DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-13 are examined on the merits herein.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 04-Oct-2024, 21-Mar-2025, 08-May-2025, 06-Jan-2026, and 30-Mar-2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 02-Jun-2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the composition and the method claims are directed to a singular inventive concept, the process is specifically adapted to the manufacture of the product. This is not found persuasive because the composition and method of use are directed to distinct inventions that require serious and divergent searches in different fields, thereby imposing a serious search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 9 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. Claims 1(a) and 9(i) recites at least one organic acid, while later on recites organic acids with the same respective claim. The shift from singular to plural makes the claim unclear as to whether the organic acid refers to the limitation of at least one organic acid or an entirely different set of organic acids.
Claim 5 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, depends from claim 1, recites "wherein the composition further comprises at least one additional component chosen from clays, surfactants, fatty compounds, thickening agents, amino acids and/or salts thereof, amino-sulfonic acids and/or salts thereof, organic amine compounds" but is unclear if the additional limitation is derived from the optional component of claim 1c or an entirely different set of components, making the metes and bounds of the claim uncertain.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the total amount of organic acids”. Claim 1 only recites organic acid prior. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the total weight of the composition". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9, 12-13 recites the limitation "the mixture" in claim 9. Claim 9 recites the process of “mixing” but not to form a mixture or resulting in a mix. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6, 7-10, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kunz et al. (US006171347B1, Patent: 09-Jan-2001).
In regards to claims 1-2, Kunz teaches a two component stripper emulsion in Example 6 comprising 6 wt% + 6 wt% = 12 wt% ascorbic acid as an organic acid, water as a solvent, cetyltrimethylammonium chloride as a surfactant (Col 24, Example 6).
In regards to claim 4 and 12, Kunz teaches the composition has a pH of 2.5 (Col 24, Example 6, line 31).
In regards to claim 5, Kunz teaches cetylstearyl alcohol as a fatty compound (Col 24, Example 6).
In regards to claim 6 and 13, Kunz teaches that the mixture is left on the hair for 5 to 60 minutes at a temperature of 20 to 50°C before being rinsed with water (Col 9, line 29-32).
In regards to claim 7, Kunz teaches that the stripping process can be speeded up by adding heat (Col 10, line 64-67 to Col 11, line 1)
In regards to claim 8, Kunz teaches that Example 6 is a stripper emulsion composition (Col 24, Example 6).
In regards to claim 9, Kunz teaches a two component stripper emulsion in Example 6 comprising of ascorbic acid as an organic acid in the first composition with a second composition of ascorbic acid that is mixed and applied to hair with a total organic acid wt% of 6+6 = 12 wt% (Col 24, Example 6).
In regards to claim 10, Kunz teaches the second component is ascorbic acid (Col 24, Example 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim(s) 1, 3, 9, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kunz as applied to claim 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Kunz 2 (US006106579, Patent: 22-Aug-2000).
Kunz teaches the two component stripper emulsion composition comprising of an ascorbic acid, cetyltrimethylammonium chloride, and water as applied to claim 1 and 9 discussed above.
In regards to claim 3 and 11, Kunz teaches a two component stripper emulsion in Example 6 comprising an organic acid (Col 24, Example 6).
However, Kunz does not teach that the total amount of organic acids present in the composition ranges from 15 to 50 wt% and that the second composition of comprises of keto-glutaric acid. For this reason, Kunz 2 is added.
Kunz 2 teaches a decolorizing composition that comprises 1 to 50 wt% reductone such as ascorbic acid (Col 10, line 23-28) and ɑ-ketocarboxylic acids such as ɑ-ketoglutaric acid from 0.1 to 10 wt% (Col 10, line 54-61) of claim 3 and 11.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the composition taught by Kunz to include a total organic acid wt% range of 15 to 50 wt% and the inclusion of 0.1 to 10 wt% of ɑ-ketoglutaric acid, because both references are drawn to the same field of hair decolorizing compositions in which the concentration of the acid in the composition directly influences the rate of hair color removal. The optimization of both the total organic acid and ɑ-ketoglutaric acid concentration represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable. For the foregoing reasons, Claims 1, 3, 9, and 11 are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WENHAN LI whose telephone number is (571)272-9143. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30 am-5 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://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ali Soroush can be reached at (571)272-9925. 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.
/W.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights