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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/13/2025 has been entered.
Claim Status
Claims 1-22 and 24-26 are pending.
Claims 19-20 and 25-26 are currently amended.
Claim 23 is canceled.
Claims 1-18 and 24 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected method invention, the election having been made on 3/14/2023.
Claims 19-22 and 25-26 have been examined.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2019/025028 filed on 01/29/2019 which claims foreign priority of FRANCE 1850845 filed on 02/01/2018.
Withdrawn Rejection
All rejections of record are withdrawn because none of the references teach caprylic/capric triglyceride.
New Ground of Rejection
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19-21 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims encompass a natural composition of flax seed oil extract together with a natural fatty excipient. The eligibility of patent subject of 101 analysis is further analyzed as follows.
Step 1. The claim is directed to a composition. comprising (i) a mixture of cyclic peptides and (ii) a natural compound of a caprylic/capric triglyceride.
PNG
media_image1.png
108
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 2A-Prone 1 (judicial exception). Yes, the claim cited judicial exceptions (i) a mixture of cyclic peptides and (ii) a natural compound of a caprylic/capric triglyceride.
Flaxseed comprises a mixture of claimed cyclic peptides according to the specification with a weight range as follows (p16, line 22 to p17, line 8). The specification indicates that the Met residues in these peptides can be oxidized (p7, line 3-5; p17, line 9-10) and the sequence listing explicitly sets forth that the sequences include oxidized versions. For example, the listing for SEQ ID NO: 4 indicates, “Met can be oxidized into sulfoxide or sulfone.” As such, “SEQ ID NO: 4” includes both cyclo-(Met-Leu-Val-Phe-Pro-Leu-Phe-Ile) comprising methionine with or without oxidation.
The claim further requires that the peptide mixture be present with a natural oil of caprylic/capric triglyceride as a physiologically acceptable medium. Yoo et al. (KR 2019076113) is cited as evidenced to show that caprylic/capric triglyceride is a natural oil and capable of being used in a cosmetic composition (See Yoo et al. English translation of abstract). Both ingredients as claimed exist in nature, and there is no evidence in the record that the combination of peptides and caprylic/capric triglyceride imparts new properties.
Step 2A-Prone 2 (whether the claim as whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception). No, there is nothing in the claim to integrate the judicial exception (JE) into any particular practical application. The amounts in the claims are the amounts in which the cyclic peptides naturally occur and a physiologically acceptable medium of natural caprylic/capric triglyceride. The wherein clause described cyclic peptides made by a process comprising a solvent extract of flaxseeds; however, the solvent of ethanol is evaporated under vacuum, according to the specification (p16, line 21-26). The extraction solvent no longer exists in the cyclic peptide mixture composition comprising a natural oil of caprylic/capric triglyceride (See Yoo et al. English translation of abstract) as claimed.
Step 2B: No, there is nothing in the claim that causes it to amount to significantly more than the JE. The high level of generality for limitations including a physiologically acceptable medium of caprylic/capric triglyceride in a cosmetic composition is merely well-understood, routine, conventional activity as evidenced by CN107536748A showing caprylic/capric triglyceride with moisturizing and anti-oxidant activity for maintenance skin barrier function (p8, English translation of abstract). Thus, the claim 19 as a whole with a combination of all elements amounts to significantly no more than the JEs. Again, the claim is drawn to a composition comprising a cyclic peptide mixture in a physiologically acceptable medium of caprylic/capric triglyceride in which the peptides exist naturally in flaxseed/linseed and caprylic/capric triglyceride is a natural oil. Thus, claim 19 fails to satisfy 101 analyses.
With respect to claim 20, the specification disclosed the solvent is evaporated under vacuum (p16, line 21-26). The extraction solvent no longer exists in the composition of cyclic peptide mixture as claimed. Thus, claim 20 is further rejected under 101 as the additional limitation fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to claim 21, the omega-3 fatty acids in flaxseed/linseed are cosmetic active ingredients to act on the properties of the epidermis. Thus, the additional limitation fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
With respect to claims 25-26, the milled flax does not change the structure of cyclic peptide or add new ingredients to the composition as claimed. Thus, the additional limitation fails to integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments of caprylic/capric triglyceride not natural product filed 6/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the arguments do not apply to the new ground of rejection. In particular, Yoo et al. teach a natural oil of caprylic/capric triglyceride (See English translation of abstract).
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.
Claim 22 is 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.
The phrase “chosen from the group comprising” in claim 22 is improper Markush grouping. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. Abbott Labs., 334 F.3d at 1280, 67 USPQ2d at 1196. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim. See MPEP 2173.05(h).
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.
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.
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.\
1. Claims 19-20 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laarveld et al. (US 2014/0329741 A1, previously cited 6/15/2023) in view of CN107536748A (the CN-748 patent). The cyclic peptide sequences of linus cyclopeptide (LCP) can be found in the priority document of US 2014/0329741 A1 (provisional application No. 61/577,217 filed on Dec 19, 2011 NOT attached).
PNG
media_image2.png
450
868
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 19 is drawn to a composition comprising SEQ ID Nos: 4-9 as follows and a physically acceptable medium of a caprylic/capric triglyceride. The wherein clause does not change the structure of cyclic peptides or the function of cyclic peptides after solvent extract of flax seed. The MPEP states the following: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)…" (see MPEP § 2113 I).
PNG
media_image3.png
460
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Laarveld et al. teach the use of a linus cyclopeptide (LCP) extract from flaxseed for an active ingredient of natural product, food additive, or nutraceuticals in solid or liquid form [Abstract, 0073]. Laarveld et al. teach a natural product or pharmaceutical composition of the LCP extract from flaxseed oil comprises, consists essentially of or consists of LCP-1, LCP-2, LCP-3, LCP-4, LCP-5, LCP-6, LCP-7, LCP-8 and LCP-9 shown above [0066/weight ratio, claim 5]. Laarveld’s LCPs, see provisional application No. 61/577,217, corresponding to the claimed peptide structures are shown above. Laarveld et al. suggest the weight ratio of each LCPs preferably corresponding to
PNG
media_image4.png
92
510
media_image4.png
Greyscale
their amounts found in the flaxseed and further suggest methionine sulfur atom is susceptible to oxidation in air upon standing [0066]. Although Laarveld et al. is silent on the range of LCP9 (the instant SEQ ID NO: 6), the range of LCP-9 is estimated to be in a range
PNG
media_image5.png
220
430
media_image5.png
Greyscale
between 0-21% shown as follows overlapping with the claimed range of SEQ ID NO: 6 between 15 to 25%, reading on the weight ratio of mixed cyclic peptides as claimed. See MPEP 2144.05 (I) “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).” Furthermore, Laarveld et al. teach the LCP extracts consists essentially of or consists of all LCP-1 to LCP-9 according to their amount in the flaxseed (claim 5-7) and further suggest the absolute amount of a single LCP is not critical and as long as the entire LCP extract administered in an effective amount to improve health of a subject (claim 1). Thus, the amount of each LCP in a composition is a result effective variable that can be determined by routine optimization for its intended use. Laarveld et al. teach LCPs has immunomodulation bioactivity in a skin condition known in the art [0004]. Laarveld et al. teach LCP extract from flaxseed is used as an antimicrobial agent against bacteria, viruses, fungi, and yeasts [0006, 0060]. Laarveld et al. further teach the use of extracted LCPs for treating soft tissue lesion (e.g., foot lesion) [0112]. Laarveld et al. also teach the compositions can be administered in various forms such as powder, a gel, a cream, or an ointment [0075], reading on topical composition in the preamble.
Laarveld et al. teach LCPs can be formulated with an oil carrier or into a natural product composition that is suitable for administration to subjects [0075-0076], but do not specify the natural composition comprising a natural oil of caprylic/capric triglyceride.
CN-748 patent teaches an oiliness skin care composition administered to skin and moisten soft and smooth sensation (English translation p1, Abstract). CN-748 patent teaches the use of a preferred natural plant origin grease in a mixture of caprylic/capric triglyceride to overcome the problem of feeling greasy (English translation p2, The content of the invention 1-4).
Because CN-748 patent teaches the beneficial use of a preferred natural plant origin grease in caprylic/capric triglyceride to overcome the problem of feeling greasy, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to beneficially add the mixture of caprylic/capric triglyceride to Laarveld’s topical composition such as a gel, a cream, or an ointment [0075] for an intended use, reading on claim 19.
With respect to claim 20, the solvent is used in a process of extracting the cyclic peptides from flaxseed. The specification disclosed that the solvent of ethanol is evaporated under vacuum (p16, line 21-26). The extraction alcohol no longer exists in the cyclic peptide mixture composition as claimed. Thus, Laarveld’s flaxseed extract composition satisfies the limitations. In addition, Laarveld et al. teach Linus cyclopeptide (LCP) is eluted from silica gel with a solvent comprising 10% methanol, reading on an alcohol [0055].
With respect to claims 25-26, the limitation of “oil milled” is a step of extract flaxseed, but it does not change the structure of cyclic peptides or a function of the composition as claimed. Thus, Laarveld’s flaxseed extract composition satisfies the limitations.
Tang et al. teach the defatted meal is then subjected to a milling step and a screening step to obtain a pressed oilseed known as a protein-enriched meal. For example with a disc mill or a hammer mill, to reduce the particle size of the defatted meal (p43, line 1-4).
Applicant’s Arguments
The amendment to claim 19 overcomes the rejection of record (Remarks, p7, last para to p8, para 1).
Claim 19 recites Laarveld LCP1, LCP2, LCP3, LCP5, LCP7 and LCP9. There is notably no equivalent to Laarveld LCP4 and LCPG both of which are present in all disclosed and suggested compositions of Laarveld (Remarks, p8, para 2-3).
Laarveld does not teach or suggest the many unexpected benefits associated with cyclic peptide compositions reflective of claim 19 of the present invention (Remarks, p8, para 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons as follows.
Applicant’s argument (i) is not persuasive because claim 19 is drawn to a composition “comprising” the claimed active ingredient under the broadest claim interpretation. “The word comprising “ is an open language and does not exclude other LCPs in the composition. The specification admits the LCP composition purified from natural Flax seeds without excluding a particular LCP (p16, A. Example of manufacturing of cyclic peptides according to the invention; p17, line 1-15). Similarly, Laarveld’s LCPs are also purified from natural Flax seeds (claim 5-7).
The specification indicates that the Met residues in these peptides can be oxidized (p7, line 3-5; p17, line 9-10) and the sequence listing explicitly sets forth that the sequences include oxidized versions. For example, the listing for SEQ ID NO: 4 indicates, “Met can be oxidized into sulfoxide or sulfone.” As such, “SEQ ID NO: 4” includes both cyclo-(Met-Leu-Val-Phe-Pro-Leu-Phe-Ile) comprising methionine with or without oxidation. Thus, the argument (i) is not persuasive according the disclosure and/or applicant’s admission of record.
Applicant’s argument (ii) is not persuasive because the argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. “The word comprising “ is an open language and does not exclude other LCPs in the composition. Laarveld et al. teach the LCP extracts consists essentially of or consists of all LCP-1 to LCP-9 according to their amount in the flaxseed (claim 5-7) and further suggest the absolute amount of a single LCP is not critical and as long as the entire LCP extract administered in an effective amount to improve health of a subject (claim 1). Thus, the amount of each LCP in a composition is a result effective variable that can be determined by routine optimization for its intended use. Furthermore, the specification admits the LCP composition purified from natural Flax seeds without excluding a particular LCP as argued by applicant (p16, A. Example of manufacturing of cyclic peptides according to the invention; p17, line 1-15).
Applicant’s argument (iii) is not persuasive because (a) Laarveld’s LCPs is expected for cosmetic function as applicant admits cyclopeptide-5 in Laarveld’s LCPs composition with anti-wrinkle activity in the specification (Background Art. p2, line 29-31) and (b) applicant failed to provide data comparison of the claimed composition with Laarveld’s LCPs composition.
2. Claims 19-22 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laarveld et al. in view of CN107536748A as applied to claims 19-20 and 25-26 and further in view of Gracioso et al. (FR3034314 with English translation and citation of teachings based on US 2018/0078481 A1 attached, previously cited 6/15/2023).
Claim 21 is directed to the composition further comprising at least one cosmetic active to act on the properties of the epidermis and/or the stratum corneum and/or on the decrease of the production of sebum by the sebocytes and/or having an astringent activity.
Laarveld et al. teach a composition comprising a mixture of LCPs extract from flaxseed with antimicrobial [0006] as well as anti-inflammatory [0106] activity and administered transdermally [0076] as applied to claims 19-20 and 25-26.
Laarveld et al. did not explicitly teach the composition further comprising sedanenolide or a mixture of sedanenolide, sedanolide and 3-n-butylphtalide.
Gracioso et al. teach the use of at least one alkyl-phthalide or a plant extract comprising mainly said alkyl-phthalide in a topical cosmetic composition [Abstract, 0062] or suitable for transdermal administration [0064]. Gracioso et al. suggest alkyl-phthalide improve the mechanical properties of the dermal extracellular matrix (density, firmness, fine lines and wrinkles in particular) and to prevent and/or treat an oily skin [0022] by acting on skin microflora [0024] by enhancing production of antimicrobial peptide and reducing proliferation of germs [0119-0122; Table 1], limiting (reading on decreasing) the production of sebum of skin [0048] and stimulating collagen synthesis [0051]. Gracioso et al. teach the alkyl-phthalides comprise sedanenolide, sedanolide and/or 3-n-butylphthalide are most preferably isolated from seeds of the Apium graveolens plant [0052]. Gracioso et al. further suggest the alkyl-phthalide(s) or plant extract comprising such may be combined with other active ingredients at effective concentrations that can act synergistically or additionally for reinforcing and achieving the desired effects such as anti-inflammatory effect [0066] and/or antimicrobial effect by reducing germ proliferation (Table 1). Because Gracioso et al. suggest a combination of the alkyl-phthalide(s) or plant extract with other active ingredients at effective concentrations that can act synergistically or additionally for reinforcing and achieving the desired effects such as anti-inflammatory effect [0012] or antimicrobial effect by reducing germ proliferation (Table 1) via topical or transdermal administration [0064], one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention would have found it obvious to beneficially combine Gracioso’s transdermal formulation of alkyl-phthalides [0064] with the composition taught by Laarveld et al. in view of CN107536748A having the same function of anti-microbial activity [0006] and anti-inflammatory [0106] that can act synergistically or additionally for reinforcing and achieving the desired effects as suggested by Gracioso et al. [0066], reading on claims 21-22.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention would have found it obvious to combine Laarveld et al. in view of CN107536748A with Gracioso’s alkyl-phthalides isolated from seeds of the Apium graveolens plant because (a) Laarveld et al. teach a composition comprising a mixture of LCPs extract from flaxseed with antimicrobial [0006] as well as anti-inflammatory [0106] activity suitable for transdermal administration [0076] and (b) Gracioso et al. further suggest the alkyl-phthalides or plant extract to be combined with other active ingredients at effective concentrations that can act synergistically or additionally for reinforcing and achieving the desired effects such as anti-inflammatory effect [0066] and/or antimicrobial effect by reducing germ proliferation (Table 1) for topical or transdermal use [0064]. The combination would have reasonable expectation of success because both references teach a composition with the same function having antimicrobial and anti-inflammatory effect suitable for transdermal administration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons above.
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 19-20 and 25-26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 14-15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,001,607 B2 (the ‘607 patent) in view of Laarveld et al. (US 2014/0329741 A1, previously cited 4/3/2025) in view of CN107536748A and Botto et al. (US 2015/0290273 A1, previously cited 4/3/2025).
PNG
media_image6.png
143
586
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claim 11 of the ‘607 patent disclosed a method for a non-therapeutic cosmetic treatment as follows.
Claim 11 of the ‘607 patent disclosed a method for a non-therapeutic cosmetic treatment as follows.
Claim 14 of the ‘607 patent disclosed anti-aging treatment.
Claim 15 of the ‘607 patent disclosed the administered ingredients further comprising additional peptides in addition to a peptide of claim 1.
Claims 11 and 14-15 of the ‘607 patent do not disclosed the additional peptides are cyclic peptides extracted from flax seed.
The relevancy of Laarveld et al. in view of CN107536748A as applied to claims 19-20 and 25-26 described above (page 6-8) not repeated here. Botto et al. is cited to show linseed extract of proteins were used for the treatment of irritations of the skin and skin appendages [Abstract, 0072]. Botto et al. further suggest the use of the linseed peptides in combination of anti-aging or anti-wrinkle agent [0085].
Because (i) claims 11 and 14-15 of the ‘607 patent disclosed combination of anti-aging or anti-wrinkle agent with additional bioactive peptides for non-therapeutic cosmetic treatment of skin and (ii) Botto et al. suggest beneficial combination of Laarveld’s linseed peptides in combination of anti-aging or anti-wrinkle agent [Botto et al. 0085] in a composition for non-therapeutic cosmetic treatment of skin, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention would have found it obvious to beneficially combine the method claims 11, 14-15 of the ‘607 patent in view of Laarveld et al. and Botto et al.
Thus, claims 11, 14-15 of the ‘607 patent in view of Laarveld et al. and Botto et al. is obvious to the instant claims 19-20 and 25-26.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the reasons above. In particular, claim 19 is drawn to a composition “comprising” the claimed active ingredient under the broadest claim interpretation not “consisting of” as argued by applicant.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIA-HAI LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri from 9:00 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/J.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1658
03-January-2026
/LI N KOMATSU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658