DETAILED ACTION
Applicants' arguments, filed 07/08/2026, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 claims foreign priority to FR21/08421 filed 08/03/2021. The instant application is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/071615 filed 08/02/2022.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/08/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 objected to because of the following informalities: typo the term “paslmitic” is a typo of “palmitic”. Appropriate correction is required. The Examiner is interpreting the term “paslmitic” to be a typo of the term “palmitic”.
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 (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 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.
B) Claims 6, 8 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bertrand et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20190201318A1).
Bertrand recites cosmetic composition containing at least one combination of (a) at least one polyphenol chosen from proanthocyanidin monomers and oligomeric proanthocyanidins (OPCs), hydroxystilbenes, flavonoid monomers and oligomers, derivatives thereof and mixtures thereof, and (b) a spruce extract comprising at least one lignan chosen from: hydroxymatairesinol, secoisolariciresinol, conidendrin, lariciresinol and liovil (Bertrand at claim 1). Bertrand recites wherein the at least one polyphenol is extracted from vine (Bertrand at claim 2). Bertrand recites wherein the at least one polyphenol comprises polyphenol derivatives that are polyphenol esters (Bertrand at claim 3). Bertrand recites wherein the at least one polyphenol is present at a concentration of from 0.01% to 10% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition (Bertrand at claim 4). Bertrand recites containing at least (a) one grapeseed extract containing polyphenols, which is stabilized by esterification, the extract being present at a concentration of from 0.01% to 10% by weight (Bertrand at claim 6). Bertrand recites further comprising at least one active agent chosen from antioxidants, moisturizing agents, desquamating agents, agents which improve the barrier function, depigmenting agents, and agents which improve cutaneous microcirculation (Bertrand at claim 8). Bertrand recites method for combatting the signs of aging of the skin or of the skin appendages or combatting the cutaneous signs linked to pollution comprising applying the composition of claim 1 to skin (Bertrand at claim 10). Bertrand recites method for improving the radiance of the skin and/or decreasing the appearance of dark circles around the eyes comprising applying the composition of claim 1 to skin (Bertrand at claim 11). Bertrand recites herein the composition is applied as an agent for combatting a disorder chosen from wrinkles and fine lines, a dull complexion, pigment spots, the loss of firmness of the skin, and dark circles under the eyes (Bertrand at claim 12). Bertrand recites a cosmetic treatment process for preventing or decreasing skin disorders induced by oxidative stress, comprising at least one step consisting in applying, to the skin or the scalp, a combination of at least (a) polyphenols chosen from proanthocyanidin monomers and oligomeric proanthocyanidins (OPCs), hydroxystilbenes, flavonoid monomers and oligomers, derivatives thereof and mixtures thereof, and (b) a spruce extract comprising at least one lignan chosen from hydroxymatairesinol, secoisolariciresinol, conidendrin, lariciresinol and liovil, or a cosmetic composition containing said combination (Bertrand at claim 13). Examples 1-3 include the use of excipients. Betrand teaches polyphenols that are suitable for implementing the invention are chosen from proanthocyanidin monomers and oligomeric proanthocyanidins (OPCs), hydroxystilbenes, and flavonoid monomers and oligomers. Such polyphenols are for example extracted from various plants, and in particular from vine. They can be obtained from various parts of the Vitis vinifera plant, for example from the fruits or from parts of the fruits such as the seeds or the skin, but also from the vine shoots (Bertrand at [0045]). Betrand teaches polyphenols may in particular be chosen from hydroxystilbenes in monomer or oligomer form, and in particular resveratrol (in cis and/or trans form), rhapontin, deoxyrhapontin, piceatannol, piceid and viniferins (Bertrand at [0046]). Betrand teaches that the term “polyphenol derivatives” is intended to mean more particularly stabilized molecules in which all or some of the hydroxyl groups are etherified or esterified. According to one preferred embodiment, the esterification is formed with a saturated or unsaturated fatty acid. The fatty acid may in particular be chosen from butyric, valeric, hexanic, sorbic, lauric, palmitic, stearic, oleic, linoleic, linolenic, alpha-linolenic, arachidonic, ecosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acid (Bertrand at [0051]).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bertrand does not teach sufficient specificity to anticipate the claimed method nor does it teach a method of reducing damage caused by blue light exposure, therefore the anticipation rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner does not agree. Bertrand recites containing at least (a) one grapeseed extract containing polyphenols, which is stabilized by esterification, the extract being present at a concentration of from 0.01% to 10% by weight (Bertrand at claim 6). Grapeseed extract pholyphenols specifically include viniferins (Bertrand at [0046]) These polyphenoyls are specifically stabilized by esterification. The esterified grape vine pholyphenols are applied to the skin which is the same methodology as the instant application. The composition is applied to pigment spots which would be spots producing melanin. Furthermore, the method of the prior art does not need to teach the problem or purpose as the instant application. The prior art teaches a method of applying an esterified grape shoot vine extract which contains viniferin to portions of skin that have melanin, which is the same functional method and composition as the instant application. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP §2144(IV). The prior art does not need to recognize the specific feature of the stabilized viniferin the esterified viniferin will perform the same inherent function on the melanin regardless of if the function is recognized at the time. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP §2112(II). As such, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the anticipation rejection stands.
