across the art, such omission constitutes routine formulation optimization within the ordinary skill of the cosmetic chemist. The applicant’s own specification provides the motivation to exclude oxidizing agents to reduce malodor and simplify the composition and formulation process. One of ordinary skill seeking to reduce the harshness, complexity, or exothermic heating of Cannell’s composition would have been motivated to omit the oxidizing agent. This is a straightforward and predictable omission, not an inventive leap. Given that thiol reducing agents are independently known to cleave dye bonds, and given that Cannell itself teaches that the reducing agent is essential (the oxidizing agent being primarily for the exotherm), one of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation that a composition containing only the reducing agent (plus optional conventional additives like hyaluronic acid) would still remove hair color, albeit potentially at a slower rate or lower temperature. The applicant’s own data (Table 2) shows that compositions without oxidizing agents (e.g., C1, C2) still achieved color removal (ΔΕ values >20), confirming this expectation. In summary, the limitation “free of oxidizing agents” does not render the claims non-obvious over Cannell because Cannell does not require an oxidizing agent for the first composition to work, Cannell does not teach away from omitting it, and routine optimization would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to try a reducing-agent-only composition with a reasonable expectation of success. The applicant further argues that there would have been no reason to combine Cannell with Emiko. This argument is not persuasive. Emiko teaches use of hyaluronic acid as a conventional moisturizing, conditioning, and aesthetic-improving ingredient in hair treatment compositions. The prior Office Correspondence explained that chemical color-removal treatments are known to produce dryness, roughness, malodor, and undesirable cosmetic feel. A person of ordinary skill in cosmetic formulation would have had ample reason to incorporate a known humectant/conditioning polymer such as hyaluronic acid into a thiol-based color-removing system to improve consumer acceptability, reduce perceived harshness, and improve conditioning properties. That rationale does not rely on the applicant’s disclosure. The applicant argues that hyaluronic acid is not merely a moisturizer, it provides unexpected results (i.e., enhanced color removal efficacy and odor reduction) as shown in Tables 2 and 3. The evidence has been considered but is not sufficient to establish nonobviousness as a conventional additive. It would have been prima facie obvious to add hyaluronic acid to Cannell’s composition as a conventional conditioning and moisturizing agent. Emiko explicitly teaches hyaluronic acid for this purpose in hair color and removal compositions. The applicant has not rebutted this prima facie case by attacking the motivation to combine, rather, the applicant argues unexpected results. This argument is unpersuasive for lack of commensurateness in scope with the claimed invention. The claims encompass broad genera including any hair-color removing agent that is not oxidizing, hyaluronic acid and/or salts thereof, broad solvent systems, optional organic acids, broad concentration ranges, and broad additional optional cosmetic ingredients. The data in the specification appears to be at a single concentration of hyaluronic acid. The claims require “about 0.1% to about 10%” (claim 5) and “about 0.1% to about 10%” (claim 14) and “about 1% to about 15%” thiol reducing agent (claim 19). The alleged results appear limited to particular tested embodiments that are not reasonably commensurate in scope with the breadth of the claims. The applicant has not shown that the asserted improvement is achieved across substantially the full scope of claims 1-20. In addition, there is no persuasive showing that the improvement is attributable to the claimed distinguishing feature alone. The present claims contain multiple variables including reducing agent identity, concentration, solvent composition, optional keto acids, optional surfactants, optional amines, optional organic acids, and pH. The current record does not establish that the alleged color-removal increase or odor reduction is attributable solely to hyaluronic acid rather than to unaccounted formulation variables. In Table 2, compositions 1A and 1B contain hyaluronic acid with thiosalicylic acid. It is not clear if compositions C1 and C2 contain neither hyaluronic acid nor any thiol reducing agent, but appears to show C1 and C2 as “control” without hyaluronic acid and without the claimed reducing agents. The proper comparison would be the composition with thiol reducing agent (but no hyaluronic acid) vs. the composition with thiol reducing agent and hyaluronic acid. The specification does not appear to provide this direct comparison. Moreover, ΔΕ enhancement from ~27 to ~32 (a relative increase of ~18%) is modest and could be explained by pH adjustment, viscosity changes affecting contact time, or other trivial formulation differences. The applicant has provided no statistical analysis or demonstration that this difference is both significant and solely attributable to hyaluronic acid. In Table 3, odor reduction is a predictable benefit of adding a viscous, film-forming polymer (hyaluronic acid) that can encapsulate or reduce the volatility of malodorous thiol compounds. This is not “unexpected”, rather it is a well-known property of many polymers and thickening agents in cosmetic chemistry. The applicant has not shown that hyaluronic acid uniquely provides this benefit compared to other conventional thickeners or humectants (e.g., carbomer, hydroxyethylcellulose, glycerin). In addition, the results appear to be improved degree, not different kind. Improved conditioning, improved feel, and reduced harshness are the very predictable functions of hyaluronic acid in cosmetic systems. An improved magnitude of an expected property ordinarily does not establish unexpected results absent evidence of a qualitatively different phenomenon. The applicant has not claimed a synergistic effect or provided data showing that hyaluronic acid’s effect is anything other than additive (not unpredictable). A new and unexpected result is not demonstrated where a claimed composition exhibits properties that would have been reasonably predictable from the known functions of its components. Since hyaluronic acid was known as a moisturizer and film-former, and since improved moisture retention or reduced odor volatility would be predictable from adding such a polymer, no unexpected result is shown. Accordingly, the alleged unexpected results are insufficient to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Cannell in view of Emiko as to claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-19, and over Cannell in view of Emiko and Asada as to claims 1, 4, 10, 13, 19, and 20 are maintained. Emiko teaches hair treatment and hair decoloring/removal compositions that are applied to hair and left in contact for a treatment period. Emiko further teaches inclusion of humectants, conditioning agents, and hyaluronic acid. Emiko does not require oxidizing agents as an indispensable component of every disclosed treatment composition. Thus, Emiko teaches hair-treatment compositions encompassing the presently recited negative limitation. Cannell teaches the specific color-removing chemistry thiolactic acid, thiosalicylic acid, sulfur reducing agents useful for artificial hair-color removal, acidic pH systems, aqueous solvents, optional surfactants, optional amines, and optional formulation additives. Cannell therefore supplies the specific reducing-agent chemistry absent from Emiko. Omission of oxidizing agents from Cannell’s broader disclosed chemistry would have been an obvious formulation choice absent evidence of criticality. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Cannell’s known thiol-based artificial color-removal actives into Emiko’s hair-treatment compositions containing hyaluronic acid in order to obtain artificial color-removal efficacy, improved conditioning, reduced cosmetic harshness, and improved consumer aesthetics. Such modification would have represented the predictable combination of known cosmetic formulation elements according to their established functions. Cannell expressly teaches thiolactic acid, thiosalicylic acid, and salts thereof. Cannell teaches overlapping effective concentration ranges. Selection of the presently claimed ranges constitutes routine optimization. Asada teaches keto acids useful in dye-removal compositions to address post-treatment discoloration. Incorporation of keto acids into the combined Cannell/Emiko composition would have been obvious. The recited 0.1-10 wt.% hyaluronic acid constitutes a conventional cosmetic concentration range and would have been obtainable by routine formulation optimization. Cannell teaches conventional cosmetic auxiliaries including surfactants, amines, and formulation additives. Their inclusion is obvious. Cannell teaches overlapping acidic pH ranges and Cannell teaches treatment times and removal of oxidative dye color. The applicants’ response to the rejection of claims 1-20 on the grounds of provisional nonstatutory double patenting over the co-pending US Patent Application Nos. 18/084,396, 18/084,403, 18/084,404, 18/084,402, 18/626,294, 18/626,306, 18/626,281, 18/626,290, 18/626,300, 18/626,307, 18/626,312, and the double patenting rejection over granted US Patent Application No. 17/936,431 (US Patent No. 12,458,576 B2) has been fully considered, but is not persuasive. A 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 §714.02 and 37 CFR 1.111(b)). Thus, the provisional double patenting rejections and the double patenting rejection of record are maintained, as no action regarding these rejections has been taken by the applicant at this time. The applicant may overcome these rejections by filing a terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 C.F.R. § 1.321. Conclusion No claims are allowed. 07-39 AIA 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 (87 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 REBECCA L. SCOTLAND whose telephone number is (571) 272-2979. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am to 5:00 pm 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’ s supervisor, Robert A. Wax can be reached at (571) 272-0623. 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:/Awww.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent- center for more information about Patent Center and https:/Awww.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. /RL Scotland/ Examiner, Art Unit 1615 /Jeffrey T. Palenik/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 2 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 3 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 4 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 5 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 6 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 7 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 8 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 9 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 10 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 11 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 12 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 13 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 14 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 15 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 16 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 17 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 18 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 19 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 20 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 21 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 22 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 23 Art Unit: 1615 Application/Control Number: 18/626,302 Page 24 Art Unit: 1615
Prosecution Insights