Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The preliminary amendment dated 30 May 2023, in which claims 1-13 have been amended, and new claims 14-17 have been added, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-17 are pending in the instant application.
Claims 13-15 are withdrawn, as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 1-12, 16-17 are being examined herewith.
Priority
The instant application is a 35 U.S.C. § 371 U.S. national entry of International Application PCT/IB2021/061101, filed on 30 November 2021, which claims the benefit of Italian Patent Application No. 102020000029213, filed on 1 December 2020.
A certified copy of the priority document, in Italian, has been submitted on 30 May 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 30 May 2023 is acknowledged and considered.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group (I), claims 1-12, 16, 17, drawn to a senotherapeutical substance comprising flavonoids and fatty acids, in the reply filed on 22 October 2025, is acknowledged. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse.
Applicants’ election without traverse of one or more of fisetin, apigenin and luteolin as the species of flavonoids, and the election of palmitic acid as the species of fatty acid in the senotherapeutic composition, for initial examination, in the telephone interview of 15 December 2025 with Attorney Venturino (see interview summary attached), is acknowledged. Claims 1-12, 16, 17 read on the elected species.
Claims 1-12, 16, 17 have been examined to the extent they read on the elected species, and the following objections and rejections are made below.
Claims Objections
Claims 13-15, while currently withdrawn, are objected to because of the following informality: The withdrawn claims are objected to for being presented in a non-compliant form. Specifically, the status identifiers state the claims are “(Currently amended)”, or “(New)”, but the claims are withdrawn because of the election made by the Applicant on 22 October 2025. As such, claims 13-15 should be identified as "(Withdrawn)" until such time as examiner rejoins the claims for examination. Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP 714(C).
Claim 1 is objected to because it could read –A senotherapeutical composition (or mixture, or combination) --. That is because the term recitation “substance” is usually understood to refer to a chemically pure substance, while the instant claims are drawn to a mixture of compounds/ a composition. Dependent claims 2-12, 16-17 are to recite “The senotherapeutical composition (or mixture, or combination) of claim […] --.
Claim 12 is objected to because the text “the therapeutic substance” should read –The senotherapeutic substance (or composition, see objection to claim 1 above)”.
Claims 12, 16, 17 are objected to because the recite a long list of diseases, and contain the conjunction “and” in the middle of the list. Deletion of the term “and” from the middle of the list is required. Further, the claims contain terms in parenthesis; these terms are deemed unnecessary and add no further clarity to the claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “flavonoids and fatty acids” [plural], which seems to indicate that several flavonoids and several fatty acids are present in the composition/mixture; yet dependent claim 3 indicates that the flavonoids are selected from one or more from a list of 4; and dependent claim 5 teaches that the fatty acids “are present as palmitic acid”. It is unclear whether the composition comprises one or more flavonoids (as in claim 3). Further, it is unclear what is meant by “the fatty acids are present as palmitic acid” in claim 5. It is unclear whether palmitic acid is the only fatty acid in the composition; or whether the fatty acids in the composition comprise palmitic acid (which would mean that several other fatty acids may exist in the composition besides palmitic acid).
Similarly, claim 6 recites that the composition/substance further comprises phenolic acids [plural]; claim 8 recites that the “phenolic acids are present as gallic acid”. It is unclear whether gallic acid is the only phenolic acid in the composition (if that were the case, the claim could read the phenolic acid is gallic acid); or whether the phenolic acids in the composition comprise gallic acid (which would mean that several other phenolic acids may exist in the composition besides gallic acid).
Claim 10 is drawn to the senotherapeutic substance according to claim 1, consisting of a solid or liquid food. It is unclear how a substance/composition/mixture/combination of fatty acids and flavonoids “consists” of a food. It is suggested that the claim recites that the composition is in a form of a food.
Claim 11 is drawn to the senotherapeutic substance according to claim 1, consisting of a substance or cream for topical use or an aeriform to be inhaled. Regarding claim 11, the language “substance [according to claim 1], consisting of a substance or cream for topical use” renders the claim indefinite, because it is unclear how a substance consists of a substance for topical use. It is unclear what is the difference between the first substance recited in claim 11 (which is senotherapeutic) and the second substance, which is an alternative to a cream for topical use.
It is suggested that claim 11 could recite that the composition is in the form of a cream for topical use.
Appropriate clarification is required.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 is drawn to the senotherapeutic substance of claim 4, wherein said phenolic acids are gallic acid; yet claim 4 does not recite phenolic acids. As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the recitation “said phenolic acids” of claim 8, in claim 4.
Appropriate correction is required.
In the interest of compact prosecution, claim 8 is interpreted to depend on claim 6.
Claims 12, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 is indefinite because it recites “Diseases or pathological alterations or perfusion conditions associated to transplant of kidney, liver, lung, heart, pancreas or other organ, as well as of stem cells or other cells”. It also recites “diseases and disorders related to photosensitivity or photoaging”. Claim 12 fails to clearly and precisely set forth the manner in which the diseases are “associated with” transplant of kidney, liver, lung, heart, pancreas or other organ, as well as of stem cells or other cells. It is unclear what is encompassed by transplant of “other organ”, and it is unclear what the relationship is to stem cells and “other cells”. The terms “other organs”, “other cells” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the claim encompasses. Further, it is unclear how a disease is “associated with” transplant, or how a disease is “related to” photosensitivity. The claim fails to clearly or precisely set forth the manner by which the disease is “associated with” or “related to” the recited conditions. Absent this information, the claim fails to set forth the metes and bounds of the subject matter for which Applicant is presently seeking protection.
Appropriate clarification of the claim language is required.
Claim 12 also recites “Toxicity or inflammation, induced by chemotherapies, radiotherapies, or any other medical procedure, such as for therapeutic, diagnostic, cosmetic purposes”. It is unclear what is encompassed by transplant of “any other medical procedure”, or any medical procedure “for therapeutic, diagnostic, cosmetic purposes”. The terms “any other medical procedure for therapeutic, diagnostic, cosmetic purposes” render the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the claim encompasses (see additionally the rejection below of the claim for broad/narrow recitation). Absent this information, the claim fails to set forth the metes and bounds of the subject matter for which Applicant is presently seeking protection.
The same analysis applies to claims 16, 17.
Further, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “neurodegenerative diseases”, and the claim also recites “Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, mild cognitive impairment, motor neuron dysfunction, Huntington's disease, dementia”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. Similarly, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “Acute and chronic viral diseases”, and the claim also recites “such as HIV, Covid-19”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Further, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “Rare Diseases associated with ageing and senescence”, and the claim also recites “such as: aplastic anaemia, dyskeratosis congenita, Revetz syndrome, Hoyeraal-Hreidarsson syndrome, Lewy body dementia (LBD), amyloidosis, Paget's disease, diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH), multiple system atrophy (MSA)”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation.
Furthermore, claim 12 recites the broad recitation “Toxicity or inflammation, induced by chemotherapies, radiotherapies, or any other medical procedure” and the claim also recites “such as for therapeutic, diagnostic, cosmetic purposes”, which are the narrower statements of the range/limitation. Further, claim 12 is unclear because it is unclear what is encompassed by the term “any other medical procedure”.
Regarding claim 12, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
The same analysis applies to claims 16 and 17.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Applicant is required to identify and remove all instances of broad/narrow recitations from claims 12, 16, 17.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-10, 12, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a composition comprising flavonoids and fatty acids, which is a mixture of natural products. Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and recites that the flavonoids are selected from one or more of quercetin, fisetin, apigenin and luteolin, which are natural products. Claim 5 recites palmitic acid as the fatty acid; palmitic acid is a natural product. Claim 6 recites that the composition further comprises phenolic acids, and claim 8 recites gallic acid as a phenolic acid in the composition; gallic acid is a natural product. Claim 9 recites vitamins in the composition; vitamins are natural products. Claims 2, 4, 7 recite the amounts or relative amounts of flavonoids, fatty acids or phenolic acids, which are natural products, in the composition.
Claims 12, 16, 17 also recite intended use.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not include any elements other than natural products.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims only recite mixtures of flavonoids, fatty acids, phenolic acids, vitamins, which occur in nature. Although claims 2, 4, 7 recite the amounts or relative amounts of flavonoids, fatty acids or phenolic acids, which are natural products, in the composition, there is no indication that mixing different fatty acids, flavonoids, and optionally adding vitamins or phenolic acids, changes the structure, function, or other properties of the natural products in any marked way. Regarding claim 10, the claim recites a food containing fatty acids and flavonoids; such food may be tea, which is a natural product and contains mixtures of flavonoids and fatty acids. There is no showing that the claimed mixture of flavonoids and fatty acids has any markedly different characteristics compared to the closest naturally occurring counterparts. There are no additional elements present in the claims and the claims do not qualify as eligible subject matter.
Claiming a combination of flavonoids and fatty acids and an additional component, together with a demonstration that the claimed combination does something markedly different than the component(s) in nature; or a limitation requiring the product/preparation to no longer be just a natural product or a mixture of natural products may provide a path toward patent eligibility, such as, for example, a preparation in the form of tablets, granules, creams, ointments, gels, etc.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim interpretation: If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation”). See MPEP 2111.02. In this case, the body of claims 12, 16, 17 fully and intrinsically set forth all the limitations of the claimed invention, namely a composition comprising flavonoids and fatty acids; the preamble “for the treatment of one or more of the following disorders” (in claims 12, 16, 17), or “for eliminating senescent cells […]” (in claims 16, 17), only states the intended use of the composition. Thus, the preamble is not given any patentable weight.
"[T]he patentability of apparatus or composition claims depends on the claimed structure, not on the use or purpose of that structure." Catalina Mktg. Int'l, Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801,809 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
It is well settled that “intended use” of a composition or product, e.g., “for use as a medicament”, will not further limit claims drawn to a composition or product, so long as the prior art discloses the same composition comprising the same ingredients in an effective amount, as the instantly claimed. See, e.g., Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987) and In re Hack 114, USPQ 161
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Giampapa V. (US 8,747,915, of 10 June 2014, cited in IDS).
Giampapa teaches (Table 1) a composition comprising flavonoids quercetin and fisetin, and omega fatty acids, which is a composition of instant claims 1, 3.
The fatty acids in the composition (160-240 mg) are present in quantities by weight in the range in instant claim 4 (weight of quercetin 12-18 mg, weight of fisetin 1.65-2.4 mg).
The composition further comprises vitamins (Table 1), as in instant claim 9.
The composition is a nutritional supplement/food (column 6, lines 55-59), as in instant claim 10, has anti-ageing and anti-inflammatory properties (column 7, lines 5-10), as in instant claims 12, 16.
As such, a composition of instant claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 16 is anticipated by Giampapa.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 2020, 155, 1-12, available on-line 15 July 2020, cited in PTO-892).
Wang teaches a composition as petal extracts of colorful petals of tree peony (Paeonia suffruticosa) comprising flavonoids and fatty acids, which is a composition of instant claim 1.
Wang teaches that the petal extract comprises flavonoids (Table 3) including luteolin, quercetin, and apigenin, and fatty acids (Table 1) including palmitic acid, as in instant claim 5.
Wang teaches (page 11, left column, under point 4.3) that, among aglycones, the antioxidant activity decreases in the order quercetin > luteolin > apigenin.
Wang teaches (Abstract) that the composition petal extract possesses anti-aging effects, as in instant claims 12, 16, and can serve as natural antioxidant food resource, as in instant claim 10.
As such, a composition of instant claims 1, 5, 10, 12, 16 is anticipated by Wang.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sampalis F. (US 2013/0202689, cited in PTO-892).
Sampalis teaches (Table 5) a composition/extract comprising flavonoids and fatty acids, which is a composition of instant claim 1.
The composition further comprises vitamins (Table 5), as in instant claim 9.
Sampalis also teaches [0018], [0159] nutraceutical compositions/food/beverages, as in instant claim 10, and cosmetic compositions, creams [0160] /substance for topical use, as in instant claim 11, containing the extract of the invention.
The composition has anti-ageing [0161] properties, as in instant claims 12, 16.
As such, a composition of instant claims 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12, 16 is anticipated by Sampalis.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bodenstein et al. (WO 2015/110997, cited in IDS).
Bodenstein teaches (page 3, lines 15-25) a composition comprising fatty acids including at least pentadecanoic acid, oleic acid, palmitic acid, linoleic acid and a flavonoid-type substance quercetin, which is a composition of instant claims 1, 3.
The quercetin to fatty acid ratio is 1:2 (page 3, lines 24-25), which is within the range in instant claim 4.
Bodenstein specifically teaches (page 5, last line, page 6, first paragraph) a composition comprising fatty acids in combination with quercetin, as a substance topically administered to the skin, as in instant claim 11. The composition further comprises diclofenac, a known drug for treatment of inflammation, as in instant claim 17. The composition has anti-inflammatory properties, as in instant claims 12, 16.
As such, a composition of instant claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 12, 16, 17 is anticipated by Bodenstein.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gow et al. (WO2007/109802, cited in IDS).
Gow teaches (claim 2) a green tea extract comprising a combination of an essential oil and a polyphenol, wherein the essential oil is n-hexadecanoic acid (claim 3), which is a fatty acid of instant claim 5, and the polyphenol is quercetin (claims 4, 6), which is a flavonoid of instant claim 3.
Gow teaches (claim 22) a food comprising the green tea extract of claim 1, as in instant claim 10.
Gow teaches (page 8, second paragraph) a green tea extract comprising quercetin and gallic acid, which is a phenolic acid of instant claims 6, 8.
Gow teaches (page 9, second paragraph) that the extract has anti-aging properties, as in instant claims 12, 16.
As such, a composition of instant claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16 is anticipated by Gow.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yang et al. (CN 101574338, published 2009-11-11, cited in IDS).
Yang teaches (Table) a composition (composition A, B, C) comprising fatty acid part (i) and a flavone part (ii), in a weight ratio (i) to (ii) of 1:10, 1:5, or 1:1, which is within the range in instant claim 4.
Yang teaches palmitic acid in the fatty acid part (i), as in instant claim 5, and quercetin and apigenin in the flavone part (ii). Yang teaches synergism between the fatty acid compound and the flavone compound to treat estrogen dependent diseases.
Yang teaches (Abstract) that the composition is effective to treat estrogen dependent diseases, as in instant claims 12, 16.
As such, a composition of instant claims 1, 4, 5, 12, 16 is anticipated by Yang.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-12, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yousefzadeh et al. (EBioMedicine 2018, 36, 18-28, cited in PTO-892), Gow et al. (WO2007/109802, cited in IDS) and Giampapa (US 8,747,915, cited in IDS).
Yousefzadeh et al. (EBioMedicine 2018, 36, 18-28) teach a senotherapeutic composition (Figure 1) comprising a flavonoid which is fisetin, luteolin, apigenin, or quercetin, which are flavonoids of instant claim 3. Yousefzadeh teaches that, among the 10 flavonoids tested, fisetin was the most potent senolytic. Fisetin has senotherapeutic activity in mice and in human tissues. Administration of fisetin to wild-type mice late in life reduced age-related pathology.
Yousefzadeh teaches that flavonoids such as fisetin are natural products found in common food (page 26, right column, last paragraph).
Yousefzadeh does not teach a senotherapeutic composition comprising a flavonoid fisetin, luteolin, apigenin, or quercetin, and a fatty acid, as in the instant claims.
Gow (WO2007/109802) teaches (claim 2) a green tea extract with anti-aging properties (page 9, second paragraph) comprising a combination of an essential oil and a polyphenol, wherein the essential oil is n-hexadecanoic acid (claim 3), which is a fatty acid of instant claim 5, and the polyphenol is quercetin (claims 4, 6), which is a flavonoid of instant claim 3.
Gow teaches (page 5, second paragraph) that the amount of essential oil in the extract is from 75% to 90% by weight, and the amount of polyphenol (page 5, third paragraph) is from 50% by weight to 90% by weight. Thus, Gow teaches that the relative weight ratio between essential oil, for example, palmitic acid and flavonoid quercetin overlaps with the ratio in instant claim 4.
Gow teaches (page 8, second paragraph) a green tea extract comprising quercetin and gallic acid, which is a phenolic acid of instant claims 6, 8.
Gow teaches (page 8, second paragraph) that the weight ratio of quercetin to gallic acid in the composition is 20-30 / 55-65.
Gow teaches (claim 22) a food comprising the green tea extract of claim 1, as in instant claim 10.
Gow teaches (page 9, second paragraph) that the extract has skin protection properties, which is relevant to claim 11.
Gow teaches (page 9, second paragraph) that the extract has anti-aging properties, as in instant claims 12, 16.
Giampapa teaches (Table 1) a composition comprising flavonoids quercetin and fisetin, and fatty acids.
The composition further comprises vitamins (Table 1), as in instant claim 9.
The composition is a nutritional supplement/food (column 6, lines 55-59), as in instant claim 10, has anti-ageing and anti-inflammatory properties (column 7, lines 5-10), as in instant claims 12, 16.
Giampapa does not teach palmitic acid as the fatty acid in the composition.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine a flavonoid which is fisetin, luteolin, apigenin, or quercetin, with fatty acid palmitic acid in a senotherapeutic composition. The person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add a flavonoid which is fisetin, luteolin, apigenin, or quercetin, or a combination thereof, to a green tea anti-aging extract comprising fatty acid palmitic acid, and polyphenol quercetin taught by Gow, further comprising gallic acid, because Yousefzadeh teaches that flavonoids fisetin, luteolin, apigenin, or quercetin have senotherapeutic/anti-aging properties. One of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably expected that adding a senotherapeutic flavonoid which is fisetin, luteolin, apigenin, or quercetin, to an anti-aging composition comprising quercetin and fatty acid palmitic acid, and gallic acid, known to be useful for the same purpose, will result in a senotherapeutic composition. Since active ingredients are known to have anti-aging properties, it is considered prima facie obvious to combine them into a single composition useful for the same purpose. At least additive effects would have been reasonably expected. See In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claims 2, 4, 7, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to explore different amounts of flavonoids in the composition, and weight ratios between the flavonoids and the fatty acid in the composition, and weight ratios between flavonoids and gallic acid in the composition, in order to optimize the therapeutic effect of the composition.
Regarding claim 9, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add vitamins to the composition, because Giampapa teaches vitamins as ingredients in senotherapeutic compositions comprising flavonoids quercetin and fisetin, and fatty acids.
Regarding claims 10, 11, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated the senotherapeutic composition in a food or in a composition to be applied to the skin, with the expectation that the resulting composition maintains anti-aging properties.
Regarding claim 17, the person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to add another senotherapeutic compound to the composition, with the expectation that the resulting composition will be senotherapeutic. Since active ingredients are known to have anti-aging properties, it is considered prima facie obvious to combine them into a single composition useful for the same purpose. At least additive effects would have been reasonably expected. See In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980).
As such, claims 1-12, 16-17 are rejected as prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
Claims 1-12, 16-17 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IRINA NEAGU whose telephone number is (571)270-5908. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 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, JEFFREY S. LUNDGREN can be reached at (571)272-5541. 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.
/IRINA NEAGU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1629