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.
A)Claims 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bertrand et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20190201318A1).
Bertrand recites cosmetic composition containing at least one combination of (a) at least one polyphenol chosen from proanthocyanidin monomers and oligomeric proanthocyanidins (OPCs), hydroxystilbenes, flavonoid monomers and oligomers, derivatives thereof and mixtures thereof, and (b) a spruce extract comprising at least one lignan chosen from: hydroxymatairesinol, secoisolariciresinol, conidendrin, lariciresinol and liovil (Bertrand at claim 1). Bertrand recites wherein the at least one polyphenol is extracted from vine (Bertrand at claim 2). Bertrand recites wherein the at least one polyphenol comprises polyphenol derivatives that are polyphenol esters (Bertrand at claim 3). Bertrand recites wherein the at least one polyphenol is present at a concentration of from 0.01% to 10% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition (Bertrand at claim 4). Bertrand recites containing at least (a) one grapeseed extract containing polyphenols, which is stabilized by esterification, the extract being present at a concentration of from 0.01% to 10% by weight (Bertrand at claim 6). Bertrand recites further comprising at least one active agent chosen from antioxidants, moisturizing agents, desquamating agents, agents which improve the barrier function, depigmenting agents, and agents which improve cutaneous microcirculation (Bertrand at claim 8). Bertrand recites method for combatting the signs of aging of the skin or of the skin appendages or combatting the cutaneous signs linked to pollution comprising applying the composition of claim 1 to skin (Bertrand at claim 10). Bertrand recites method for improving the radiance of the skin and/or decreasing the appearance of dark circles around the eyes comprising applying the composition of claim 1 to skin (Bertrand at claim 11). Bertrand recites herein the composition is applied as an agent for combatting a disorder chosen from wrinkles and fine lines, a dull complexion, pigment spots, the loss of firmness of the skin, and dark circles under the eyes (Bertrand at claim 12). Bertrand recites a cosmetic treatment process for preventing or decreasing skin disorders induced by oxidative stress, comprising at least one step consisting in applying, to the skin or the scalp, a combination of at least (a) polyphenols chosen from proanthocyanidin monomers and oligomeric proanthocyanidins (OPCs), hydroxystilbenes, flavonoid monomers and oligomers, derivatives thereof and mixtures thereof, and (b) a spruce extract comprising at least one lignan chosen from hydroxymatairesinol, secoisolariciresinol, conidendrin, lariciresinol and liovil, or a cosmetic composition containing said combination (Bertrand at claim 13). Betrand teaches polyphenols that are suitable for implementing the invention are chosen from proanthocyanidin monomers and oligomeric proanthocyanidins (OPCs), hydroxystilbenes, and flavonoid monomers and oligomers. Such polyphenols are for example extracted from various plants, and in particular from vine. They can be obtained from various parts of the Vitis vinifera plant, for example from the fruits or from parts of the fruits such as the seeds or the skin, but also from the vine shoots (Bertrand at [0045]). Betrand teaches polyphenols may in particular be chosen from hydroxystilbenes in monomer or oligomer form, and in particular resveratrol (in cis and/or trans form), rhapontin, deoxyrhapontin, piceatannol, piceid and viniferins (Bertrand at [0046]). Betrand teaches that the term “polyphenol derivatives” is intended to mean more particularly stabilized molecules in which all or some of the hydroxyl groups are etherified or esterified. According to one preferred embodiment, the esterification is formed with a saturated or unsaturated fatty acid. The fatty acid may in particular be chosen from butyric, valeric, hexanic, sorbic, lauric, palmitic, stearic, oleic, linoleic, linolenic, alpha-linolenic, arachidonic, ecosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acid (Bertrand at [0051]). Betrand teaches that polyphenols extracted from vine shoots, in particular resveratrol, and derivatives thereof, are in particular used. Polyphenols that are particularly suitable for implementing the invention are catechins, catechin oligomers or OPCs, such as those extracted from grapeseeds, and derivatives of these polyphenols, in particular esters thereof (Bertrand at [0073]). Betrand teaches that the mixtures in any proportions of the various polyphenols and of the derivatives thereof, which may be partially or totally esterified or etherified, as defined in the aforementioned, may be used (Bertrand at [0074]).
Bertrand is discussed in the Anticipation Rejection supra. Bertrand differ from the instant claims in this rejection insofar as it does not teach the combination of the of the instantly recited components with sufficient specificity for anticipation. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the filing of the present patent application and following the teachings of Bertrand to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results. MPEP §2143 and §2144.06(I).
With regards to claim 8, wherein the at least one polyphenol is present at a concentration of from 0.01% to 10% by weight relative to the total weight of the composition (Bertrand at claim 4), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.001% to 1%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
B)Claims 6 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holerca et al. (US Patent Application Publication 20110021397A1).
Holerca teaches the use of Hydrolyzed Grape Skin, Palmitoyl Grape Seed Extract, Palmitoyl Grapevine Shoot Extract, Sodium Grape Seed Extract, Vitis Vinifera (Grape) Fruit Powder, Vitis Vinifera (Grape) Juice, Vitis Vinifera (Grape) Juice Extract, Vitis Vinifera (Grape) Seed Extract, Vitis Vinifera (Grape) Skin Extract, Vitis Vinifera (Grape) Skin Powder as antioxidants or light stablizers (Holerca at [0022]). Holerca teaches that the antioxidant is present in an amount of 0.01 to 0.1% by weight of the composition (Holerca at [0021]). Holerca recites the use of a surfactant (Holerca at claim 9). Holerca recites the use of glycerin (Holerca at claim 12). Holerca teaches that the composition can be used to time the application of a composition. For example, a face mask composition can be applied to deliver an active to skin. The composition can be adjusted to select the time of color change to indicate that sufficient active has been delivered and that the face mask can be removed (Holerca at [0009]). Holerca teaches the composition can also be used in a method comprising: a) applying the composition to a substrate: and b) leaving the composition on the substrate until a color change is observed. The color change can be used to indicate that sufficient time has passed for the composition to be effective for its purpose (such as cleansing or sanitizing) or that the composition is no longer active (Holerca at [0040]). Holerca teaches the method comprises: a) applying the composition to hands: b) rubbing the hands together until a color change is observed; and c) rinsing the hands with water (Holerca at [0041]).
Holerca differs from the instant claims in this rejection insofar as it does not teach the combination of the instantly recited components with sufficient specificity for anticipation. Holerca teaches the components of the instant recited composition and uses each component of their established function in the art but does not explicitly combine the components together into a single embodiment or a preferred composition. However, given the disclosure of each component individually, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at a time prior to the filing of the present patent application and following the teachings of Holerca to have selected and combined known components for their established functions with predictable results. MPEP §2143 and §2144.06(I).
Regarding instant claim 6, Holerca teaches the composition can also be used in a method comprising: a) applying the composition to a substrate: and b) leaving the composition on the substrate until a color change is observed. Holerca teaches the use of Palmitoyl Grapevine Shoot Extract as antioxidants or light stablizers (Holerca at [0022]). Holerca recites the use of a surfactant (Holerca at claim 9). Holerca recites the use of glycerin (Holerca at claim 12). Holerca teaches that the composition can be used to time the application of a composition. For example, a face mask composition can be applied to deliver an active to skin. The composition can be adjusted to select the time of color change to indicate that sufficient active has been delivered and that the face mask can be removed (Holerca at [0009]).
Regarding instant claim 8, Holerca teaches the use of Palmitoyl Grapevine Shoot Extract as antioxidants or light stablizers (Holerca at [0022]).Holerca teaches that the antioxidant is present in an amount of 0.01 to 0.1% by weight of the composition (Holerca at [0021]), which overlaps the instantly claimed range of 0.001 to 1%. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP§2144.05(I).
Regarding instant claim 9, Holerca teaches the use of Palmitoyl Grapevine Shoot Extract as antioxidants or light stablizers (Holerca at [0022]).
Regarding instant claim 10, Holerca teaches the use of Palmitoyl Grapevine Shoot Extract as antioxidants or light stablizers (Holerca at [0022]).
Regarding instant claim 11, Holerca teaches the use of Palmitoyl Grapevine Shoot Extract as antioxidants or light stablizers (Holerca at [0022]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Bertrand does not teach the reduction of damage caused by blue light therefore the obviousness rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner does not agree. Bertrand recites containing at least (a) one grapeseed extract containing polyphenols, which is stabilized by esterification, the extract being present at a concentration of from 0.01% to 10% by weight (Bertrand at claim 6). Grapeseed extract pholyphenols specifically include viniferins (Bertrand at [0046]) These polyphenoyls are specifically stabilized by esterification. The esterified grape vine pholyphenols are applied to the skin which is the same methodology as the instant application. The composition is applied to pigment spots which would be spots producing melanin. Furthermore, the method of the prior art does not need to teach the same problem or purpose as the instant application. The prior art teaches a method of applying an esterified grape shoot vine extract which contains viniferin to portions of skin that have melanin, which is the same functional method and composition as the instant application. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP §2144(IV). The prior art does not need to recognize the specific feature of the stabilized viniferin, the esterified viniferin will perform the same inherent function on the melanin regardless of if the function is recognized at the time. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP §2112(II). As such, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the obviousness rejection stands.
Applicant argues that the pigment spots of Bertrand come from a different source therefore it would not be reasonable to expect the composition of Bertrand to also reduce melanin caused by blue light exposure, as such, the obviousness rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner does not agree. The prior art does not need to recognize the source of the melanin that the viniferin will act upon, the esterified viniferin will perform the same inherent function on the melanin regardless of the melanin. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP§2112.01(I). The impact of viniferin on melanin is an inherent property of the chemical compound. "Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). See MPEP §2112.01(II). The prior art does not need to recognize the source of the melanin that the viniferin will act upon, the esterified viniferin will perform the same inherent function on the melanin regardless of if the function is recognized at the time. There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the relevant time, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See MPEP §2112(II). Furthermore, the method of the prior art does not need to teach the same problem or purpose as the instant application. The prior art teaches a method of applying an esterified grape shoot vine extract which contains viniferin to portions of skin that have melanin, which is the same functional method and composition as the instant application. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP §2144(IV). If there is a reason that the production of melanin is functionally different or interacts with viniferin differently in a statistically or practically significant way when produced by a inciting stressor an affidavit or declaration can be filed to provide the additional statistically and practically significant data with an explanation of the data and results in the context of the claimed method of applying viniferin. As such, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the obviousness rejection stands.
Applicant argues that it would not have been obvious to have selected the combination of recited components based on the disclosure of Bertrand therefore the obviousness rejection should be withdrawn.
The Examiner does not agree. Bertrand recites containing at least (a) one grapeseed extract containing polyphenols, which is stabilized by esterification, the extract being present at a concentration of from 0.01% to 10% by weight (Bertrand at claim 6). Betrand teaches polyphenols may in particular be chosen from hydroxystilbenes in monomer or oligomer form, and in particular resveratrol (in cis and/or trans form), rhapontin, deoxyrhapontin, piceatannol, piceid and viniferins (Bertrand at [0046]). Betrand teaches that the term “polyphenol derivatives” is intended to mean more particularly stabilized molecules in which all or some of the hydroxyl groups are etherified or esterified. According to one preferred embodiment, the esterification is formed with a saturated or unsaturated fatty acid. The fatty acid may in particular be chosen from butyric, valeric, hexanic, sorbic, lauric, palmitic, stearic, oleic, linoleic, linolenic, alpha-linolenic, arachidonic, ecosapentaenoic and docosahexaenoic acid (Bertrand at [0051]). Bertrand recites wherein the at least one polyphenol is extracted from vine (Bertrand at claim 2). Bertrand recites method for combatting the signs of aging of the skin or of the skin appendages or combatting the cutaneous signs linked to pollution comprising applying the composition of claim 1 to skin (Bertrand at claim 10). Bertrand recites method for improving the radiance of the skin and/or decreasing the appearance of dark circles around the eyes comprising applying the composition of claim 1 to skin (Bertrand at claim 11). Bertrand recites herein the composition is applied as an agent for combatting a disorder chosen from wrinkles and fine lines, a dull complexion, pigment spots, the loss of firmness of the skin, and dark circles under the eyes (Bertrand at claim 12). Bertrand recites a cosmetic treatment process for preventing or decreasing skin disorders induced by oxidative stress, comprising at least one step consisting in applying, to the skin or the scalp, a combination of at least (a) polyphenols chosen from proanthocyanidin monomers and oligomeric proanthocyanidins (OPCs), hydroxystilbenes, flavonoid monomers and oligomers, derivatives thereof and mixtures thereof, and (b) a spruce extract comprising at least one lignan chosen from hydroxymatairesinol, secoisolariciresinol, conidendrin, lariciresinol and liovil, or a cosmetic composition containing said combination (Bertrand at claim 13). Bertrand teaches the use of grapeseed extract and grape vine shoot extract both of which contain viniferin. "The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain." In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP 2123(I). The extract is esterified for stability. It would have been prima facie obvious to have selected a ester for esterification from the finite list of Bertrand. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). As such, the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the obviousness rejection stands.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/08/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent No. 11,607,379 and 10,470,987 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Conclusion
No claims are presently allowable.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-6812. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 08:30-17:00 EST ALT Fridays.
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, Sahana S. Kaup, can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
