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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and the species Eclipta prostrata, Scutellaria baicalensis, proanthocyanidin and biotin, the specific tissue as skin, the specific disease as a disease related to the differentiation and growth of stem cells which comprises a scalp disorder and the specific additional components are Angelica sinensis, Ascophyllum nodosum, Astragalus membranaceus, Ganoderma lucidum, Malus domestica, Moringa olifiera, Polygonum multiflorum, Punica granatum, Rosmarinus officinalis and Sophora flavescens, in the reply filed on 10/09/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 70-71 and 74-79 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 10/09/2025.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Additional Group III is further defined as claims 67-76, which is directed to a method for activating Wnt 10B/beta-catenin signaling in a tissue expressing Wnt 10B. This group received the same analysis as Groups I and II and was determined to be an additional grouping based on the method being directed to maintaining or increasing certain biological features that are distinct from the other groups as recognized by the applicant in their response on 10/09/2025. It shares the same technical feature however that special technical feature was previously described in the art and thus unity of invention was broken as previously noted in the election/restriction filed on 08/11/2025.
Claims 60-66, and 77-79 are being examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 60-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park Eun Zoo (KR10-0966902B1), Tomoya Takahashi et. al. (Proanthocyanidins from Grape Seeds Promote Proliferation of Mouse Hair Follicle Cells In vitro and Convert Hair Cycle In vivo, Acta Derm Venerol (Stockh), 1998; 78: 428-432) and Liudmila Kalitukha and Pascal Lexut (DE202018101021U) hereinafter Lexut.
Zoo teaches a hair treatment for prevention of hair loss which comprises both of Eclipta prostrata extract and Scutellaria baicalensis extract (see abstract). Zoo teaches that the Eclipta prostrata extract use in the invention promotes the growth of hair by providing nutrients to the scalp and strengthens the hair root and can alleviate swelling (see page 6, para. 10) and that the Scutellaria Baicalensis root extract can act as a preservative which extends the use of the treatment (see page 7, last para.).
Zoo does not teach the composition to comprise of proanthocyanidins or biotin.
Takahashi teaches that “proanthocyanidins extracted from grape seeds promote proliferation of hair follicle cells isolated from mice by about 230% relative to controls (100%); and that proanthocyanidins possess remarkable hair-cycle-converting activity from the telogen phase to the anagen phase in C3H mice in vivo test systems” (see abstract).
Lexut’s general disclosure is to hair growth formulations and teaches “Biotin (vitamin H or vitamin B7) is essential for the formation of the horny substance keratin and thus contributes significantly to the healthy growth of skin and hair. A lack of biotin causes thin and brittle hair, unhealthy skin and dermatitis” (see page 7, last para.). Lexut also teaches that Ganoderma lucidum can be useful in hair growth preparations for strengthening the immune system and can protect against environmental stress (see page 7, para. 8 and page 9, first para.).
Lexut also teaches adding tea tree oil for having anti-fungal activities (see page 4, para. 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to persons having ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date to combine each of the claimed ingredients into a composition for hair growth because they are known to exert properties that are beneficial for such a purpose. Lexut teaches that biotin is needed for formation of the horny substance keratin and thus contributes significantly to the healthy growth of skin and hair and that Ganoderma lucidum can assist with strengthening the immune system and fighting of fungal activity.
Takahashi teaches that proanthocyanidins from grape seeds can promote proliferation of hair follicle cells and Zoo teaches that the Eclipta prostrata extract use in the invention promotes the growth of hair by providing nutrients to the scalp and strengthens the hair root and can alleviate swelling (see page 6, para. 10), and that the Scutellaria Baicalensis root extract can act as a preservative which extends the use of the treatment. Combining each component in a method for hair growth would have been prima facie obvious given the prior art. The combined ingredients would be expected to have the same properties as claimed as there has been nothing done to the components themselves except for the mere combination and administration of those components which is made obvious given the prior art. Additionally, the claims are not directed to any specific amounts of each ingredient being claimed and so combining them in any amount would have been easily achievable to any person having ordinary skill in the art with the expectation of increasing hair growth.
Examiners note and objection: Claims 63-66 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Currently no claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB ANDREW BOECKELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Terry McKelvey can be reached at 571-272-0775. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JACOB A BOECKELMANExaminer, Art Unit 1655
/TERRY A MCKELVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655