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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/02/2026 has been entered.
Withdrawn Rejections:
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on 04/02/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 11-16 and 18 are pending and under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS submitted on 04/02/2026 and 05/04/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 4, 7, 11-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baldo et al. (WO2010078985) in view of Pan et al. (US20170281503).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Baldo et al. teaches cosmetic method for controlling browning of the skin induced by UV radiation, in particular browning of dark skin, consisting in applying, to the surface of the skin, at least one composition comprising, in a cosmetically acceptable carrier: a) at least one depigmenting agent and b) at least one system for screening out both UV A radiation and UVB radiation; c) and optionally at least one keratolytic agent (abstract). The amount of depigmenting agent in the compositions of the invention preferably ranges from 0.0001% to 20% by weight (page 4, line 35-40). According to one particularly preferred embodiment of the invention, a hydroxylated diphenylmethane derivative will be chosen as depigmenting agent. 4-(l-phenylethyl)-1,3-benzenediol or 4-(1- phenylethyl)-1,3-dihydroxybenzene or otherwise known as phenylethyl resorcinol is mentioned (page 5, line 5-20; page 6, 1-20). Benzophenone-3 is included as UVA and UVB screen agent (page 12, line 1-10) from 1-10% (page 18, 10-20). The composition also comprises a desquamating agent such as capryloyl salicylic acid (page 19, line 1-10) from 0.01-2% (page 19, 15-25). The composition also comprises active agent antioxidant such as bioflavonoid (page 57, line 20-25) and agent for stimulating the synthesis of dermal macromolecules such as isoflavones (page 60, line 25-30) from 0.01 to 10% (page 85, line 5-15). Active agent caffeine (page 71, line 20) as stimming agent; nicotinate and derivatives (page 72, line 25-30) for promoting the cutaneous capillary circulation; both from 0.01 to 10% (page 85, line 5-15). The composition also includes various additive such as gelling agent and nonionic surfactant, each from 0.01 to 20% (page 42, line 1-10), and nonionic emulsifier such as oxyalkylenated fatty acid esters of sorbitan from 0.5-20% (page 41, line 1-25).
Pan et al. teaches a composition for providing broad spectrum photo protection to skin comprising topically applying to the skin of a subject a cosmetic composition comprising: (a) one or more antioxidants selected from the group consisting of baicalin, Venuceane™, ferulic acid, polydatin, silymarin, punica granatum extract, mango leaf extract, soliprin, catechin, hesperetin, astilbin, and DHC V; (b) optionally, one or more solubilizers; and (c) a cosmetically acceptable carrier; wherein the combination of (a), optional (b), and (c) alone, provides at least broad spectrum protection from both infrared (IR) radiation and visible light (claim 20).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Baldo et al. is that Baldo et al. do not expressly baicalin, the deficiency of Baldo et al. is cured by Pan et al.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Baldo et al. as suggested by Pan et al., and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use baicalin as antioxidant in the composition of Baldo et al. because baicalin is a suitable antioxidant in topical composition for skin. MPEP 2144.07. Under guidance from Baldo et al. teaching antioxidant, Pan et al. teaching antioxidant such as baicalin, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use baicalin as antioxidant in the composition of Baldo et al. and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 1, 4,7, 14, 16 and 18, prior art teaches a skin composition comprising antioxidant such as baicalin from 0.01 to 10%; phenylethyl resorcinol 0.001% to 20%; capryloyl salicylic acid 0.01-2% and caffeine (ingredient iv) at 1-10%. According to applicant’s specification (page 6), Phenylethyl Resorcinol meets the formula (I) in claims 1 and 4; caffeine reads on xanthine base according to applicant’s specification (page 10).
Regarding claims 11-12, Baldo et al. teaches a skin composition further comprising gelling agent 0.01 to 20%.
Regarding claim 13, Baldo et al. teaches a skin composition further comprising oxyalkylenated fatty acid esters of sorbitan.
Regarding claim 15, Baldo et al. teaches a process for controlling browning of the skin, that reads on brightening or whitening the skin. In arguendo that controlling browning of the skin does not read on brightening or whitening the skin, the brightening or whitening the skin is the results of prior art process because the same skin composition is applied at the same amount by the same manner to the skin.
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Response to Declaration:
The declaration of Jie Qiu under 37 CFR 1.132 filed on 04/02/2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 11-16 and 18 based upon Baldo et al. (WO2010078985) in view of Pan et al. (US20170281503) as set forth in the last Office action because:
Applicants argue about unexpected results from Table 1.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. MPEP 716.02(b), Evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). The sample in the test only contains baicalin at only one percentage (0.00003571%) that is even outside of claimed range of 0.01% to 2%, there is no evidence to show the comparison results would happen in the whole claimed range of 0.01% to 2%. Therefore, no unexpected results has been established, and the 103 rejection is still proper.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness
Response to Argument:
Applicants argue it is not obvious to choose baicalin, phenylethyl resorcinol, capryloyl salicylic acid and caffeine. All related arguments are incorporate herein by reference.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. As discussed in the above 103 rejections, Baldo et al. teaches phenylethyl resorcinol among only a few hydroxylated diphenylmethane derivative as depigmenting agent; capryloyl salicylic acid among short list of desquamating agent; caffeine among a list of stimming agent, and it is within skill of one artisan in the art to choose phenylethyl resorcinol, capryloyl salicylic acid and caffeine. Furthermore, Under guidance from Baldo et al. teaching antioxidant, Pan et al. teaching antioxidant such as baicalin, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use baicalin as antioxidant in the composition of Baldo et al. and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Regarding applicant’s “hindsight” argument, however, "[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, the 103 rejection is still proper.
Applicants argued about unexpected results from declaration
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. Since the declaration is not sufficient to overcome the 103 rejection, the arguments based on declaration is not sufficient to varoom the 103 rejection, either.
MPEP 2141 III states: “The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts.” Respectfully, after weighing all the evidence, the Examiner has reached a determination that the instant claims are not patentable in view of the preponderance of evidence and consideration of all the facts which is more convincing than the evidence which has been offered in opposition to it.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIANFENG SONG. Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/JIANFENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights