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
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 01/14/26, 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 Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.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.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florence et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0154130A1) in view of Pinsky et al. (WO 2018/144093A2) and further in view of Hakozaki et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0405621A).
Florence et al. discloses a multi-purpose cosmetic composition, see title. Florence teaches method for treating the skin of a subject in need thereof wherein it entails topically applying a cosmetic composition comprising an extract of Silybum marianum, see abstract. An effective amount can be 0.01% to 5% by weight of Silybum marianum extract, see [0008]. The composition can have anti-oxidative properties that can reduce oxidative stress to skin cells and the composition can be in the form of a cream, lotion, gel and emulsion etc., see [0008]. The combination of Silybum marianum and Nymphaea gigantea flower extract can treat anti-aging benefits, treat wrinkles and aged spots, reduce skin irritation and red skin, see [0012]. An effective amount of each extract ranges from 0.01% to 5% by weight, see [0012]. The reference teaches water lily extract, see [0009]. Nymphaea extract in [0012] and the water lily extract is Nymphaea alba extract. The reference teaches method of lightening skin or evening skin, see [0033]. Use of preservatives is not mandated, see [0135]. Regarding claims 3-5, the composition comprising the Silybum marianum extract and Nymphaea Alba extract, when applied topically to the skin would implicitly perform the stimulation of shedding of corneocytes and accelerate skin desquamation since the art teaches improving condition of the skin. The reference does not teach wherein the Silybum marianum extract is a Silybum marianum seed extract and/or the Nymphaea alba extract is a Nymphaea alba flower extract. However, the reference teaches using a Silybum marianum extract (para[0012] “Silybum marianum extract") and nymphaea flower extract (para [0009] “nymphaea.. flower extract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art through routine experimentation to use Silybum marianum seed extract or nymphaea alba flower extract. The amounts of the extract are effective for skin treatment, therefore it would be within skill of artisan to have optimized the amounts for optimum skin treatments.
While Florence teaches use of Nymphaea flower extract, the reference does not explicitly teach use of Nymphaea Alba flower extract.
Pinsky et al. discloses formulations for improved skin care, see title. The reference discloses that the cosmetic composition includes Silybum marianum extract and Nymphaea Alba extract, see claim 19.
Hakozaki et al. teaches skin care composition, see title. Hakozaki et al. teaches use of Nymphaea Alba flower extract for reducing bilirubin level by at least 10%, see abstract, claims, 4 and 6.
Regarding claims 3-5, the composition comprising the Silybum marianum extract and Nymphaea Alba extract, when applied topically to the skin would implicitly perform the stimulation of shedding of corneocytes and accelerate skin desquamation since the art teaches improving condition of the skin in claims 1 and 15.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized Nymphaea Alba flower extract as taught by Pinsky and Hakozaki et al. into the skin treating composition of Florence et al. for improved skin care motivated by the teachings of Pinsky et al. and Hakozaki et al.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florence et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0154130A1) in view of Pinsky et al. (WO 2018/144093A2) and further in view of Hakozaki et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0405621A) and Santhanum et al. (US PG Pub. 2017/0143607A1).
Florence teaches treating skin, but dees not teach wherein the topical skin composition increases gene expression of Kallikrein-5 (KLK5), Kallikrein-7 (KLK7), and/or Kallikrein-14 (KLK14).
Santhanum teaches a method of treating skin (para [0006] “methods of treating skin”) comprising an active ingredient that modulates Kallikrein-including KLKS (para[0022] “active agent may be a substance that modulates...KLK-5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art through routine experimentation to use the method taught by Florence in view of Santhanum wherein the method increases KLK5 gene expression because both inventions relate to methods of treating skin.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Florence et al. (US PG Pub. 2021/0154130A1) in view of Pinsky et al. (WO 2018/144093A2) and further in view of Hakozaki et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0405621A) and Galey et al. (US 2003/0224028A1).
Florence teaches that topical skin composition, but does not teach wherein the topical skin composition stimulates shedding of skin corneocytes.
Galey teaches a method of treating skin (para[0004] “composition intended to prevent or treat skin disorders"} wherein the composition stimulates shedding of skin corneocytes (para[0018) “acceleration of corneocyte separation’).
Therefore, if would have been obvious to one skilled in the art through routine experimentation to use the method taught by Florence in view of Galey wherein the method stimulates shedding of skin corneocytes because both inventions relate to methods of treating skin.
Regarding claim 5, Florence teaches the method of treating skin, but does not teach wherein the topical skin composition accelerates skin desquamation.
Galey teaches a method of treating skin (para[0004]) “composition intended to prevent or treat skin disorders”), wherein the composition accelerates desquamation (para[0G23] “promoting desquamation’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art through routine experimentation to use the method taught by Florence in view of Galey wherein the method accelerates desquamation because both inventions relate to methods of treating skin.
Action is final
Applicants arguments are moot in view of new rejections made above necessitated by claim amendments.
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 SNIGDHA MAEWALL whose telephone number is (571)272-6197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday; 8:30 AM to 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, 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.
/SNIGDHA MAEWALL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights