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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment and argument filed 02/19/2026 in response to the non-final rejection, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any previous rejection or objection not mentioned herein is withdrawn.
Claims 1-4 and 6-8 are pending of which claims 6-8 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 09/06/2023.
Claims 1-4 are being examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Applicant is referred to 37CFR 1.121 (c) Claims. Amendments to a claim must be made by rewriting the entire claim with all changes (e.g., additions and deletions) as indicated in this subsection, except when the claim is being canceled. Each amendment document that includes a change to an existing claim, cancellation of an existing claim or addition of a new claim, must include a complete listing of all claims ever presented, including the text of all pending and withdrawn claims, in the application. The claim listing, including the text of the claims, in the amendment document will serve to replace all prior versions of the claims, in the application. In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered). Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 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.
Claim 4 recites “Q-Sonica sonication probe” and it is unclear if the applicant is requiring that the only form of sonication be from a specific type of sonication device and one that is from Q-Sonica or any particular device. The limitation is also indefinite because Q-Sonica is a brand name and not a particular device and brand names are subject to change. The limitation is therefore indefinite.
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.
These rejections are maintained with slight modifications due to the amendments filed on 02/19/2026.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehan Balata et. al. (Self-emulsifying drug delivery systems as a tool to improve solubility and bioavailability of resveratrol, Drug Design, Development and Therapy, January 05, 2016: 10, 117-128).
Balata teaches “Resveratrol is a nonflavonoid polyphenolic compound which has a broad range of desirable biological actions which include antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, antidiabetic, cardioprotective, and antitumor activities. However, there is concern that the bioavailability of resveratrol may limit some of its clinical utility” (see abstract).
Balata teaches mixing resveratrol with olive oil (see abstract and methods, p 117-118) and teaches wherein the resveratrol was sonicated with the oil to create stable emulsions and then heated at 40 degrees Celsius (which equates to 104 F) (see methods, saturation solubility study, page 118 and see left column page 119). Olive oil is known to contain triglycerides and so this step of blending the resveratrol with olive oil would also add triglycerides as claimed. Balata also teaches that this process further stabilizes the product thermodynamically (see abstract) and thus would be the same process as instantly claimed.
Balata does not specifically teach a trans-resveratrol concentrate, however using a trans-resveratrol concentrate would have been obvious given the prior art as it can be appreciated and it is known to those skilled in the art that trans-resveratrol is more stable than its isomer resveratrol and is the biologically active isomer which is more readily available and is better processed through the body.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date to those having ordinary skill in the art to use a trans-resveratrol concentrate because this would be the more stable and bioavailable form of the isomer resveratrol. It would have also been obvious to heat the mixture at 100 degrees F because this is directly outside the temperature taught by Gehan which is at 104 degrees and optimizing temperatures to be right outside what is already taught in the art is prima facie obvious. Creating a trans-resveratrol skin preparation is prima facie obvious because Gehan teaches how to make the resveratrol more bioavailable and thermodynamically stable through the same process as instantly claimed. Although Gehan disclosure teaches about orally bioavailable resveratrol and olive oil, both are components known to benefit the skin and are conventionally/commonly used in skin preparations and thus the process of making the resveratrol more stable and soluble would also apply to a skin-based formulation.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehan Balata et. al. (Self-emulsifying drug delivery systems as a tool to improve solubility and bioavailability of resveratrol, Drug Design, Development and Therapy, January 05, 2016: 10, 117-128) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chen et. al. (Quality Assessment of Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica) Grownon Prince Edward Island as a Source of Resveratrol, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2013, 61, 6383-6392).
Gehan teaches the process as claimed in instant claim 1, however is silent on the limitations of instant claim 2.
Chen’s general disclosure is a scientific report on Japanese Knotweed being a source for resveratrol (see abstract).
Chen teaches “Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica, also known as Polygonum cuspidatum) is a common invasive plant species on Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada, whereas it has been used in Chinese medicine and more recently as a raw material for extracting resveratrol. This paper reports on the quantification of resveratrol, polydatin, emodin, and physcion in roots, stems, and leaves of Japanese knotweed samples from PEI and British Columbia (BC), Canada, and nine provinces of China, by ultraperformance liquid chromatography (UPLC). The results showed that the root contains a much higher level of resveratrol than the stem and leaf, and it is accumulated in its highest level in October. PEI-grown knotweed contains similar levels of resveratrol and polydatin compared to Chinese samples collected in the month of October, but the contents of the other anthraquinones (emodin and physcion) are different. As such, Japanese knotweed grown in PEI could be a commercially viable source of raw material for resveratrol production; however, caution has to be taken in harvesting the right plant species” (see abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Chen also teaches wherein Japanese Knotweeds comprise of stems, leaves, flowers and roots (see abstract, and page 6384). Claim 2 recites wherein said trans-resveratrol concentrate is sourced from Japanese Knotweed plants: wherein said Japanese Knotweed plants are further comprised of stems, leaves, flowers and roots and it is known that Japanese Knotweed plants would naturally comprise of these components.
Chen teaches extracting the trans-resveratrol from the Japanese Knotweed (see Table 2, Figure 1, and “Extraction Method”, pg. 6387) and teaches filtering which in this context is the same as sieving. Chen specifically teaches “A 0.4 g aliquot of dry sample was accurately weighed out, and 10 mL of methanol/water (50:50, v/v) was added; the sample was then placed into an ultrasonic cleaner. The mixture was extracted for 30 min, and then the extraction solution was centrifugally separated and filtered through 0.45μm Millipore nylon membrane, and an aliquot of the filtrate was used for UPLC analysis” (see “Extraction Method”, pg. 6387).
Chen does not teach farming, harvesting and transporting the Japanese Knotweed; however, these are all obvious components in acquiring the plant before extraction of the resveratrol and are routinely and conventionally done in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having skill in the art before the effective filing date to farm, harvest, transport and isolate Japanese Knotweed roots before extracting and filtering (sieving) trans-resveratrol from the plant as taught by Chen, because farming, harvesting, transporting and isolating Japanese Knotweed roots before extracting are conventional components needed in order for extraction to take place.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehan Balata et. al. (Self-emulsifying drug delivery systems as a tool to improve solubility and bioavailability of resveratrol, Drug Design, Development and Therapy, Janurary 05, 2016: 10, 117-128) and Chen et. al. (Quality Assessment of Japanese Knotweed (Fallopia japonica) Grownon Prince Edward Island as a Source of Resveratrol, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 2013, 61, 6383-6392) as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Marhasin (US7504075B2) and Sonneville-Aubrun et. al. (Nanoemulsions: a new vehicle for skincare products, Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, Vol. 108-109, 20 May 2004, pp. 145-149).
Gehan and Chen teach the instant invention however are silent on the use of reactions chambers and transducers and the use of Ostwald ripening for stabilizing.
Marhasin’s general disclosure is to ultrasonic reactor and process for ultrasonic treatment of materials (see abstract).
Marhasin teaches “Material treatment of various materials with high intensity ultrasound has recently achieved a significant role in different industries. Ultrasound treatment has been applied to particle dispersing, emulsification, mixing and dissolving of various materials” (see column 2, at line 61).
Marhasin teaches of an ultrasonic reactor which comprises of a transducer wherein excessive heat is removed by a cooling liquid flowing between the transducer and reactor body (see column 5). The process preferably further comprises the step of introducing a cooling liquid within the reactor body, external to the reactor tube, wherein said cooling liquid flows within spacing between each adjacent element (see column 6) and in this context would be the same as a water-cooled transducer and reactor chamber.
In another aspect, the processor preferably further comprises a tank for storing cooling liquid and means for controlling the temperature of the cooling liquid (see column 5, para. 8).
Marhasin teaches “it is a still further purpose of this invention to provide a reactor for emulsification, particle dispersion and deagglomeration” (see column 4, top).
Marhasin teaches the frequency range of the ultrasonic energy is preferably from 8 to 25khz (see claim 16) and that of which is controllable in response to process conditions (see column 5, line 25).
Sonneville-Aubrun’s general disclosure is a report on Nanoemulsions for skincare products (see abstract).
Sonneville-Aubrun teaches that Ostwald ripening theory also tells us that stable systems can be obtained by mixing a ‘soluble’ oil with an ‘insoluble’ oil, in certain proportions [7], [7](a), [7](b). The molar fraction of ‘insoluble’ oil in oil phase has to be superior to x*, such as:
If this is not the case, the size distribution becomes bimodal, with a population of small droplets enriched in ‘insoluble’ oil and a population of large droplets enriched in ‘soluble’ oil” (see 3.2. How to conceal stability and cosmetic properties).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person having skill in the art before the effective filing date to pass the trans-resveratrol through a water-cooled transducer, a jacketed reactor chamber and to mix the trans-resveratrol with oils and triglycerides to formulate a trans-resveratrol-based skin preparation because Marhasin teaches the use of sonication from reactor chambers and transducers for creating emulsifications and thus it would have been obvious to persons skilled in the art to use these for the emulsifying of the trans-resveratrol oils and triglycerides into a skin preparation taught by Gehan and Chen. Additionally, passing the trans-resveratrol through a low-temperature water-cooled transducer is obvious given the relied upon art because Marhasin teaches using cooled liquids and so this would be understood as trying to keep the temperature “low”.
It would have also been obvious to use Ostwald ripening in stabilizing skincare products because Sonneville-Aubrun teaches that by mixing a soluble oil with an insoluble one in certain proportions can create stable emulsions. It would have further been obvious to select a Q-Sonica sonication probe at 24Hz for at least thirty minutes because Marhasin teaches controlling the frequency of the ultrasonication devices in response to process conditions. It is also well within the purview of any skilled artisan to select any specific sonication probe brand and to optimize its operational parameters.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Thea applicant argues that the applicant’s invention teaches to use a Q-Sonica sonication at 24 hz for 90 seconds of sonication followed by 90 second pulse for 30 minutes cycle. The applicant does claim the use of a Q-Sonica sonication at 24 hz but for at least 30 minutes, there is no claim for 90 seconds of sonication followed by 90 second pulse. Additionally, Marhasin teaches adjusting frequency use in response to process conditions and further selecting a specific brand and knowing how to operate the device is well within the purview of any skilled artisan, especially given the relied upon art.
Conclusion
Currently no claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB ANDREW BOECKELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 571-272-0947. 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.
JACOB A BOECKELMAN Examiner, Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655