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 .
The amendments filed on 02/05/2026 has been received and entered. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code, not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Any rejections set forth in a previous Office action that is not specifically set forth below is withdrawn
Claims 1,4,5 and 13-15 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1,4,5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 112 (a). It is not clear if the deposit meets all of the criteria set forth in 37 CFR 1.801-1.809. Applicant or applicant’s representative may provide assurance of compliance with the requirements of 35 USC 112(a), or 35 U.S.C 112 (Pre-AIA ), first paragraph, in the following manner.
SUGGESTION FOR DEPOSIT OF BIOLOGICAL MATERIAL
A declaration by applicant, assignee, or applicant’s agent identifying a deposit of
biological material and averring the following may be sufficient to overcome an objection andrejection based on lack of availability of biological material.
1. Identifies declarant
2. States that a deposit of the material has been made in the depository affording permeance of the deposit and ready accessibility thereto by the public if a patent is granted. The
depository is to be identified by name and address.
3. States that the deposited material has been accorded a specific (recited) accession number
4. States that all restriction on the availability to the public of the material so deposited willbe irrevocably removed upon the granting of a patent
5. States that the material has been deposited under conditions that access to the material
will be available during the pendency of the patent application to one determined by the
commissioner to be entitled thereto under 37 CFR 1.14 and 35 U.S.C 122
6. States that the deposited material will be maintained with all the care necessary to keep it viable and uncontaminated for a period of at least five years after the most recent request
for the furnishing of a sample of a deposited microorganism, and in any case, for a period of at least thirty (30) years after the date of deposit for the enforceable life of the patent,whichever is longer.
7. That he/she declares further that all statements made therein of his/her own knowledge
are true and that all statements made on information and belief are believed to be true,
and further that these statements were made with knowledge that willful false statements
and the like so made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under section
`1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code and that such willful false statements may
jeopardize the validity of the instant patent application or any patent issuing thereon.
Additionally, the deposit must be referred to in the body of the specification and be identified by deposition (Accession number date of deposit, name and address of the depository and thec ompete taxonomic description).
Alternatively, if applicant establishes that the microorganism(s) required to practice the
claimed invention is/are currently available from repository (KCTC), and that this/these microorganism(s) should remain available to the public beyond the effective life of the patent,then please note that any information to the contrary which comes to an applicant’s attention during the prosecution of this application, must be entered in the record or otherwise be brought to the attention of the Office by the applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (KR20230001597A), in view of Bong Joon (US20120282675A1), for the reasons set forth in the previous office action, and for the following reasons below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 5, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
Yang and Bong Joon are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1 at least because Yang and Bong Joon fail to disclose or suggest every claimed feature. Applicant has amended claim 1 to recite in part “a Lacticaseibacillus casei (KCTC 3109) fermentation product of crushed raw material of cannabis stems as an active ingredient.” The claimed invention is directed to a fermentation product obtained by directly fermenting crushed raw cannabis stem material with Lactobacillus Casei. In contrast, Yang uses an aqueous extract of cannabis stem, rather than raw cannabis stem material, as the fermentation substrate. Because the extraction process as disclosed in Yang fundamentally alters the chemical composition of the starting material, the cannabis stem extract disclosed in Yang is structurally and functionally distinguished from the crushed raw material of cannabis stems recited in claim 1.
However, while Yang’s extraction method alters the chemical composition of the starting material, the final result is the same, wherein the composition has MMP-1 production inhibitory activity and an effect of ameliorating skin wrinkles. The final product can still be made even though by another materially different process. Applicant argues that one of ordinary skill would plainly understand that Yang and Bong Joon are completely silent on the fermentation product of crushed raw material of cannabis stems as an active ingredient. However, in the initial component and as shown in the references, there are multiple ways to obtain materials of cannabis stems as an active ingredient where the composition has MMP-1 production inhibitor activity, has an effect of ameliorating skin wrinkles and wherein the composition is a cosmetic and pharmaceutical composition. Additionally, based on the teachings of the prior art, we know the extracts of the stems can be used for wrinkles and prove there are multiple means for obtaining the cannabis stems. People in the art know that Lacticaseibacillus casei is an active component for the wrinkle treatment, because it has been shown in the primary reference, so it would not be unobvious to get this fermentation product of the bacteria by any means from someone skilled in the art. It has not been shown that crushing the material is inventive, applicant has not shown what is unpredictable about crushing the raw material of cannabis stems and then providing it to the bacteria versus allowing for the extract which gives us another motivation to get this product. It has not been shown that by solely using the crushed raw material of cannabis stems as an active ingredient, this would be a different product.
Applicant further argues there was no suggestion or motivation to modify or combine Yang and Bong Joon. Yang teaches a composition using fermentation bacteria Lactobacillus sakei. The reference as noted in the prior office action teaches L.Sakei has excellent antibacterial, anti-inflammatory and skin wrinkle-improving activities. Although the reference of Yang does not expressly recite providing L. casei or L. casei (KCTC 3109) as the fermentation microorganism, the product is claimed in a product-by-process product which to the extent claimed appears to be at least obvious in view of the features shared, including that: L. sakei and L. casei are closely-related organisms both belonging to the same family, Lactobacillaceae, and the instant claims’ fermentation product contains and/or produces the same properties (i.e. wrinkle ameliorating, MMP-1 inhibition). See also MPEP 2113 which states in part: “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Bong Joon relates to fermentation of hemp seed extract using L.Casei for cosmetic applications. Applicant argues that Bong Joon does not provide basis that L.Casei would yield enhanced effects when applied to a different plant and that it does not disclose any teachings that L.Casei has superior anti-wrinkle properties. The cited reference discloses a composition comprising the same extract-obtainable
material(s) and properties as instantly claimed, which appear to be isolated from the same/similar materials and/or produce the same effects. Furthermore, even if the composition (with respect to
the fermentative effects provide among lactic acid bacteria forming the product(s) claimed is not
identical to the referenced composition, with regard to some unidentified characteristics, the differences between that which is claimed and that which is disclosed, is so slight that the referenced composition is likely to possess the same characteristics of the claimed composition, particularly in view of the similar characteristics which they have been shown the share (e.g. MMP-1 inhibition, antiwrinkle effects). Thus, the claimed composition would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 USC §103 (a). Additionally, applicant argues claim 1, as amended yields greater results over Yang and Bong Joon as proved by Fig 4. However, Fig 4 does not disclose strain L.Sakei, if used for the purposes of the argument, applicant will need to show it yields greater results over the prior art specifically Yang and Bong Joon as claimed.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARNITIA T WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-2550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at (571) 272-0947. 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.
/Marnitia T Walker/
Examiner, Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights