How can US20200206098A1 be patent-worthy when FR3037791B1 discusses the same things?

  • If you could provide links to the documents it would save every one some time. You want to make it easy for people to answer your questions.
    – Eric S
    Dec 4, 2020 at 0:25

2 Answers 2


This is not my field. Also an evaluation is complicated by the fact that FR3037791B1 is in French and I don't speak that language. I used Google Translate to get the following as the first claim.

  1. Cosmetic packaging article comprising: i) an envelope defining at least one cavity, the envelope consisting of at least one film, said film comprising at least one surfactant and at least one film-forming polymer and ii) at least one composition, of preferably in the form of a paste or a powder, comprising at least one compound chosen from: a) coloring agents chosen from oxidation dyes, direct dyes, and / or mixtures thereof; and / or b) chemical oxidizing agents; it being understood that the composition ii) is in one of the cavities defined by the envelope i).

Compared to the first claim of US20200206098A1

  1. A cosmetic product for changing the natural colour of keratinous fibres, comprising (i) at least one package (VP) comprising a water-soluble film (F), (ii) at least one cosmetic composition (KM) which is packaged in the package (VP) and comprises at least one oxidizing compound, (iii) at least one cosmetic colour composition (FZ) which is packaged in the package (VP), wherein the oxidizing compound is a solid oxidizing agent and is selected from the group consisting of a percarbonate salt, a perborate salt and a percarbamide salt.

I'm not a chemist, but I definitely get that the two claims have similarities. All I can say is that US20200206098A1 is only an application and it may indeed not be granted in light of FR3037791B1 or other prior art. Also it is very likely that the application's claims will be changed and narrowed to avoid prior art.


The application got a non-final rejection on 9/22/2020 on a few grounds. The only art cited is US20140008285. Apparently neither the applicant (in the IDS) or examiner considered the ref. you list as the closest art.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .