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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/17/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final rejection on 10/17/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of claims
The amendment filed on 03/17/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 19-24, 28-46, 48, 50, 51, and 55 have been canceled, claims 25-27, 52-54, and 56 have been withdrawn, and new claim 57 has been added. Claims 3, 4, 12-18, 47, 49, and 57 are under examination in the instant office action.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's affirmation of election with traverse of II, claims 3, 4, 12-18, 47, 49, and 57, in the reply filed on 03/17/2026, is acknowledge.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no undue search burden. This is not found persuasive because the restriction dated 10/17/2026 was based on the lack of unity in accordance with Rule 13.1 of the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Search burden being undue is a moot argument for lack of unity issue. Undue search burden is not an issue in a lack of unity.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 25-27, 52-54, and 56 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a non-elected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 3, 4, 12-18, 47, 49, and 57 will presently be examined to the extent they read on the elected subject matter of record.
Rejections withdrawn
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed on 03/17/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claims 3, 4, 14, and 15over Ibrahim et al. (US 2017/0253713 A1) from the previous Office Action. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
Rejections maintained
The following rejections of the claims are remained for reasons of record and the following. New claim is hereby included in the rejections and the rejections are modified based on the amendments.
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 3, 4, 12-16, 47, 49, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Almiñana Doménech et al. (US 2017/0014334 A1).
Almiñana Doménech et al. meet all of the limitations of claims 3, 12-16, 47, and 49. Almiñana Doménech et al. disclose cosmetic (the instant claims 14 and 15) and/or dermopharmaceutical compositions containing a ferment extract secreted by a bacterial strain of the Bacillus pumilus species (the claimed component c in the instant claim 3) and at least one cosmetically and/or dermopharmaceutically acceptable excipient and/or ingredient (abstract, paragraph 2, and claims 14, 35, and 36) and exemplified a composition in table 1 comprising 0.004% by weight of secretion of a strain of B. pumilus (the instant claims 12 and 47 and thus the claimed an amount effective to impart UV resistance and/or UV absorbance and to increase skin hyaluronic acid production in the instant claim 3 and to impart high energy visible (HEV) light protection in the instant claim 57), 68.050% by weight of water (the claimed liquid in the instant claim 13 and aqueous component in the instant claim 16), 0.05% by weight of xanthan gum (the instant claim 49). According to the instant specification, the claimed secretion of a strain of B. pumilus deposited under ATCC accession number PTA-126909 is B. pumilus obtained from environmental sources (example 1).
Almiñana Doménech et al. meet all of the limitations of claim 4. The limitation in the instant claim 4 is a further limitation of an alternative component.
Response to Applicants’ arguments:
Applicants argue that Almiñana Doménech et al. do not disclose the claimed secretion of bacterial strain of the Bacillus pumilus species deposited under ATCC accession number PTA-126909 because the claimed secretion of bacterial strain of the Bacillus pumilus species deposited under ATCC accession number PTA-126909 has prolonged exposure on the exterior of the international space station.
However, this argument is not deemed persuasive. According to the instant specification, the claimed secretion of a strain of B. pumilus deposited under ATCC accession number PTA-126909 is B. pumilus obtained from environmental sources (example 1).
According to Chiang et al. (Alteration of Proteomes in First-Generation Cultures of Bacillus pumilus Spores Exposed to Outer Space, American Society for Microbiology, mSystems. 2019 Jun 11;4(4)) genomes of all Bacillus pumilus SAFR-032 space-surviving strains did not show any variations or single nucleotide polymorphisms compared with the ground control (title, abstract, and page 4, line17-21), according to Gioia et al. (Paradoxical DNA Repair and Peroxide Resistance Gene Conservation in Bacillus pumilus SAFR-032, Plos One, September 2007, Issue 9, e928) Bacillus pumilus SAFR-032 used as Bacillus pumilus to prove that Bacillus pumilus is more resistant than vegetative cells to heat, desiccation, UV radiation, γ-radiation, H2O2, and starvation in comparing B. subtilis and B. licheniformis (the section under “Introduction” and “Conclusion’), and according to Stepanov et al. (Bacillus pumilus SAFR-032 Genome Revisited: Sequence Update and Re-Annotation, PLoS One, 2016 Jun 28;11(6):e0157331) Bacillus pumilus SAFR-032 is representative of the entire B. pumilus species group (abstract and the section under “Introduction”). Thus, surviving of prolonged exposure on the exterior of the international space station reveals the inherent properties for the elevated UV resistance properties of Bacillus pumilus species, does not generate the elevated UV resistance properties of Bacillus pumilus species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
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(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3, 4, 12-18, 47, 49, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Almiñana Doménech et al. (US 2017/0014334 A1).
The teachings of Almiñana Doménech et al. are discussed above and applied in the same manner. Almiñana Doménech et al. teach the composition comprising peanut oil (which contains resveratrol, the instant claim 18) (paragraph 39) and anti-wrinkle and/or antiaging agent including tocopherol (vitamin E in the instant claim 17) (paragraph 53).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings in table 1 and paragraph 39 and 53 of Almiñana Doménech et al. to add peanut oil and tocopherol as components in the composition in table 1. Peanut oil and tocopherol being components in the compositions containing a ferment extract secreted by a bacterial strain of the B. pumilus species taught by Almiñana Doménech et al. was well known to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation for specifying it flows from its having been used in the prior art, and from its being recognized in the prior art as useful for the same purpose.
Response to Applicants’ arguments:
Argument regarding the 103 rejection is basically the same as the above rejection, thus the response discussed above applies here as well and is not persuasive for reason discussed above.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HONG YU whose telephone number is (571)270-1328. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ali Soroush can be reached on 571-272-9925. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HONG YU/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights