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 .
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's arguments filed on April 30, 2026. Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-12 are pending. Claims 5-12 are withdrawn. Claims 1, 2, and 4 are examined herein.
Response to Arguments
In view of applicant’s amendments arguments, the 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4 as being unpatentable over Kim (US PG PUB 2014/0370131) is hereby withdrawn.
Any rejection from the previous Office action not set forth on record below is hereby withdrawn.
The new rejections are made in the Non-Final Office action below as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rana (WO 2018/004901) in view of Zhao (Chinese Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2004).
Rana teaches formulations comprising plant extract from Bauhinia variegate employed to improve the appearance of skin or at least one sign of aging in skin (claim 1; claim 13).
Rana teaches in addition to improving the aesthetic or cosmetic appearance of skin, the topical compositions may be topically applied to enhance the general health, vitality and appearance of the skin. The composition may be applied to skin to improve microcirculation, communication among skin cells, replenishment of essential nutrients or skin constituents, or to improve the metabolism, proliferation, multiplication, turnover and/or exfoliation of skin cells [00122].
Rana teaches wherein the amount of Bauhinia, individually or in combination with a plant ingredient or plant extract from Sesamum, effective to improve the appearance of skin or at least one sign of aging in skin amount ranges from about 0.0 1 % to about 0. 1 % by weight of the total composition (claim 12).
Rana teaches when the composition is administered to a subject, the subject is a mammal or human [0037].
Rana does not specifically teach the structure of the compound (24S)-3ß-hydroxy-5a-stigmastan-6-one as required by the instant claims.
Zhao teaches (24S)-3ß-hydroxy-5a-stigmastan-6-one has been isolated from Bauhinia variegate for the first time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have known that purified extracts of Bauhinia variegate as possessing anti-aging skin effects as taught by Rana contain (24S)-3ß-hydroxy-5a-stigmastan-6-one. The motivation, provided by Zhao, teaches that said compound is isolated from Bauhinia variegate extracts. Thus, the skilled artisan would expect that the purified extracts of Bauhinia variegate contain (24S)-3ß-hydroxy-5a-stigmastan-6-one.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the instant claims are deemed unpatentable over the cited art.
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni in view of Zhao (Chinese Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2004).
Kulkarni teaches Bauhinia variegate extracts as useful in the treatment of metabolic disorders such as type I and II diabetes (abstract; page 127, discussion).
Kulkarni does not specifically teach the structure of the compound (24S)-3ß-hydroxy-5a-stigmastan-6-one as required by the instant claims.
Zhao teaches (24S)-3ß-hydroxy-5a-stigmastan-6-one has been isolated from Bauhinia variegate for the first time.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have known that purified extracts of Bauhinia variegate as possessing anti-aging skin effects as taught by Kulkarni contain (24S)-3ß-hydroxy-5a-stigmastan-6-one. The motivation, provided by Zhao, teaches that said compound is isolated from Bauhinia variegate extracts.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the instant claims are deemed unpatentable over the cited art.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 2, and 4 are not allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sahar Javanmard whose telephone number is (571)270-3280. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, James Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached on 571-272-5548. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
/SAHAR JAVANMARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1622
