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 .
Reopening After Board Decision-Necessitated By IDS
This action contains new grounds of rejection necessitated by submission of an IDS on 03 December 2025 subsequent to the 26 November 2025 Board Decision. This action is NON-FINAL.
Claim Status
The most recently filed claims are the claim listing of 09 October 2023. No amended claims or arguments have been filed subsequent to the 26 November 2025 Board Decision.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 9, are amended.
Claims 11-20 withdrawn.
Claims 1-10 are under consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 December 2025 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed and initialed copy of each IDS is included with the instant Office Action.
New & Maintained Objections/Rejections
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Paragraph [0069] refers to “flowchart 100” and “FIGURE 1”. There is no “flowchart 100” or “Figure 1”; there is “The Figure”. While the Figure is a flowchart, there is no “100” numeral anywhere on it. Paragraph [0069] may be amended to state “The Figure is a flowchart…” “The steps of the flowchart of THE FIGURE can be carried out”. Applicant is reminded to check the entire specification for recitations of “Figure 1” and “flowchart 100”. See also paragraphs [0070], [0073] & [0074].
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in the 09 October 2023 remarks that paragraph [0011] has been corrected (reply, pg. 9).
This is not persuasive. Figure 1 and “flowchart 100” remain in numerous areas of the specification.
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.
Claims 1-7 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel (Dr. Dennis Gross; Published: 05/01/2019; IDS- 12/03/2025) in view of Pooth (WO 2019164836; Published: 08/29/2019), Moy (US 2022/0362121; provisional filing date: 05/13/2021; previously cited PTO-892: 05/10/2023) and Ciocarlan (Chemical Composition and Assessment of Antimicrobial Activity of Lavender Essential Oil and Some By-Products, Plants 2021, 10, 1829).
Claim Analysis: the term “active ingredients” is not defined by the instant disclosure. This term has been interpreted broadly.
With regard to claims 1, claims 1(a) & 2, Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel teaches a liquid peeling system comprising a step 1 composition with a pH of 3.5 comprising six alpha hydroxy acids (AHAs) and beta hydroxy acids (BHAs; pg. 1 & 2). Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel teaches the step 1 AHAs exfoliate dead skin cells (pg. 1). With regard to claims 1(a) & 5, Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel teaches the AHAs comprise glycolic acid, lactic acid, citric acid, and mandelic acid and the BHA is salicylic acid (pg. 6). With regard to claims 1(b), 6, & 7, Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel teaches the one or more free radical neutralizing agents are malic acid and tartaric acid (i.e. dicarboxylic acids/free radical neutralizing agent) and at least one phenolic acid which is gallic acid (i.e. free radical neutralizing agent; pg. 6). With regard to claims 1 ( c), 6 & 7, Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel teaches inclusion of Lavandula angustifolia flower/leaf/stem extract (pg. 6). With regard to claim 1, Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel teaches inclusion of aqua/water which is a cosmetically acceptable carrier (pg. 6). With regard to claim 10, Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel teaches step 1 does not comprise resorcinol. Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel teaches inclusion of alcohol denat. (i.e. denatured alcohol/Penetration aid), glycerin (i.e.humectant), gallic acid, camellia sinensis leaf extract (i.e. soothing agent; pg. 6)
Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel does not teach the total amount of active ingredients is less than 50 w/w% of the skin care composition, the amount of the AHAs and BHAs, or that one or more increasing synthesis of dermal components comprise at least one triterpene acid which are oleanic acid and ursolic acid.
With regard to claim 7, Pooth teaches oleanic acid is also known as oleanolic acid [0119].
In the same field of invention, with regard to claim 1, Moy teaches a chemical peel (composition used in the exfoliation of skin) which has a low pH from about 0.05 to about 4 [0039]. With regard to claims 1, 3, & 4, Moy teaches inclusion of a mixture of alpha hydroxy acids which may be one or more alpha hydroxy acid(s) and/or a salt thereof including glycolic acid and lactic acid in an amount from “about 2 to about 22 wt. % or from about 7 to about 15 wt. % relative t0o the total weight of the personal care formulation. For example, the amount of alpha hydroxy acids in the personal are formulations may be from about 2 to about 20 wt. %... about 10 to about 12 wt. %, including any range or subrange thereof” (i.e. keratolytic agent-AHA; [0056] & [0057]). With regard to claims 1, 3, & 4, Moy teaches the “personal care formulation typically comprises one or more beta hydroxy acid(s). Non-limiting examples of beta hydroxy acids include salicylic acid” [0058] . With regard to claims 1, 3, & 4, the personal care formulations of the invention may comprise beta hydroxy acids in an amount from about 0.5 to about 10 wt. %, or from about 1.5 to about 3 wt. %, relative to the total weight formulation. For example, the amount of beta hydroxy acids present in the personal care formulation may be from about 0.5 to about 8 wt. %, about 0.5 to about 6 wt. %....about 3 to about 4 wt. %, including ranges and subranges thereof, based on the total weight of the personal care formulation. In one instance, the personal care formulation comprises beta hydroxy acids from about 1.5 to about 2 wt. %, based on the total weight of the personal care formulation” [0059]. With regard to claims 1, 3, 4, 6, & 7, Moy teaches inclusion of wound healing agents which “are not limited to, triterpenes, triterpenoids, oleanolic acid [i.e. oleanic acid], maslinic acid, asiaticoside or combinations thereof. In some embodiments, the wound healing agents include asiaticoside and oleanolic acid [i.e. oleanic acid] or a combination of two or more thereof” (i.e. agent increasing synthesis of dermal components with a triterpene which is oleanolic acid/ oleanic acid; [0068]). “The personal care formulation of the invention may comprise one or more wound healing agent(s) from about 0 to about 5 wt. %, or from about 0.5 to about 3 wt. %, relative to the total weight of the personal care formulation. In some cases, the amount of wound healing agent (s) present in the personal are formulation may be from about 0.1 to about 5 wt. %, about 0.1 to about 4 wt. %... about 3 to about 4 wt. %, or any range or subrange thereof, based on the total weight of the personal care formulation” [0068]. With regard to claim 1, Moy teaches carriers, including water, in an amount of 60-80%, which yields a formulation comprising 20-40% active ingredients by simple math [0066]. With regard to claims 1, 3, & 4, Moy in Table 1 teaches penetration aides inclusive to denatured alcohol in an amount of 15%, alpha hydroxy acids inclusive to citric acid, glycolic acid, mandelic acid, lactic acid, malic acid (also a dicarboxylic acid free radical neutralizing agent), and tartaric acid in an amount of 7% (i.e. each in an amount of 1.16% by simple math), beta hydroxy acids inclusive to salicylic acid in an amount of 1% (1% each by simple math), humectant inclusive to glycerin in an amount of 1%, soothing agents inclusive to camellia sinensis leaf extract in an amount of 5% and wound healing agents inclusive to triterpenes and oleanolic acid in an amount of 5%, teaching an amount of 34% active agent [0078]. With regard to claim 3, Moy in Table 1 teaches AHAs comprise 20% of the active ingredients (7/34 = 20%) and BHAs comprise 2.9% of the active ingredients (1/34 = 2.9%; [0078]). With regard to claim 4, Moy in Table 1 teaches citric acid, glycolic acid, mandelic acid, lactic acid, malic acid, and tartaric acid (i.e. AHAs) each in an amount of 3.0% [Math: 1.16/34 = 3.4%], and BHA/salicyclic acid in an amount of 2.9% [Math: 1/34= 2.9). With regard to claim 10, Moy teaches resorcinol as an optional reagent for the personal care formulations of their invention and do not exemplify its use (i.e. the active ingredients lack resorcinol; [0102]).
With regard to claims 1 ( c), 6, & 7, Ciocarlan teaches for characterization of oleanic acid and uroslic acid from Lavandula angustifolia hydrodistillates (extracts) from fresh lavender inflorescences (i.e. stems, flowers and leaves; title, pg. 10). The hydrodistillates from fresh lavender stems, flowers and leaves comprised oleanic acid and uroslic acid in a combined amount of 8.83-9.95% and in a 1: 3.7 ratio, confirming that lavender is a valuable source of natural oleanic and uroslic triterpene acids (pg. 5 & 6).
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Note that the list of rationales provided is not intended to be an all-inclusive list. Other rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness may be relied upon by Office personnel.
Here, at least rationale (G) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective to have modified Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel’s step 1 composition by adjusting the amount of total active agents to be 20-40%, the amount of AHAs to be 20% of the active ingredients, BHAs to be 2.9% of the active ingredients, with the concentration of each of the AHAs being 1.16% of the active ingredients and the concentration of each of the BHAs being 2.9%, and the amount of Lavandula Angustifolia flower/leaf/stem extract which comprises oleanic/oleanolic acid and ursolic acids (triterpene acids) as taught by Pooth and Ciocarlan to be 5% as taught by Moy because Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel’s step 1 composition and Moy’s composition are both acidic skin peels that exfoliate and it is obvious to modify similar compositions in the same way. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do in order to modify the detachment of dead skin cells through adjustment of the AHAs, break down of fatty components by adjusting the amount of BHA’s and soothe the skin through adjustment of concentration of triterpenes, ursolic and oleanic/oleanolic acids by increasing the amount of Lavandula Angustifolia flower/leaf/stem extract present in the composition as suggested by the combined teachings of Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel, Pooth, Moy and Ciocarlan.
With regard to the recited amounts of the active ingredients, including (a) an effective amount of a keratolytic agent/AHAs and BHAs, (b) an effective amount of one or more free radical neutralizing agents, and (c) an effective amount of one or more agents increasing the synthesis of dermal components; and pH range; the combined teachings of Pooth, Moy and Ciocarlan teach these parameters with values which fall within or overlap with the recited ranges.
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).
Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With regard to claim 1, since Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel teaches step 1 is acidic and has a pH of 3.5, the one or more free radical neutralizing agents and the one or more agents for increasing the synthesis of dermal components are necessarily acids in an un-neutralized, natural acid form otherwise the composition would not have an acidic pH.
Claims 8 & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel, Pooth, Moy, and Ciocarlan, as applied to claims 1-7 & 10 above, and further in view of Colvan (US 2013/0074860; Published 03/28/2013), Mason (WO 00/69408; Published: 11/23/2000), McKie (US 2005/0136015; Published: 06/23/2005) and Holtkoetter (DE 102006046076; Published 04/19/2007).
Claim Analysis: the term “active ingredients” is not defined by the instant disclosure. This term has been interpreted broadly.
All references refer to the English language translation.
The teachings of Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel, Pooth, Moy, and Ciocarlan are described above. With regard to claim 8, Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel teaches the composition comprises the at least one dicarboxylic acids malic acid and tartaric acid, the at least one phenolic acid gallic acid, and Lavandula Angustifolia Flower/leaf/stem Extract which comprises oleanic and ursolic acids as taught by Ciocarlan (pg. 6). Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid step 1 composition comprises Pyrus Malus Fruit Extract (pg. 6). With regard to claims 8 & 9, more broadly, Moy in Table 1 teaches exfoliating skin peels comprise malic acid in an individual amount of 3.0% [Math: 1.16/34 = 3.4%; [0078]. With regard to claims 8 & 9, more broadly, Moy teaches inclusion of one or more antioxidants from about 0.5 to about 3% of the personal care compositions [0067].
Neither Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel, Pooth, Moy, nor Ciocarlan teach the effective amount of the at least one phenolic acid, the at least one phenolic acid, or the at least one triterpene acid; or the concentration of each of the at least one dicarboxylic acids, the concentration of each of the at least one phenolic acids, or the concentration of each of the at least one dicarboxylic acids triterpene acids.
In the same field of invention of skin exfoliation, with regard to claims 8 & 9, Colvan teaches a skin peel composition that comprises maleic, mandalic citric acid, and tartaric acid with each acid taught as present in a concentration of from about 2% to about 80% (title, abstract, [0091], [0098]).
With regard to claims 8 & 9, in related field of regulating the condition of keratinous tissue through exfoliation/ desquamation of the upper layers of the stratum corneum, with skin peel agents, Mason teaches gallic acid is an anti-oxidant/radical scavenger (abstract; pg. 3, ll. 15-30).
With regard to claims 8 & 9, in the related field of desquamating the skin, removal of callus and reducing pore size, McKie teaches oleanolic/oleanic acid is a 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor which reduces sebum production (leading to less pore plug build up) and reduces the need for a larger pore passage. (abstract; [0057]; [0070]). McKie in claim 17 teaches inclusion of about 0.1% to about 0.5% the 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor which may be oleanolic/oleanic acid (claim 17; [0070]).
With regard to claims 8 & 9, in the related field of treating wrinkles, creases and aging, and improving the appearance of light aged skin, Holtkoetter teaches ursolic acid to be a preferred active agent which increases the cosmetic effect of the cosmetic composition with ursolic acid used particularly preferably in an amount of 0.05 to 0.1% of the composition (title; pg. 3, 10 & 15). The composition is taught to comprise Myrus Malus Fruit Extract (pg. 3).
Here, at least rationale (G) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the composition suggested by the combined teachings of Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel, Pooth, Moy, and Ciocarlan by adjusting the amount malic acid (dicarboxylic acid) to an individual amount of 3.0% as suggested by the combined teachings of Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel and Moy and the tartaric acid (i.e. dicarboxylic acid) to be about 2% to about 80% of the active ingredients [yielding about 5% to about 83% of dicarboxylic acids] as suggested by the combined teachings of Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel and Colvan because Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel teaches inclusion of malic acid, and tartaric acid in their step 1 composition which peels and exfoliates and these amounts are suitable for exfoliating compositions by Moy and Colvan. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so, in order to use, these reagents in amounts art recognized as suitable for compositions that peel and/or exfoliate.
Here, at least rationale (G) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the composition suggested by the combined teachings of Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel, Pooth, Moy, and Ciocarlan by adjusting the amount of gallic acid to be about 0.5 to about 3% of the active ingredients as suggested by the combined teachings of Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel, Moy, and Mason because Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel’s step one composition comprises gallic acid (i.e. at least one phenol) which is an antioxidant in exfoliation/ desquamation compositions as taught by Mason with antioxidants used in skin peels that exfoliate in an amount of about 0.5 to about 3% as taught by Moy. The ordinary skill artisan would have been motivated to do so, with an expectation of success, in order to adjust the antioxidant properties of the active ingredient composition.
Here, at least rationale (G) may be employed in which it would have been prima facie obvious to the ordinary skilled artisan before the effective filing date to have modified the composition suggested by the combined teachings of Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel, Pooth, Moy, and Ciocarlan by adjusting the amount of oleanolic/oleanic acid to be about 0.1% to about 0.5% and the amount ursolic acid to be about 0.05 to 0.1% of the active ingredients [yielding the two triterpene acids in combined amount of about 0.15% to about 0.6%; wherein each triterpene is less than 1 w/w% of the active ingredients] as suggested by the combined teachings of McKie, and Holtkoetter because Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel, Moy, Ciocarlan, McKie, and Holtkoetter are directed to the related fields of skin peels that exfoliate and compositions which treat aging, lined and creased skin and known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives. The ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so in order to increase the cosmetic effect of sebum reduction through adjustment of the amount of oleanolic/oleanic acid to about 0.1% to about 0.5% of the active ingredients and treat wrinkles, creases and skin aging, through inclusion of ursolic acid in an amount of 0.05 to 0.1%.
With regard to the recited amount of at least one dicarboxylic acid, at least one phenolic acid, and at least one triterpene acid, the combined teachings of Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel, Pooth, Moy, Ciocarlan, Colvan, Mason, McKie and Holtkoetter suggest these parameters with values which fall within or overlap with the claimed ranges. 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).
Pertinent Art Not Relied Upon For Rejection
Applicant is notified of art made of record but not relied upon that is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
EP0496649 teaches witch hazel leaf extract (i.e. the Hamamelis Virginiana Leaf Extract of Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel’s step 1 composition) comprises gallic acid and caffeic acid (abstract).
Azizah (International Journal of Research and Review. Vol. 7, Issue: 9, September 2020) teaches betulinic acid is present in apples that were assessed by HPLC (pg. 235; i.e. the Pyrus Malus Fruit Extract of Mintel Clinical Grade Resurfacing Liquid Peel’s step 1 composition).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORI K MATTISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5866. The examiner can normally be reached 9-7 (M-F).
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 J Blanchard can be reached at 5712720827. 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.
/LORI K MATTISON/Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/DAVID J BLANCHARD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619
/JENNIFER K MICHENER/Group Director, TC 1600