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 Claims
Claims 1-21 were originally filed August 16, 2023.
The amendment received April 10, 2026 amended claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 17, 18, 20, and 21.
Claims 1-21 are currently pending.
Claims 1-6, 10, and 12-19 are currently under consideration.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-19) in the reply filed on April 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 20 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 10, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of pal-GHK, pal-VGVAPG, magnolol, GPHGVRQA, curcumin, capsaicin, hexapeptide-38, ruxolitnib, red ginseng oil, and stimulating a hair follicle as the species in the reply filed on April 10, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-9 and 11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on April 10, 2026.
Potential Rejoinder
Applicant elected claims directed to a product. If a product claim is subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that depend from or otherwise include all the limitations of the allowable product claim will be rejoined in accordance with the provisions of MPEP § 821.04. Process claims that depend from or otherwise include all the limitations of the patentable product will be entered as a matter of right if the amendment is presented prior to final rejection or allowance, whichever is earlier. Amendments submitted after final rejection are governed by 37 CFR 1.116; amendments submitted after allowance are governed by 37 CFR 1.312.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all the criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103, and 112. Until an elected product claim is found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowed product claim will not be rejoined. See “Guidance on Treatment of Product and Process Claims in light of In re Ochiai, In re Brouwer and 35 U.S.C. § 103(b),” 1184 O.G. 86 (March 26, 1996). Additionally, in order to retain the right to rejoinder in accordance with the above policy, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution either to maintain dependency on the product claims or to otherwise include the limitations of the product claims. Failure to do so may result in a loss of the right to a rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Priority
The present application is a CON of PCT/US22/16409 filed February 15, 2022 which claims the benefit of 63/150,411 filed February 17, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on August 16, 2023 and April 10, 2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Sequence Interpretation
The Office interprets claims comprising SEQ ID NOs: in the following manner: “comprising a sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires only a 2mer of SEQ ID NO: 1, “comprising the sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 with any N-/C-terminal additions or any 5’/3’ additions, “consisting of SEQ ID NO: 1” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NO: 1 and the same length as SEQ ID NO: 1, and “selected from the group consisting of SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, and 3” requires the full-length sequence with 100% identity to SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, or 3 and the same length as SEQ ID NOs: 1, 2, or 3. Any claim requiring a specific percent identity, necessarily requires at least the recited percent identity.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “tripeptide-1 (GHK)” should read “tripeptide-1 consisting of GHK”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “selected from” should read “selected from the group consisting of”. See lines 4 and 6. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the conjunction “and” should be utilized with the closed Markush group of “selected from the group consisting of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “hexapeptide-11 (FVAPFP; SEQ ID NO: 12)” should read “hexapeptide-11 consisting of FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 12)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the full name should be utilized prior to the acronym (i.e. a-ketobutyrate (a-KB), a-ketoglutarate (a-KG)). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “gamma” should read “g”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: utilization of GHK instead of the arbitrary name “tripeptide-1” is suggested. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprising” should read “further comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “hexapeptide-12 (VGVAPG; SEQ ID NO: 10)” should read “hexapeptide-12 consisting of VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 10)”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 10) should be utilized instead of the arbitrary name “hexapeptide-12”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: the arbitrary name hexapeptide-38 should be defined. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: a comma is missing between arctigenin and lupeol. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: arctigenin and baicalin should not be capitalized. 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 2 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed composition. For example, it is unclear if “tripeptide-1” is GHK or not. A peptide consisting of GHK should be referred to instead of arbitrary names. It is unclear if tripeptide-1 is broadening the scope of independent claim 1 or not.
Claim 3 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed composition. For example, it is unclear if “hexapeptide-12” is VGVAPG or not. A peptide consisting of VGVAPG should be referred to instead of arbitrary names. It is unclear if hexapeptide-12 is broadening the scope of VGVAPG or not.
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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed composition. For example, it is unclear what hexapeptide-38 is. Arbitrary names should not be utilized in the claims.
Claim 6 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. One of skill in the art would not be able to determine the scope of the presently claimed composition. For example, it is unclear what the scope of “is” is (e.g. open, closed, etc.). Since an octapeptide is referred to, it is suggested that closed language be utilized for GPHGVRQA (SEQ ID NO: 1).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 19 depends on independent claim 1. Claim 1 requires a composition with specific components. Dependent claim 19 simply refers to a function of the composition. Therefore, claim 19 fails to further limit the components of the composition of independent claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017.
For present claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 12-14, 18, and 19, Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Therefore, the teachings of Escribano anticipate the presently claimed composition.
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, 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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10, 12-14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017 and Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019.
For present claims 1-3, 5, 10, 12-14, 18, and 19, Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
However, Escribano does not teach VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 10).
For present claims 1-3, 10, 12, and 19, Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding VGVAPG to a composition containing GHK and FVAPFP) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, 12-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; and Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016.
For present claims 1-5, 10, 12-15, 18, and 19, Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
However, Escribano does not teach VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 10).
For present claims 1-3, 10, 12, and 19, Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
However, Escribano does not teach hexapeptide-38.
For present claims 2-4, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 19, Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding VGVAPG and hexapeptide-38 to a composition containing GHK and FVAPFP) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
For present claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19, Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
However, Escribano does not teach VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 10).
For present claims 1-3, 10, 12, and 19, Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
However, Escribano does not teach hexapeptide-38.
For present claims 2-4, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 19, Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
However, Escribano does not teach a Jak-STAT inhibitor of ruxolitinib.
For present claims 16 and 17, Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding VGVAPG and hexapeptide-38 to a composition containing GHK and FVAPFP; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages); Lin et al., 2016, Methylation and Esterification of Magnolol for Ameliorating Cutaneous Targeting and Therapeutic Index by Topical Application, Pharm Res, 33: 2152-2167; Walder et al. WO 2016/069396 published May 6, 2016; and Truong et al., 2017, Hair Regenerative Mechanisms of Red Ginseng Oil and Its Major Components in the Testosterone-Induced Delay of Anagen Entry in C57BL/6 Mice, Molecules, 22: 1505 (13 pages).
For present claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19, Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
However, Escribano does not teach VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 10).
For present claims 1-3, 10, 12, and 19, Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
However, Escribano does not teach hexapeptide-38.
For present claims 2-4, 10, 12, 15, 18, and 19, Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
However, Escribano does not teach a Jak-STAT inhibitor of ruxolitinib.
For present claims 16 and 17, Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
For present claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19, Lin et al. teach compositions with magnolol (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Materials and Methods).
For present claims 1-3, 5, 10, 12-14, 18, and 19, Walder et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, genistein, palmitoylation, PGC-1-a modulators, PPARg modulators, aloe emodin, Prunus oil, niacinamide, resveratrol, octapeptide, capsaicin, curcumin, apigenin, carnitine, vitamin D, melatonin, ginseng, and isoflavones for hair or skin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 88, 89, 91, 93, 94, 98, 100, 101, 105, 109, 128, 130, 134, 137-140, 143, 147-149, 152, 154, 167).
For present claims 18 and 19, Truong et al. teach skin and hair compositions comprising reg ginseng oil (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract; Materials and Methods).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding VGVAPG and hexapeptide-38 to a composition containing GHK and FVAPFP; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations; adding additional components to hair and skin formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 10, and 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/064,198 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
Copending Application No. 19/064,198 claims compositions comprising octapeptide GPHGVREA (SEQ ID NO: 5) wherein E is a conservative amino acid substitution for Q (i.e. present SEQ ID NO: 1 GPHGVRQA), hexapeptide-11, hexapeptide-12, and tripeptide-1.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 to a composition containing GHK and FVAPFP; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-6, 10, and 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/913,677 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
Copending Application No. 18/913,677 claims compositions comprising octapeptide GPHGVREA (SEQ ID NO: 5) wherein E is a conservative amino acid substitution for Q (i.e. present SEQ ID NO: 1 GPHGVRQA), hexapeptide-11, hexapeptide-12, and tripeptide-1.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 to a composition containing GHK and FVAPFP; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-6, 10, and 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/913,581 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
Copending Application No. 18/913,581 claims compositions comprising octapeptide GPHGVREA (SEQ ID NO: 1) wherein E is a conservative amino acid substitution for Q (i.e. present SEQ ID NO: 1 GPHGVRQA), hexapeptide-11, hexapeptide-12, and tripeptide-1.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 to a composition containing GHK and FVAPFP; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/618,740 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
Copending Application No. 18/618,740 claims compositions comprising hexapeptide-11 and hexapeptide-12.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 to a composition containing GHK and FVAPFP; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-6, 10, and 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5, 7-14, and 17-20 of copending Application No. 18/297,422 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
Please note: a Notice of Allowance was mailed on May 20, 2026.
Copending Application No. 18/297,422 claims compositions comprising octapeptide GPHGVREA (SEQ ID NO: 5) wherein E is a conservative amino acid substitution for Q (i.e. present SEQ ID NO: 1 GPHGVRQA), hexapeptide-11, and tripeptide.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 to a composition containing GHK and FVAPFP; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/223,305 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
Copending Application No. 18/223,305 claims compositions comprising hexapeptide-11, hexapeptide-12, and tripeptide-1.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 to a composition containing GHK and FVAPFP; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 4-13, and 15-22 of copending Application No. 18/179,171 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
Copending Application No. 18/179,171 claims compositions comprising hexapeptide-11, hexapeptide-12, and tripeptide-1 which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and niacinamide.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 to a composition containing GHK and FVAPFP; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of copending Application No. 17/981,862 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
Copending Application No. 17/981,862 claims compositions comprising hexapeptide-11 and tripeptide-1 wherein niacinamide is also present.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 to a composition containing GHK and FVAPFP; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,357,671 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
U.S. Patent No. 12,357,671 claims compositions comprising tripeptide-1 and hexapeptide-12 which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and niacinamide.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 and FVAPFP to a composition containing GHK and VGVAPG; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,426,442 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
U.S. Patent No. 11,426,442 claims compositions comprising tripeptide-1 and hexapeptide-12 which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and niacinamide.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 and FVAPFP to a composition containing GHK and VGVAPG; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,426,443 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
U.S. Patent No. 11,426,443 claims compositions comprising tripeptide-1 and hexapeptide which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and niacinamide.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38, FVAPFP, and VGVAPG to a composition containing GHK and hexapeptide; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because the substitution of one known element (i.e. genus of hexapeptide) for another (i.e. species of hexapeptide-38, FVAPFP – hexapeptide-11, and VGVAPG – hexapeptide-12) would have yielded predictable results (e.g. utilization in skin and/or hair compositions) to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 10,688,147 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
U.S. Patent No. 10,688,147 claims compositions comprising tripeptide-1 and hexapeptide-12 which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and niacinamide.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 and FVAPFP to a composition containing GHK and VGVAPG; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 10,286,030 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
U.S. Patent No. 10,286,030 claims compositions comprising tripeptide-1 and hexapeptide-12 which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and niacinamide.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 and FVAPFP to a composition containing GHK and VGVAPG; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,086,035 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
U.S. Patent No. 10,086,035 claims compositions comprising palmitoyl tripeptide-1 and palmitoyl hexapeptide-12.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 and FVAPFP to a composition containing GHK and VGVAPG; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,752,084 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
U.S. Patent No. 11,752,084 claims compositions comprising tripeptide-1, hexapeptide-11, and hexapeptide-12 which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and niacinamide.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 and octapeptide to a composition containing GHK, FVAPFP, and VGVAPG; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,052,032 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
U.S. Patent No. 11,052,032 claims compositions comprising tripeptide-1, hexapeptide-11, and hexapeptide-12 and further comprising niacinamide.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 and octapeptide to a composition containing GHK, FVAPFP, and VGVAPG; myristoylation and palmitoylation of peptides; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,493,011 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
U.S. Patent No. 10,493,011 claims compositions comprising tripeptide-1, hexapeptide-11, and hexapeptide-12 and further comprising niacinamide.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 and octapeptide to a composition containing GHK, FVAPFP, and VGVAPG; myristoylation and palmitoylation of peptides; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,053,547 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
U.S. Patent No. 12,053,547 claims compositions comprising tripeptide-1, hexapeptide-11, and hexapeptide-12 which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and niacinamide.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-38 and octapeptide to a composition containing GHK, FVAPFP, and VGVAPG; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,103,455 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
U.S. Patent No. 11,103,455 claims compositions comprising tripeptide-1, hexapeptide-11, hexapeptide-12, and hexapeptide-38 which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and niacinamide.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding octapeptide to a composition containing GHK, FVAPFP, VGVAPG, and hexapeptide-38; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,214,009 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
U.S. Patent No. 12,214,009 claims compositions comprising tripeptide-1, hexapeptide-11, hexapeptide-12, and hexapeptide-38.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding octapeptide to a composition containing GHK, FVAPFP, VGVAPG, and hexapeptide-38; myristoylation or palmitoylation of peptides; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,485,079 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
U.S. Patent No. 12,485,079 claims compositions comprising hexapeptide-11 and hexapeptide-12.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding GHK, hexapeptide-38, and octapeptide to a composition containing FVAPFP and VGVAPG; myristoylation or palmitoylation of peptides; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Claims 1-5, 10, and 12-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,569,533 in view of Escribano U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0049689 published February 23, 2017; Garruto et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0038539 published February 7, 2019; Tittl et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0206543 published July 21, 2016; and Mackay-Wiggan et al., 2016, Oral ruxolitinib induces hair regrowth in patients with moderate-to-severe alopecia areata, JCLinsight, 1(15): e89790 (9 pages).
U.S. Patent No. 12,569,533 claims compositions comprising tripeptide-1 and hexapeptide-12.
Escribano teaches compositions comprising Gly-His-Lys, hexapeptide 11, and genistein and further comprising palmitoylation, myristoylation, octapeptide, isoflavones (i.e. IGF-1 activator; additional component of present claim 18), and the M2-macrophage-polarizing compounds of apigenin and luteolin (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; Figures; paragraphs 1-3, 19, 21, 22, 25, 29, 31, 32).
Garruto et al. teach compositions comprising GHK, FVAPFP (SEQ ID NO: 11; present SEQ ID NO: 12), and VGVAPG (SEQ ID NO: 9; present SEQ ID NO: 10) which can be myristoylated or palmitoylated and further comprising niacinamide (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 6, 7, 62, 66, 94-98, 135-143, 146).
Tittl et al. teach compositions comprising hexapeptide-38, vitamin D3, aloe, and niacinamide (i.e. M2-macrophage-polarizing compound and species in the Markush group of present claim 18) wherein peptides can be myristoylated or palmitoylated (please refer to the entire specification particularly the abstract; paragraphs 27, 30, 31, 35, 39-41, 159-163, 201, 203).
Mackay-Wiggan et al. teach compositions comprising ruxolitinib (please refer to the entire reference particularly the abstract).
All the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one of skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in the respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results (i.e. utilization as a hair and/or skin composition) to one of ordinary sill in the art at the time of the invention. The claims would have been obvious because a particular known technique (i.e. adding hexapeptide-11, hexapeptide-38, and octapeptide to a composition containing GHK and VGVAPG; myristoylation or palmitoylation of peptides; utilizing ruxolitinib for skin and hair formulations) was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. The claims would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Magnolol and honokiol:
Mukherjee et al., 2011, Bioactive compounds from natural resources against skin aging, Phytomedicine, 19: 64-73.
Zhang et al., 2019, Insights on the Multifunctional Activities of Magnolol, BioMed Research International, 1847130 (15 pages).
Lin et al., 2013, Maximizing dermal targeting and minimizing transdermal penetration by magnolol/honokiol methoxylation, International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 445: 153-162.
Im et al., 2015, Magnolol reduces UVB-induced photodamage by regulating matrix metalloproteinase activity, Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 39: 417-423.
Shen et al., 2010, Honokiol and Magnolol as Multifunctional Antioxidative Molecules for Dermatological Disorders, Molecules, 15: 6452-6465.
Wu et al., 2018, Evaluation of Tyrosinase Inhibitory, Antioxidant, Antimicrobial, and Antiaging Activities of Magnolia officinalis Extracts after Aspergillus niger Fermentation, BioMed Research International, 5201786 (11 pages).
JAK-STAT inhibitors:
Shreberk-Hassidim et al., 2017, Janus kinase inhibitors in dermatology: A systemic review, J Am Acad Dermatol, 76(4): 745-753.
Kim et al., 2020, The Effect of JAK Inhibitor on the Survival, Anagen Re-Entry, and Hair Follicle Immune Privilege Restoration in Human Dermal Papilla Cells, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 21: 5137 (12 pages).
Szalus et al., 2020, JAK-STAT Inhibitors in Atopic Dermatitis from Pathogenesis to Clinical Trials Results, Microorganisms, 8: 1743 (14 pages).
Ruxolitinib:
Kim et al., 2020, Effects of ruxolitinib cream on pruritus and quality of life in atopic dermatitis: Results from a phase 2, randomized, dose-ranging, vehicle- and active-controlled study, J Am Acad Dermatol, 82(6): 1305-1313.
Red Ginseng Oil:
Lee et al., 2017, Therapeutic Effects of Korean Red Ginseng Extract in a Murine Model of Atopic Dermatitis: Anti-pruitic and Anti-inflammatory Mechanism, JKMS, 32: 679-687.
Future Communications
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMBER D STEELE whose telephone number is (571)272-5538. 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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at 571-270-7430. 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.
/AMBER D STEELE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights