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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/03/2025 has been entered.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2020/067354 filed 06/22/2020. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) based on FR1906838 filed 06/24/2019. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 4, 17, 22 and 25 are amended. Claims 26 and 27 are new. Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-17, 19 and 21-27 are pending. Claims 9-16 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 17, 19 and 21-27 (claims set filed 12/03/2025) and are examined on the merits herein.
Withdrawal of Rejections
The response and amendment filed on 12/03/2025 are acknowledged. All of the amendment and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed and considered.
For the purposes of clarity of the record, the reasons for the Examiner's withdrawal and/or maintaining if applicable, of the substantive or essential claim rejections are detailed directly below and/or in the Examiner's response to arguments section.
The previous claim 1 objection has been withdrawn necessitated by amendment of claim 1.
The previous claims 1, 2, 7, 8 and 25 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn necessitated by amendment of claim 1.
The previous claims 4, 17 and 22 rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) has been withdrawn necessitated by amendment of claims 4, 17 and 22.
The previous claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 17, 19 and 21-25 rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been withdrawn necessitated by amendment of claims 1 and 25.
New Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 17, 19 and 21-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stout (US 20170049692 A1 on record in IDS) in view of Thorel (FR 2863887 on record in IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Stout teaches skin rejuvenation and defense system compositions for topical application on the skin (Abstract). Stout mentions that the compositions are used as cosmetic compositions (paragraph 0017) and provides working examples of application of the compositions on the skin of face, neck and underarms resulting in an increase in skin hydration, refining pores and decrease of wrinkle depth (paragraphs 0080, 0083, 0088, 0090). Stout does not teach application of the composition on mucous membranes. Stout discloses that the skin defense system includes: “a skin defense application that includes (i)Taraxacum Officinale (a.k.a. dandelion) extract (commercially available as Apolluskin® from Silab, France), (ii) a pre-/pro-biotic complex, comprising alpha-glucan oligosaccharide (or α-glucooligosaccharides), β-fructooligosaccharides (e.g., (as or obtained from) Smallanthus sonchifolius (syn.: Polymnia edulis, P. sonchifolia) and/or Pachyrhizus erosus (a.k.a. jicama) root juice), maltodextrin, and Lactobacillus sp.(e.g., Lactobacillus casei, L. acidophilus) probiotic bacteria (commercially available as Ecoskin® from Solabia Group, France), (iii) an emulsifier, (iv) a moisturizer, and/or (v) water.” (paragraph 0007). Thus, the skin defense composition contains glucooligosaccharide (GOS), fructooligosaccharide (FOS), probiotics and physiologically acceptable excipients. Stout describes that Ecoskin[Symbol font/0xD2] including α-glucooligosaccharides and β-fructooligosaccharides comprises 1-5% of the skin defense composition (paragraph 0010).
Specification describes the composition of Ecoskin[Symbol font/0xD2] by Solabia: “Said mixture comprises in particular: - between 60% and 80% by weight of at least one glucooligosaccharide (GOS) relative to the total weight of the mixture, and - between 10% and 25% by weight of at least one fructooligosaccharide (FOS) relative to the total weight of the mixture.” (paragraphs 0091). Therefore, 1-5% of the Ecoskin[Symbol font/0xD2] will result in 0.6-4.0% of GOS and 0.1-1.25% of FOS relative to total weight of the composition in Stout teaching that reads on limitations of claim 1.
Stout does not teach mannose monosaccharide in the composition.
Thorel teaches dermatological and/or cosmetic galenic base to improve tolerance and optimize the effect of active agents and describes cosmetic and/or dermatological compositions (Abstract). Thorel mentions that the base is used for preparation of various cosmetic products such as creams, lotions, make-up products, hair products (p. 6, 3rd paragraph). Thorel discloses that the dermal/cosmetic galenic base contains monosaccharides, chosen from the group consisting of glucose, rhamnose, xylose, mannose and fructose and oligosaccharides such as FOS (p. 3, 1st and 2nd paragraphs). Thorel provides examples of compositions for different creams, i.e. cream for normal skin, cream for fragile skin, cream for skin exposed to sunlight and others (p. 6, Examples 1, 2, 3). These compositions contain rhamnose as a monosaccharide in the amount of 0.1% and 0.3% (p. 6, 7th, 8th and 9th paragraphs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add monosaccharide from Thorel cosmetic compositions to cosmetic compositions taught by Stout. One would have been motivated to make this modification because Thorel teaches compositions containing monosaccharides to improve tolerance and optimize the effect of active agents and describes compositions for various type of skin. A skilled artisan would have reasonably expected success in this combination since Stout and Thorel teach cosmetic compositions for topical application to the skin and containing common ingredients, i.e. fructooligosaccharides.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try using other monosaccharides from Thorel teaching, including mannose, in preparation of cosmetic compositions instead of rhamnose described by Thorel in Examples 1-6 (p. 6-7) and use monosaccharides at the same concentration as rhamnose, i.e. 0.1% or 0.3%. One would have been motivated to do that with reasonable expectation of success to select the monosaccharide best suited for the corresponding topical application. Thus, Stout and Thorel teachings render claim 1 obvious.
Regarding claim 2, Stout teaches emulsifier and moisturizer present in the composition (paragraph 0007). Thus, Stout and Thorel teachings render claim 2 obvious.
Regarding claims 4, 17, 19, 23 and 24, as described for claim 1 above, Stout teaches 1-5% of Ecoskin® from Solabia in the composition (paragraph 0010) that according to Specification results in 0.6-4.0% of GOS and 0.1-1.25% of FOS in the composition that reads on the limitation for the mixture of GOS and FOS of 0.01-10% for claims 4 and 17 and 0.05-10% for claim 19 and for the amount of GOS of 0.05-5% in claim 23 and 0.05-1% in claim 24 and the amount of FOS of 0.001-1% in claim 23 and 0.001-0.5% in claim 24. Thus Stout and Thorel teachings render claims 4, 17, 19, 23 and 24 obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Stout teaches the composition to comprise probiotic Lactobacillus bacteria (paragraph 0007). Thus, Stout and Thorel teachings render claim 7 obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Stout teaches the composition to comprise 1-5% of Ecoskin® from Solabia (paragraph 0010%. The Specification describes the amount of probiotics in Ecoskin® from Solabia as 1%: “In particular, said mixture comprises 70% by weight of glucooligosaccharide (GOS), 19% by weight of Polymnia sonchifolia tuber juice, 1% by weight of Lactobacillus acidophilus and Lactobacillus casei, 10% by weight of maltodextrin.” (paragraphs 00912). Therefore, the amount of probiotic microorganism relative to total weight of the composition in Stout teaching is 0.01-0.05% that reads on limitation of claim 8. Thus, Stout and Thorel teachings render claim 8 obvious.
Regarding claims 21 and 22, as described for claim 1 above, Stout teaches mixture of GOS and FOS present in Ecoskin® from Solabia in the composition (paragraph 0007) that according to Specification has between 60% and 80% by weight of at least one GOS relative to the total weight of the mixture, and between 10% and 25% by weight of at least one FOS relative to the total weight of the mixture (paragraphs 0091) that reads on limitation of claim 22. The average mass ratio of GOS/FOS in Ecoskin® from Solabia is around 4 (70% of average GOS/17.5% average FOS), that reads on limitation of claim 21. As discussed above for claim 1, the Stout composition has 0.6-4.0% of GOS and 0.1-1.25% of FOS that reads on claim 22 the limitations. Thus, Stout and Thorel teachings render claims 21 and 22 obvious.
Regarding claim 25, Stout teaches that the rejuvenation and defense composition containing prebiotics and probiotics promotes the growth and development of beneficial skin flora (paragraph 0006). Thus, Stout and Thorel teachings render claim 25 obvious.
Regarding claims 26 and 27, Stout teaches the skin defense composition to have pH of around 5.75-6.25, that reads on claims 26 and 27 limitations. Thus, Stout and Thorel teachings render claims 26 and 27 obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 12/03/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 17, 19 and 21-25 rejections under 35 U.S.C.103 have been withdrawn necessitated by amendment of claim 1. Amended claim 1 is directed to a cosmetic composition for topical application on the skin except for mucous membranes.
The prior art of Paul teaches cosmetic or pharmaceutical composition for vaginal use (Abstract) and hence applied to mucous membrane. Similarly, Di Maio teaches pharmaceutical composition for use against urogenital infection (Abstract). Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections based on prior art of Paul and Di Maio were withdrawn. However, upon further consideration new rejections were applied as described above. The Applicant’s arguments filed 12/03/2025 regarding prior art of Paul and Di Maio are moot since the new rejections are not based on prior art of Paul and Di Maio.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIOUBOV G KOROTCHKINA whose telephone number is (571)270-0911. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00-5:30.
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, Sharmila G Landau can be reached at (571)272-0614. 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.
/L.G.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1653
/SHARMILA G LANDAU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1653