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 .
Priority
The instant application was filed 13 October 2023 and is the national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/059861 filed 13 April 2022. The Applicant claims priority to foreign application DK2021 070171 filed 13 April 2021. An English copy of the foreign document has been provided. Therefore, the effective filing date of the instant application is 13 April 2021.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 63-71) in the reply filed on 17 November 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 73, 74, 77-83, 88 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 17 November 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 66 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites “a skin healing compound comprising hyaluronic acid/hyaluronate” twice. 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.
Claims 63-71, 84-87 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.
Claims 63 and 64 contains the trademark/trade name “Redensyl” and “Capixyl.” Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe hair growth molecules and ingredients and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claims 65-71 and 84-87 are rejected for being dependent from claims 63 and 64.
Claim 67 recites “% by weight” in parenthesis. The parenthetical recitation renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations in the parenthesis are part of the claimed invention or describing an example of preference. See MPEP 2173.05(d). The parenthetical recitation is also not an exact synonym or identical meaning for “concentration.”
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.
Claim(s) 63-71, 84-87 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karaca (TR 201612319 A2), Martinez et al. (WO 2016153347 A1), and Yu et al. (WO 2008134712 A2), as evidenced by dynamicextractions.com.
Karaca teaches a topical hair composition to help hair loss comprising Capixyl and Redensyl (abs; entire teaching), partially addressing claim 63. The composition comprising Capixyl and Redensyl are interpreted as addressing the components in claim 64.
Karaca does not teach CBD in crystalline form, C2-C4 alcohols, or a C3-C8 diol in claim 63.
Martinez teaches a hair composition (pg. 16, ln. 21; entire teaching) that is used for conditioning or protecting the integrity or appearance of the hair (pg. 15, lns. 11-14). The composition may comprise CBD isolate (abs) and an excipient, such as propylene glycol (pg. 15, lns. 24-27). Martinez teaches that using CBD isolate is useful and beneficial in order to “fully exploit the pharmacological potential of CBD” (pg. 2, lns. 1-5). The composition may comprise 1-50% of CBD isolate (pg. 15, lns. 28-29) and may be substantially or entirely free of THC (pg. 13, lns. 7-10). The composition free of THC is interpreted as in an amount below 0.1%, as well as a THC:CBD ratio of less than 1:5 in claims 69-71. CBD isolate has a purity of over 99% and has needle-like crystalline structure (evidenced by dynamicextractions.com, pg. 1), where it is interpreted that CBD isolate is mainly structure A, addressing claims 84-86.
Yu teaches a serum composition that may be used to impart a desired characteristic on hair (paras. 41, 54; entire teaching). The composition may comprise menthol as a vehicle (para. 90), hyaluronic acid as a humectant (para. 102), caffeine as another active ingredient (para. 69), propylene glycol or panthenol as a vehicle (paras. 86, 87), arginine as a component to nourish or impart desired characteristics (para. 100), an emollient to lubricate or hydrate (para. 69) the hair (para. 104), triethanolamine as a solubilizer (para. 13), ethanol, 1,5-pentanediol (para. 113) or water as a solvent (para. 93), vitamin b7 to replenish and nourish (para. 98), citric acid monohydrate as a chelating agent (para. 134), and xanthan gum as a thickening agent (para. 92), addressing claims 63 and 66. The amount of solvent may be from 1-99% (para. 113), addressing claims 65, 67, and 68. Claims 66 and 67 are interpreted as only requiring one component or any combination of the ingredients. The composition from all of the teachings do not require oils or fats, addressing claim 87.
Since Karaca does not teach CBD in crystalline form, C2-C4 alcohols, or a C3-C8 diol in claim 63, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the hair compositions from Martinez and Yu with a reasonable expectation of success. A skilled artisan would have been led to combine the teachings since Martinez’s hair composition comprises CBD isolate, which has beneficial pharmacological potential in this specific form, and Yu’s hair composition comprises common excipients with specific purposes that are useful in enhancing the cosmetic formulation. Generally, it is prima facie obvious to combine or substitute one equivalent component or process for another, each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose (see MPEP 2144.06).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Danielle Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-2035. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5 p.m. PST.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/D.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/ANDREW S ROSENTHAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613