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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-2, 5, 8, 19, and 23) in the reply filed on 21 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I and III comprise compositions A, B, and C. This is not found persuasive because such groups lack a special technical feature and thus lack unity of invention in that such compositions were obvious as discussed in the prior art rejection hereinbelow.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 24-26, 37, 40-41, 43-45, 50, 56, 59, 61, and 66 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 21 August 2026.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8, 19, and 23 are under current consideration.
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 5, 8, 19, and 23 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 5, the phrases "such as" and “in particular” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrases are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “in particular” 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).
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “in particular” 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).
Regarding claim 23, the phrase “in particular” 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).
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.
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) 1-2, 5, 8, 19, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Javet et al. (US 2007/0180630 A1; published 09 August 2007).
Javet et al. discloses hair colorants with vat dyes (title) and a method for dyeing human hair (paragraph [0001]) wherein a method for dyeing hair includes pre-reducing a vat dye with a reducing agent at pH 10-13 to form reduced vat dye, and providing an agent for dyeing the hair having a pH of 4-11 and containing the reduced vat dye, allowing the agent to act on the hair, and re-oxidizing with an oxidant (abstract) wherein a reduced form can be stabilized by esterification using leuko vat dye esters prepared with chlorosulfonic acid (paragraph [0028]) wherein colorant can include common oxidation dye precursors including developers and couplers (paragraph [0017]) wherein developers can include for example 4,5-diamino-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole (paragraph [0018]) wherein the reduction can be carried out in the presence of an organic solvent such as ureas (paragraph [0012]) wherein the vat dye in aqueous solution is applied to hair followed by application of aqueous hydrogen peroxide emulsion to hair followed by rinsing the hair with water (Example 1 paragraphs [0033]-[0036]) wherein the formulation is preferably an aqueous solution (paragraph [0027]) wherein the agent of the invention can contain antioxidants such as ascorbic acid or sodium sulfite (paragraph [0026]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to follow the suggestions of Javet et al. as discussed above and to dye human hair by forming an aqueous solution comprising an agent for dyeing the hair having a pH of 4-11 with colorant including common oxidation dye precursor developer 4,5-diamino-1-methyl-1H-pyrazole (i.e., a 4,5-diaminopyrazole) and coupler (i.e., instantly claimed composition A), forming a reduced vat dye aqueous solution at pH 10-13 stabilized by esterification using leuko vat dye esters prepared with chlorosulfonic acid (i.e., a leuco vat dye sulfonic ester) in the presence of organic solvent urea and including antioxidant ascorbic acid and/or sodium sulfite (i.e., reducing agent) (i.e., instantly claimed composition B), adding the reduced vat dye aqueous solution to the colorant agent for dying hair aqueous solution such that the agent for dyeing hair then contains the reduced vat dye (i.e., compositions A and B are mixed prior to applying to the hair), applying the resulting mixture to human hair and allowing the agent to act on the hair, then applying the aqueous hydrogen peroxide (i.e., oxidizing agent) emulsion oxidant (i.e., instantly claimed composition C) to the hair followed by rinsing the hair with water, to dye the hair, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Such pH ranges of 4-11 and 10-13 overlap the claimed range of 8-11, and a prima facie case of obviousness exists where prior art and claimed ranges overlap per MPEP 2144.05(I).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL B. PALLAY whose telephone number is (571)270-3473. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Sue Liu can be reached at (571)272-5539. 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.
/MICHAEL B. PALLAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights