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
Claim Status
The amended claim set of 21 Jun 2024 has been entered and reviewed
Claims 1 and 3-13 have been amended.
Claims 1-13 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11, drawn to a process for dyeing keratin fibers, in the reply filed on is acknowledged. Applicants also elected that the alkaline agent is ethanolamine, the dye is a combination of the coupler 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine and the base 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine, and that the oxidizing agent is hydrogen peroxide in response to the species election requirement.
Claims 12 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 1-11 are under consideration to the extent of the elected species, i.e., that the alkaline agent is ethanolamine, the dye is a combination of the coupler 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine and the base 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine, and that the oxidizing agent is hydrogen peroxide.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 21 Jun 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, except where noted. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The use of the term Tween (e.g. page 39), which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The claims should begin with either the article “a” or “the” as appropriate.
In claim 2, the “c” in “Claim 1” should not be capitalized.
In claim 6, the “s” in “dye(s)” should be removed from parenthesis for consistency in spelling in the claim set.
In claims 1 and 7, the “s” in “agent(s)” should be removed from parenthesis for consistency in spelling in the claim set.
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.
Claims 1-11 are 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claims 2-11 are included in this rejection as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Use of the phrase “preferably” in claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, and 11; the phrase “more preferentially” in claims 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10; the phrase “better still” in claim 3; the phrase “even better still” in claims 3 and 10; the phrase “more particularly” in claim 10; and the phrase “more preferably” in claim 7, render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 1 recites in the last line the limitation "said oxidizing agent(s)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites prior “one or more oxidizing agents”, which encompasses multiple oxidizing agents, and it is unclear whether “said oxidizing agent(s)” includes just one or more than one, oxidizing agent. Amending to recite “said one or more oxidizing agents” would overcome this rejection. Claims 2-11 are included in this rejection as they depend directly, indirectly, or include all the limitations of independent claim 1.
Claims 3 and 4 recite the limitation "the alkaline agent(s)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “one or more alkaline agents”, which encompasses multiple one or more alkaline agents, and it is unclear whether “the one or more alkaline agent(s)” includes just one or more than one, alkaline agents. Amending to recite “the one or more one or more alkaline agents” would overcome this rejection.
Claims 7-9 recite “chemical oxidizing agents” which lacks proper antecedent basis as it is unclear if this is the same as or different from the “oxidizing agents” of claim 1.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the chemical oxidizing agent(s)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 recites “one or more alkaline agents”, which encompasses multiple one or more alkaline agents, and it is unclear whether “the one or more alkaline agent(s)” includes just one or more than one, alkaline agents. Amending to recite “the one or more one or more alkaline agents” would overcome this rejection.
Claim 7 is indefinite for use of the parenthesis around “with their optional cofactors” as it is unclear if this limitation is required or merely optional.
In claim 7, use of “their” before “optional cofactors” renders the claim indefinite as this implies that specific cofactors are in view but it is not clear what optional cofactors are intended to be required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 6 recites that the oxidation dyes are “also chosen from couplers” and goes on to list various couplers. Claim 5, from which claim 6 depends, recites that the oxidation dyes are chosen from oxidation bases. Thus, the oxidation dyes are limited in claim 5 to the oxidation bases but claim 6 broadens the scope of oxidation dyes to include couplers. Thus claim 6 fails to limit the subject matter of claim 5 and instead broadens the scope of oxidation dyes.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011) in view of Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
Deconinck teaches a process for dyeing or lightening hair (page 1 lines 4-6). Deconinck teaches a water-in-oil inverse emulsion comprising one or more liquid fatty substances, one or more polyols, one or more alkalinizing agents and at least one oxidation dye and/or at least one direct dye (page 2 lines 25-30). Deconinck teaches that the polyol may be 1,3-propanediol (page 11 line 5) and teaches amounts from 0.05-40% by weight (page 11 lines 16-19), rendering obvious the propane-1,3-diol as in claims 1 and 2. Deconinck teaches that the emulsion comprises one or more alkalinizing agent (page 11 line 21) such as monoethanolamine (page 12 line 12) from 0.01-30% by weight (page 13 lines 28-30), rendering obvious the elected species of alkaline agent as in claims 1, 3, and 4. Deconinck teaches the inclusion of at least one oxidation dye chosen from one or more oxidation bases combined with one or more couplers (page 13 lines 35-38). Deconinck teaches oxidation bases including para-phenylenediamines (page 13 lines 39-41) and couplers including 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine (i.e the elected species of oxidation dye coupler) (page 16 lines 27-36). Regarding claim 10, Deconinck teaches the inclusion of adjuvants including cationic polymers 9page 30 lines 9-11). The examiner notes that the specific polymers recited in claim 11 are understood to not be required due to the exemplary language used. Regarding claim 11, Deconinck teaches the composition comprises one or more surfactants chosen form nonionic surfactants (page 28 lines 14-17) including saturated or unsaturated oxyethylenated plant oils and a number of moles of ethylene oxide ranging from 1 to 100 (page 29 lines 15-20). Deconinck teaches that the inverse emulsion is preferably used as a mixture with an oxidizing composition comprising one or more oxidizing agents including hydrogen peroxide (page 32 lines 4-13). Deconinck teaches that mixing the water in oil inverse emulsion and the oil in water oxidizing composition and that the mixture is produced extemporaneously before application to human keratin fibers (page 32 lines 31-35), rendering obvious a composition C and extemporaneous mixture as claimed. Mixing the oxidizing composition (containing the oxidizing agent) with the inverse emulsion (containing the alkalinizing agent and dyes) is understood to render obvious claim 9 where composition B results from mixing a composition of alkaline agent and dye with an oxidizing composition comprising oxidizing agent.
Deconinck does not teach the elected species of oxidation dye (2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine) and does not explicitly teach the formation of a separate composition A and B as claimed.
These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Hercouet and DeGeorge.
Hercouet teaches direct dyeing of human keratin fibers such as hair ([0002]). Hercouet teaches the extemporaneous mixing, before application, of several compositions ([0017]) and teaches a multi-compartment device comprising a composition A comprising a dye and an alkaline agent, a composition B comprising a dye and an alkaline agent and a composition C comprising a chemical oxidizing agent ([0019-0023]).
DeGeorge teaches methods for improving color durability in artificially colored hair ([0002], [0009]) and teaches 2-methoxymethyl-paraphenylenediamine as an oxidation base used with couplers as part of an oxidation dye ([0104-0105]).
Therefore, 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 have a process for dyeing hair by applying compositions mixed extemporaneously and comprising separate compositions with components including 0.05-40% propane-1,3-diol, oxidation dyes base of 2-methoxymethyl-paraphenylenediamine and coupler of 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine and 0.01-30% of an alkalinizing agent of monoethanolamine and a separate oxidizing composition comprising an oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Including para-phenylenediamines as an oxidation base is known from Deconinck and the specific 2-methoxymethyl-paraphenylenediamine is known from DeGeorge as a suitable base for hair coloring compositions. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used 2-methoxymethyl-paraphenylenediamine as the base component as it merely represented use of a known prior art element according to its known use, namely as a base component as part of oxidation dye for hair treatment. Regarding the formation of separate dye compositions (e.g. composition A and B as claimed), this would have been obvious based on the teachings of Deconinck and Hercouet. The examiner notes that "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). Thus, the concept of combining separate compositions for the same purpose is understood to be prima facie obvious. From Hercouet it is known that more than one dye composition may be used in combination with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a dyeing method for human keratin fibers where the compositions are mixed extemporaneously. Thus, the concept of having separate dye compositions and oxidizing agent composition mixed extemporaneously for dyeing hair is known as a suitable means of a dyeing process. As noted earlier, it is obvious to combine compositions for the same purpose and it is known from the art that multiple dye compositions may be used in hair dyeing methods, thus rendering it obvious and providing a reasonable expectation of success in forming multiple compositions comprising dye components, alkaline agents and propane-1,3-diol that are mixed extemporaneously with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a process of dyeing keratin fibers.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references.
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 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 7,799,095 in view of Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011), Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
The patent recites a method for coloring keratinous fibers by applying a composition obtained by mixing a composition comprising components including an oxidation dye precursor and an alkaline agent and a composition comprising hydrogen peroxide.
The patent does not recite separate dye compositions mixed extemporaneously or the species of alkaline agent (ethanolamine), dye (2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine) or propane-1,3-diol, or the cationic polymer and nonionic surfactants. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge.
The teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge are described supra.
Therefore, 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 have a process of coloring keratin fibers using separate compositions mixed extemporaneously and comprising dyes of 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 0.01-30% alkaline agent of monoethanolamine, 0.05-40% propane-1,3-diol, cationic polymer, nonionic oxyethylenated plant oil surfactant, and a composition comprising a chemical oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Mixing compositions extemporaneously is known from Deconinck and each of the components and species are known from Deconinck and DeGeorge to be suitable in compositions for dyeing keratin fibers and their inclusion merely represents the use of known prior art elements according to their known purpose in dye compositions. Regarding the formation of separate dye compositions (e.g. composition A and B as claimed), this would have been obvious based on the teachings of Deconinck and Hercouet. The examiner notes that "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). Thus, the concept of combining separate compositions for the same purpose is understood to be prima facie obvious. From Hercouet it is known that more than one dye composition may be used in combination with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a dyeing method for human keratin fibers where the compositions are mixed extemporaneously. Thus, the concept of having separate dye compositions and oxidizing agent composition mixed extemporaneously for dyeing hair is known as a suitable means of a dyeing process. As noted earlier, it is obvious to combine compositions for the same purpose and it is known from the art that multiple dye compositions may be used in hair dyeing methods, thus rendering it obvious and providing a reasonable expectation of success in forming multiple compositions comprising dye components, alkaline agents and propane-1,3-diol that are mixed extemporaneously with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a process of dyeing keratin fibers.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,471,392 in view of Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011), Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
The patent recites a process for dyeing keratin fibers by applying an oxidizing composition including an oxidizing agent and a composition comprising at least one oxidation dye.
The patent does not recite separate dye compositions mixed extemporaneously or the species of alkaline agent (ethanolamine), dye (2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine) or propane-1,3-diol, or the cationic polymer and nonionic surfactants or hydrogen peroxide. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge.
The teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge are described supra.
Therefore, 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 have a process of coloring keratin fibers using separate compositions mixed extemporaneously and comprising dyes of 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 0.01-30% alkaline agent of monoethanolamine, 0.05-40% propane-1,3-diol, cationic polymer, nonionic oxyethylenated plant oil surfactant, and a composition comprising a chemical oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Mixing compositions extemporaneously is known from Deconinck and each of the components and species are known from Deconinck and DeGeorge to be suitable in compositions for dyeing keratin fibers and their inclusion merely represents the use of known prior art elements according to their known purpose in dye compositions. Regarding the formation of separate dye compositions (e.g. composition A and B as claimed), this would have been obvious based on the teachings of Deconinck and Hercouet. The examiner notes that "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). Thus, the concept of combining separate compositions for the same purpose is understood to be prima facie obvious. From Hercouet it is known that more than one dye composition may be used in combination with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a dyeing method for human keratin fibers where the compositions are mixed extemporaneously. Thus, the concept of having separate dye compositions and oxidizing agent composition mixed extemporaneously for dyeing hair is known as a suitable means of a dyeing process. As noted earlier, it is obvious to combine compositions for the same purpose and it is known from the art that multiple dye compositions may be used in hair dyeing methods, thus rendering it obvious and providing a reasonable expectation of success in forming multiple compositions comprising dye components, alkaline agents and propane-1,3-diol that are mixed extemporaneously with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a process of dyeing keratin fibers.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,701,311 in view of Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011), Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
The patent recites a method for dyeing keratin fibers that comprises applying a dye composition A comprising at least one oxidation dye, at least one alkaline agent, and a composition B comprising at least one chemical oxidizing agent.
The patent does not recite separate dye compositions mixed extemporaneously or the species of alkaline agent (ethanolamine), dye (2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine) or propane-1,3-diol, or the cationic polymer and nonionic surfactants or hydrogen peroxide. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge.
The teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge are described supra.
Therefore, 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 have a process of coloring keratin fibers using separate compositions mixed extemporaneously and comprising dyes of 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 0.01-30% alkaline agent of monoethanolamine, 0.05-40% propane-1,3-diol, cationic polymer, nonionic oxyethylenated plant oil surfactant, and a composition comprising a chemical oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Mixing compositions extemporaneously is known from Deconinck and each of the components and species are known from Deconinck and DeGeorge to be suitable in compositions for dyeing keratin fibers and their inclusion merely represents the use of known prior art elements according to their known purpose in dye compositions. Regarding the formation of separate dye compositions (e.g. composition A and B as claimed), this would have been obvious based on the teachings of Deconinck and Hercouet. The examiner notes that "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). Thus, the concept of combining separate compositions for the same purpose is understood to be prima facie obvious. From Hercouet it is known that more than one dye composition may be used in combination with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a dyeing method for human keratin fibers where the compositions are mixed extemporaneously. Thus, the concept of having separate dye compositions and oxidizing agent composition mixed extemporaneously for dyeing hair is known as a suitable means of a dyeing process. As noted earlier, it is obvious to combine compositions for the same purpose and it is known from the art that multiple dye compositions may be used in hair dyeing methods, thus rendering it obvious and providing a reasonable expectation of success in forming multiple compositions comprising dye components, alkaline agents and propane-1,3-diol that are mixed extemporaneously with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a process of dyeing keratin fibers.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,596,588 in view of Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011), Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
The patent recites a hair color composition comprising components including at least one oxidative dye selected from oxidation bases and couplers, 7-10% monoethanolamine, nonionic surfactant, and cationic polymer.
The patent does not recite separate dye compositions mixed extemporaneously or the species of dye (2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine) or propane-1,3-diol, or the cationic polymer and nonionic surfactants or hydrogen peroxide. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge.
The teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge are described supra.
Therefore, 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 have a process of coloring keratin fibers using separate compositions mixed extemporaneously and comprising dyes of 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 0.01-30% alkaline agent of monoethanolamine, 0.05-40% propane-1,3-diol, cationic polymer, nonionic oxyethylenated plant oil surfactant, and a composition comprising a chemical oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Mixing compositions extemporaneously is known from Deconinck and each of the components and species are known from Deconinck and DeGeorge to be suitable in compositions for dyeing keratin fibers and their inclusion merely represents the use of known prior art elements according to their known purpose in dye compositions. Regarding the formation of separate dye compositions (e.g. composition A and B as claimed), this would have been obvious based on the teachings of Deconinck and Hercouet. The examiner notes that "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). Thus, the concept of combining separate compositions for the same purpose is understood to be prima facie obvious. From Hercouet it is known that more than one dye composition may be used in combination with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a dyeing method for human keratin fibers where the compositions are mixed extemporaneously. Thus, the concept of having separate dye compositions and oxidizing agent composition mixed extemporaneously for dyeing hair is known as a suitable means of a dyeing process. As noted earlier, it is obvious to combine compositions for the same purpose and it is known from the art that multiple dye compositions may be used in hair dyeing methods, thus rendering it obvious and providing a reasonable expectation of success in forming multiple compositions comprising dye components, alkaline agents and propane-1,3-diol that are mixed extemporaneously with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a process of dyeing keratin fibers.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,453,683 in view of Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011), Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
The patent recites a process for dyeing keratin fibers by applying compositions comprising components including 1,3-propanediol at greater than or equal to 3%, and one or more dyes and mixing with another composition comprising chemical oxidizing agents.
The patent does not recite separate dye compositions mixed extemporaneously or the species of alkaline agent (ethanolamine), dye (2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine), or the cationic polymer and nonionic surfactants or hydrogen peroxide. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge.
The teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge are described supra.
Therefore, 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 have a process of coloring keratin fibers using separate compositions mixed extemporaneously and comprising dyes of 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 0.01-30% alkaline agent of monoethanolamine, 0.05-40% propane-1,3-diol, cationic polymer, nonionic oxyethylenated plant oil surfactant, and a composition comprising a chemical oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Mixing compositions extemporaneously is known from Deconinck and each of the components and species are known from Deconinck and DeGeorge to be suitable in compositions for dyeing keratin fibers and their inclusion merely represents the use of known prior art elements according to their known purpose in dye compositions. Regarding the formation of separate dye compositions (e.g. composition A and B as claimed), this would have been obvious based on the teachings of Deconinck and Hercouet. The examiner notes that "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). Thus, the concept of combining separate compositions for the same purpose is understood to be prima facie obvious. From Hercouet it is known that more than one dye composition may be used in combination with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a dyeing method for human keratin fibers where the compositions are mixed extemporaneously. Thus, the concept of having separate dye compositions and oxidizing agent composition mixed extemporaneously for dyeing hair is known as a suitable means of a dyeing process. As noted earlier, it is obvious to combine compositions for the same purpose and it is known from the art that multiple dye compositions may be used in hair dyeing methods, thus rendering it obvious and providing a reasonable expectation of success in forming multiple compositions comprising dye components, alkaline agents and propane-1,3-diol that are mixed extemporaneously with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a process of dyeing keratin fibers.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 and 17-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,453,686 in view of Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011), Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
The patent recites a process for dyeing keratin fibers by applying a composition comprising components including propane-1,3-diol, dyes, and alkaline agents such as alkanolamines and a composition comprising chemical oxidizing agents such as hydrogen peroxide.
The patent does not recite separate dye compositions mixed extemporaneously or the species of alkaline agent (ethanolamine), dye (2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine) or the cationic polymer and nonionic surfactants. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge.
The teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge are described supra.
Therefore, 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 have a process of coloring keratin fibers using separate compositions mixed extemporaneously and comprising dyes of 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 0.01-30% alkaline agent of monoethanolamine, 0.05-40% propane-1,3-diol, cationic polymer, nonionic oxyethylenated plant oil surfactant, and a composition comprising a chemical oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Mixing compositions extemporaneously is known from Deconinck and each of the components and species are known from Deconinck and DeGeorge to be suitable in compositions for dyeing keratin fibers and their inclusion merely represents the use of known prior art elements according to their known purpose in dye compositions. Regarding the formation of separate dye compositions (e.g. composition A and B as claimed), this would have been obvious based on the teachings of Deconinck and Hercouet. The examiner notes that "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). Thus, the concept of combining separate compositions for the same purpose is understood to be prima facie obvious. From Hercouet it is known that more than one dye composition may be used in combination with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a dyeing method for human keratin fibers where the compositions are mixed extemporaneously. Thus, the concept of having separate dye compositions and oxidizing agent composition mixed extemporaneously for dyeing hair is known as a suitable means of a dyeing process. As noted earlier, it is obvious to combine compositions for the same purpose and it is known from the art that multiple dye compositions may be used in hair dyeing methods, thus rendering it obvious and providing a reasonable expectation of success in forming multiple compositions comprising dye components, alkaline agents and propane-1,3-diol that are mixed extemporaneously with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a process of dyeing keratin fibers.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,642,755 in view of Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011), Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
The patent recites a method for dyeing keratin fibers by mixing a dyeing composition and an oxidizing composition where the dye composition comprises components including the coupler 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, propane-1,3-diol, at least one alkaline agent and an oxidation base and the oxidizing composition comprises at least one chemical oxidizing agent.
The patent does not recite separate dye compositions mixed extemporaneously or the species of alkaline agent (ethanolamine), dye (2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine) or the cationic polymer and nonionic surfactants or hydrogen peroxide. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge.
The teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge are described supra.
Therefore, 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 have a process of coloring keratin fibers using separate compositions mixed extemporaneously and comprising dyes of 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 0.01-30% alkaline agent of monoethanolamine, 0.05-40% propane-1,3-diol, cationic polymer, nonionic oxyethylenated plant oil surfactant, and a composition comprising a chemical oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Mixing compositions extemporaneously is known from Deconinck and each of the components and species are known from Deconinck and DeGeorge to be suitable in compositions for dyeing keratin fibers and their inclusion merely represents the use of known prior art elements according to their known purpose in dye compositions. Regarding the formation of separate dye compositions (e.g. composition A and B as claimed), this would have been obvious based on the teachings of Deconinck and Hercouet. The examiner notes that "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). Thus, the concept of combining separate compositions for the same purpose is understood to be prima facie obvious. From Hercouet it is known that more than one dye composition may be used in combination with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a dyeing method for human keratin fibers where the compositions are mixed extemporaneously. Thus, the concept of having separate dye compositions and oxidizing agent composition mixed extemporaneously for dyeing hair is known as a suitable means of a dyeing process. As noted earlier, it is obvious to combine compositions for the same purpose and it is known from the art that multiple dye compositions may be used in hair dyeing methods, thus rendering it obvious and providing a reasonable expectation of success in forming multiple compositions comprising dye components, alkaline agents and propane-1,3-diol that are mixed extemporaneously with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a process of dyeing keratin fibers.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of copending Application No. 18/573,710 in view of Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011), Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
The application recites a process for dyeing keratin fibers by application of a composition comprising components including propane-1,3-diol at greater than 3% by weight, one or more alkanolamine greater than 5%, surfactants, and oxidation dyes and a composition comprising one or more chemical oxidizing agents.
The application does not recite separate dye compositions mixed extemporaneously or the species of alkaline agent (ethanolamine), dye (2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine) or the cationic polymer and nonionic surfactants or hydrogen peroxide. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge.
The teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge are described supra.
Therefore, 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 have a process of coloring keratin fibers using separate compositions mixed extemporaneously and comprising dyes of 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 0.01-30% alkaline agent of monoethanolamine, 0.05-40% propane-1,3-diol, cationic polymer, nonionic oxyethylenated plant oil surfactant, and a composition comprising a chemical oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Mixing compositions extemporaneously is known from Deconinck and each of the components and species are known from Deconinck and DeGeorge to be suitable in compositions for dyeing keratin fibers and their inclusion merely represents the use of known prior art elements according to their known purpose in dye compositions. Regarding the formation of separate dye compositions (e.g. composition A and B as claimed), this would have been obvious based on the teachings of Deconinck and Hercouet. The examiner notes that "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). Thus, the concept of combining separate compositions for the same purpose is understood to be prima facie obvious. From Hercouet it is known that more than one dye composition may be used in combination with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a dyeing method for human keratin fibers where the compositions are mixed extemporaneously. Thus, the concept of having separate dye compositions and oxidizing agent composition mixed extemporaneously for dyeing hair is known as a suitable means of a dyeing process. As noted earlier, it is obvious to combine compositions for the same purpose and it is known from the art that multiple dye compositions may be used in hair dyeing methods, thus rendering it obvious and providing a reasonable expectation of success in forming multiple compositions comprising dye components, alkaline agents and propane-1,3-diol that are mixed extemporaneously with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a process of dyeing keratin fibers.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/573,900 in view of Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011), Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
The application recites a process for dyeing keratin fibers with a composition comprising components including polyols, alkaline agents and dyes and mixing a composition comprising chemical oxidizing agents.
The application does not recite separate dye compositions mixed extemporaneously or the species of alkaline agent (ethanolamine), dye (2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine), propane-1,3-diol, or the cationic polymer and nonionic surfactants or hydrogen peroxide. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge.
The teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge are described supra.
Therefore, 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 have a process of coloring keratin fibers using separate compositions mixed extemporaneously and comprising dyes of 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 0.01-30% alkaline agent of monoethanolamine, 0.05-40% propane-1,3-diol, cationic polymer, nonionic oxyethylenated plant oil surfactant, and a composition comprising a chemical oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Mixing compositions extemporaneously is known from Deconinck and each of the components and species are known from Deconinck and DeGeorge to be suitable in compositions for dyeing keratin fibers and their inclusion merely represents the use of known prior art elements according to their known purpose in dye compositions. Regarding the formation of separate dye compositions (e.g. composition A and B as claimed), this would have been obvious based on the teachings of Deconinck and Hercouet. The examiner notes that "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). Thus, the concept of combining separate compositions for the same purpose is understood to be prima facie obvious. From Hercouet it is known that more than one dye composition may be used in combination with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a dyeing method for human keratin fibers where the compositions are mixed extemporaneously. Thus, the concept of having separate dye compositions and oxidizing agent composition mixed extemporaneously for dyeing hair is known as a suitable means of a dyeing process. As noted earlier, it is obvious to combine compositions for the same purpose and it is known from the art that multiple dye compositions may be used in hair dyeing methods, thus rendering it obvious and providing a reasonable expectation of success in forming multiple compositions comprising dye components, alkaline agents and propane-1,3-diol that are mixed extemporaneously with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a process of dyeing keratin fibers.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12, 15, and 16 of copending Application No. 18/573,917 in view of Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011), Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
The application recites a process for dyeing keratin fibers comprising application of a composition including components of 1,3-propanediol, nonionic surfactant, alkaline agent and one or more dyes and mixing with a composition comprising chemical oxidizing agents.
The application does not recite separate dye compositions mixed extemporaneously or the species of alkaline agent (ethanolamine), dye (2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine) or the cationic polymer and nonionic surfactants or hydrogen peroxide. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge.
The teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge are described supra.
Therefore, 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 have a process of coloring keratin fibers using separate compositions mixed extemporaneously and comprising dyes of 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 0.01-30% alkaline agent of monoethanolamine, 0.05-40% propane-1,3-diol, cationic polymer, nonionic oxyethylenated plant oil surfactant, and a composition comprising a chemical oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Mixing compositions extemporaneously is known from Deconinck and each of the components and species are known from Deconinck and DeGeorge to be suitable in compositions for dyeing keratin fibers and their inclusion merely represents the use of known prior art elements according to their known purpose in dye compositions. Regarding the formation of separate dye compositions (e.g. composition A and B as claimed), this would have been obvious based on the teachings of Deconinck and Hercouet. The examiner notes that "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). Thus, the concept of combining separate compositions for the same purpose is understood to be prima facie obvious. From Hercouet it is known that more than one dye composition may be used in combination with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a dyeing method for human keratin fibers where the compositions are mixed extemporaneously. Thus, the concept of having separate dye compositions and oxidizing agent composition mixed extemporaneously for dyeing hair is known as a suitable means of a dyeing process. As noted earlier, it is obvious to combine compositions for the same purpose and it is known from the art that multiple dye compositions may be used in hair dyeing methods, thus rendering it obvious and providing a reasonable expectation of success in forming multiple compositions comprising dye components, alkaline agents and propane-1,3-diol that are mixed extemporaneously with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a process of dyeing keratin fibers.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-37 of copending Application No. 19/496,931 in view of Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011), Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
The application recites a process for dyeing keratin fibers by applying a composition comprising chemical oxidizing agent, and a composition comprising components including oxidation base of 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine, alkaline agent, coupler and nonionic surfactant.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 16-34 of copending Application No. 19/496,938 in view of Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011), Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
The application recites a method of dyeing hair comprising applying to hair a mixture formed from a composition comprising components including alkaline agents and dyes and a composition comprising chemical oxidizing agents.
The application does not recite separate dye compositions mixed extemporaneously or the species of alkaline agent (ethanolamine), dye (2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine), propane-1,3-diol, or the cationic polymer and nonionic surfactants or hydrogen peroxide. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge.
The teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge are described supra.
Therefore, 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 have a process of coloring keratin fibers using separate compositions mixed extemporaneously and comprising dyes of 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 0.01-30% alkaline agent of monoethanolamine, 0.05-40% propane-1,3-diol, cationic polymer, nonionic oxyethylenated plant oil surfactant, and a composition comprising a chemical oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Mixing compositions extemporaneously is known from Deconinck and each of the components and species are known from Deconinck and DeGeorge to be suitable in compositions for dyeing keratin fibers and their inclusion merely represents the use of known prior art elements according to their known purpose in dye compositions. Regarding the formation of separate dye compositions (e.g. composition A and B as claimed), this would have been obvious based on the teachings of Deconinck and Hercouet. The examiner notes that "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). Thus, the concept of combining separate compositions for the same purpose is understood to be prima facie obvious. From Hercouet it is known that more than one dye composition may be used in combination with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a dyeing method for human keratin fibers where the compositions are mixed extemporaneously. Thus, the concept of having separate dye compositions and oxidizing agent composition mixed extemporaneously for dyeing hair is known as a suitable means of a dyeing process. As noted earlier, it is obvious to combine compositions for the same purpose and it is known from the art that multiple dye compositions may be used in hair dyeing methods, thus rendering it obvious and providing a reasonable expectation of success in forming multiple compositions comprising dye components, alkaline agents and propane-1,3-diol that are mixed extemporaneously with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a process of dyeing keratin fibers.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 18-36 of copending Application No. 19/496,942 in view of Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011), Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
The application recites a method of dyeing hair by applying a mixture of a composition comprising components including alkaline agents, one or more dyes and a composition comprising chemical oxidizing agents.
The application does not recite separate dye compositions mixed extemporaneously or the species of alkaline agent (ethanolamine), dye (2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine), propane-1,3-diol, or the cationic polymer and nonionic surfactants or hydrogen peroxide. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge.
The teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge are described supra.
Therefore, 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 have a process of coloring keratin fibers using separate compositions mixed extemporaneously and comprising dyes of 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 0.01-30% alkaline agent of monoethanolamine, 0.05-40% propane-1,3-diol, cationic polymer, nonionic oxyethylenated plant oil surfactant, and a composition comprising a chemical oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Mixing compositions extemporaneously is known from Deconinck and each of the components and species are known from Deconinck and DeGeorge to be suitable in compositions for dyeing keratin fibers and their inclusion merely represents the use of known prior art elements according to their known purpose in dye compositions. Regarding the formation of separate dye compositions (e.g. composition A and B as claimed), this would have been obvious based on the teachings of Deconinck and Hercouet. The examiner notes that "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). Thus, the concept of combining separate compositions for the same purpose is understood to be prima facie obvious. From Hercouet it is known that more than one dye composition may be used in combination with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a dyeing method for human keratin fibers where the compositions are mixed extemporaneously. Thus, the concept of having separate dye compositions and oxidizing agent composition mixed extemporaneously for dyeing hair is known as a suitable means of a dyeing process. As noted earlier, it is obvious to combine compositions for the same purpose and it is known from the art that multiple dye compositions may be used in hair dyeing methods, thus rendering it obvious and providing a reasonable expectation of success in forming multiple compositions comprising dye components, alkaline agents and propane-1,3-diol that are mixed extemporaneously with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a process of dyeing keratin fibers.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19-37 of copending Application No. 19/496,945 in view of Deconinck et al. (WO2011/131676, published 27 Oct 2011), Hercouet et al. (US 2015/0272842, published 01 Oct 2015) and DeGeorge et al. (US 2019/0117549, published 25 Apr 2019).
The application recites a method of dyeing hair comprising applying to the hair a mixture formed from a composition comprising one or more chemical oxidizing agents and a composition comprising components including coupler 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine and oxidation bases and alkanolamine alkaline agent
The application does not recite separate dye compositions mixed extemporaneously or the species of alkaline agent (ethanolamine), dye (2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine), propane-1,3-diol or the cationic polymer and nonionic surfactants or hydrogen peroxide. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge.
The teachings of Deconinck, Hercouet, and DeGeorge are described supra.
Therefore, 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 have a process of coloring keratin fibers using separate compositions mixed extemporaneously and comprising dyes of 2-methoxymethyl-para-phenylenediamine and 6-hydroxybenzomorpholine, 0.01-30% alkaline agent of monoethanolamine, 0.05-40% propane-1,3-diol, cationic polymer, nonionic oxyethylenated plant oil surfactant, and a composition comprising a chemical oxidizing agent hydrogen peroxide. Mixing compositions extemporaneously is known from Deconinck and each of the components and species are known from Deconinck and DeGeorge to be suitable in compositions for dyeing keratin fibers and their inclusion merely represents the use of known prior art elements according to their known purpose in dye compositions. Regarding the formation of separate dye compositions (e.g. composition A and B as claimed), this would have been obvious based on the teachings of Deconinck and Hercouet. The examiner notes that "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). Thus, the concept of combining separate compositions for the same purpose is understood to be prima facie obvious. From Hercouet it is known that more than one dye composition may be used in combination with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a dyeing method for human keratin fibers where the compositions are mixed extemporaneously. Thus, the concept of having separate dye compositions and oxidizing agent composition mixed extemporaneously for dyeing hair is known as a suitable means of a dyeing process. As noted earlier, it is obvious to combine compositions for the same purpose and it is known from the art that multiple dye compositions may be used in hair dyeing methods, thus rendering it obvious and providing a reasonable expectation of success in forming multiple compositions comprising dye components, alkaline agents and propane-1,3-diol that are mixed extemporaneously with an oxidizing agent composition as part of a process of dyeing keratin fibers.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7007. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on (571)272-0827. 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.
/EDWIN COLEMAN MITCHELL/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights