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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “rate” appears to be meant as “ratio”.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to” in line 2 should be “in”.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “a compound used for the coating material has…” raises confusion due to “used for…”, e.g., for preparing the coating material, “used as” the coating material, etc. The phrase appears to be replaceable with “the coating material comprises a compound having ….” or a similar phrase.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13, 16, 17, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Mandom (JP 5328435B2; citations are to the machine translation filed 09/04/2025).
Mandom teaches an “oxidation hair dye comprising a first agent consisting of capsules containing an alkaline agent and a second agent containing hydrogen peroxide, wherein the alkaline agent is a solid alkaline agent that is at least one selected from the group consisting of carbonates, hydrogen carbonates, tartrates, citrates, phosphates, di phosphates, silicates, metasilicates, and acetates” (claim 1; see entire document including title; abstract; paras.0008, 0047-50 Production Examples 4, 5, 0061 Experimental Example 2, 0064-68 Test Examples 4, 5). The composition further includes a solid oxidation dye, i.e., a dye precursor such as those in instant claims 8 and 9, and a coupler such as those in claims 10 and 11 (paras.0015-17). The solid alkaline agent is preferably in powder form (para.0012), and dispersed in an oily component such as hydrocarbons and the others in claim 1, e.g., cetyl alcohol and lanolin (paras.0019-20, 0047-50). The mass ratio of the oily component to the solid alkaline agent includes 5.0/40 or 0.125 (lanolin+methylpolysiloxane / sodium silicate+the carbonates) (Production Example 4, paras.0047-48). Suitable alkaline agents include those in instant claim 3 (para.0012). The encapsulated first agent is substantially free of water (claim 6).
A second agent is a liquid oxidizing agent comprising hydrogen peroxide water (paras. 0032, 0035, 0038). Mandom teaches providing both the first and the second agents as a “hair treatment agent” (paras.0008, 0011), which a person of ordinary skill would recognize as a “kit”. The two agents are mixed at the time of use (paras.0039, 0061, 0064-68).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14, 16-18, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mandom (JP 5328435B2; citations are to the machine translation filed 09/04/2025).
Mandom does not expressly state the average particle size of the solid alkaline agent, a powder composition, or the step of melting the coating material as in claims 12, 14 and 18. In claim 14 the term “powder” does not appear specifically defined in the disclosure and therefore is given the broadest reasonable interpretation as fine, dry particles.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to use solid alkaline agent having an average particle size within the range in claim 12, substantially anhydrous, and in a “powder” composition as in claims 13 and 14. The skilled person would have been suggested to do so because Mandom teaches the solid alkaline agent is preferably in powder form, for dispersibility in the second agent (para.0012), and encapsulating the solid alkaline agent with the oily component (the coating material) in “minicapsules such as soft capsules and hard capsules, microcapsules, nanocapsules, etc.” (para.0025 (emphasis added); see paras.0027, 0039). Minicapsules including micro- and nano-capsules indicate solid alkaline agent average particle size within the range in claim 12, and a “powder” composition.
Regarding claim 18 it is noted that Mandom’s oily component such as lanolin and cetyl alcohol melt well above room temperature (above 49°C and 36°C). Therefore the skilled person would have understood that in order to “disperse the alkaline agent or the alkaline agent and the oxidation dye in this oily component” (para.0019) as Mandom teaches, these oily components would have to undergo a melting step prior to mixing with the alkaline agent, as recited in claim 18.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to H. S. PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-5258. The examiner can normally be reached on weekdays.
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.
/H. SARAH PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614