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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-9, and 11-20, in the reply filed on 9/26/25 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.03(a)).
Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 6-8, 12-16, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections –35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Viron et al (US 6447782 B1).
Viron et al teach the invention relates to a novel lipid extract of the algae Skeletonema (thus the claimed genus or photosensitizer) especially the algae Skeletonema costatum (thus claims 3 and 4 are met) (see Abstract). Viron et al teach this algae belongs to the genus Skeletonema and is in particular the algae Skeletonema tropicum, Skeletonema menzelii, Skeletonema potamos, Skeletonema subsalsum, Skeletonema pseudocostatum or Skeletonema costatum (col 1, lines 7-11). Viron et al teach in particular, a composition can be in a form appropriate for topical application (thus topical applying), particularly in the form of a cream or gel and particularly a cream or gel for the face (thus to an epithelium surface), hands, bust or body (col 4, lines 32-35). Viron et al teach the Skeletonema plant extract according to the invention has an anti-inflammatory activity (col 9, lines 59-60). Viron et al teach a method of cosmetic care selected from the group consisting of a slimming care, a cellulite-reducing care and a care delaying the appearance or development of cellulite, comprising applying to skin areas of a person in need thereof, a cosmetically effective amount for said care of a lipid extract of the algae Skeletonema obtained by extraction in an organic solvent, wherein the extract is obtained by extracting the algae with an organic solvent selected from the group consisting of isopropanol (thus a polar extract, thus a type of alcohol, thus claim 5 is met, thus claims 11, 17, and 18 are met), ethyl acetate (thus a polar extract), dichloromethane and chloroform (thus a polar extract), and wherein the algae is frozen at a temperature of between about -40.degree. C. and -20.degree. C. for a period of between about 1 and 7 days before being extracted with the solvent (see claim 24).
Viron et al do not teach exposing the epithelium surface to light to activate the photosensitizer.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to expose the face, hand, or part of the body with the applied cream containing the polar extract of Skeletonema to sun during day time, and it is necessary that the claimed composition is going to prevent acne or abacterial infection, thus claim 1 is met.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of the ordinary skills in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention.
Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Claim 9 is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIUWEN MI whose telephone number is (571)272-5984. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anand Desai can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Qiuwen Mi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655