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 .
Response to Amendments
[1] Amendments
The amendment filed on 05/04/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-7 remain pending.
Claims 1 and 3 have been amended.
For the purpose of this Office Action:
Claims 1-7 are under consideration.
[2] Drawings Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome each outstanding objection.
[3] Specification Objections
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have overcome each outstanding objection.
Claim Objections
[4] Claim 3 presently recites “comprises curcumin taurine and acetyl hexapeptide-8.” The relationship between “curcumin” and “taurine” is unclear due to the absence of punctuation or connecting language. Claim 3 should be amended to include a comma between “curcumin” and “taurine” to indicate that these are separate ingredients of the composition, or alternatively, the phrase “in combination with” should be reinstated in a manner consistent with the style of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102(a)(1)
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.
[5] Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by INCIDecoder (DMK Eye Tone, published 05/06/2020) as evidenced by INCIDecoder (“INCI”) (Soothing, which is accessible through the soothing entry of the cited reference, published 05/07/2020).
In regard to claim 1, INCIDecoder teaches a commercial cosmetic composition comprising taurine, acetyl hexapeptide-8, and curcuma longa root extract (see, Ingredients Overview; Summary Table). INCIDecoder further explicitly teaches curcumin as the principal biologically active component of curcuma longa root extract (see, Ingredients Explained).
The recitation of a “composition for protecting or improving sensitive skin, soothing the skin, or strengthening the skin barrier” is considered an intended use and does not further limit the claimed composition. Statements of intended use do not impart structural limitations where the claim otherwise recites a complete invention (See MPEP §2111.02). Nevertheless, even if the intended use language is given patentable weight, the reference also teaches the claimed use. Specifically, the Summary Table identifies curcuma longa root extract as providing soothing benefits. The reference further explains that soothing ingredients “reduce inflammation and soothe the skin” and are particularly helpful for common skin conditions such as acne, rosacea, and sensitive skin (anticipated by INCIDecoder as evidenced by INCI). Accordingly, the reference teaches use of the composition for soothing and improving sensitive skin. Therefore, even under an intended use analysis, the claimed subject matter is anticipated by the reference.
In regard to claim 2, INCIDecoder teaches the claimed composition, which is formed using the same combination of ingredients disclosed in the instant application. As stated in In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." Therefore, the reference anticipates that the composition promotes beta-defensin 2 (β-defensin 2) synthesis.
In regard to claim 5, INCIDecoder teaches aqua also called water (see, Ingredients Explained). Instant application discloses water as carriers in paragraphs [0044] and [0045]. Therefore, the reference anticipates a cosmetically acceptable carrier.
In regard to claims 6 and 7, INCIDecoder teaches an Eye Tone lotion packaged in an airless pump bottle, wherein the reference teaches that the product provides skin plumping effects and rebuilds fragile skin (see, Image and Description). INCIDecoder further teaches, based on the disclosed INCI ingredient listing, that the composition provides soothing benefits and is suitable for sensitive skin.
Accordingly, INCIDecoder teaches a method of protecting, improving, or treating sensitive skin, including soothing the skin and/or strengthening the skin barrier, comprising applying the composition to the skin of a subject in need thereof, where the reference teaches use of the composition for improving skin condition, soothing sensitivity, and treating fragile or compromised skin. The specification does not distinguish between “applying” and “administering;” therefore, these terms are treated as synonymous in the present context (see, paragraphs [0009], [0010], [0050] and [0051]).
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.
[6] Claims 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over INCIDecoder (DMK Eye Tone, published 05/06/2020) as evidenced by INCIDecoder (“INCI”) (Soothing, which is accessible through the soothing entry of the cited reference, published 05/07/2020).
In regard to claim 1, INCIDecoder teaches a commercial cosmetic composition comprising taurine, acetyl hexapeptide-8, and curcuma longa root extract (see, Ingredients Overview; Summary Table). INCIDecoder further explicitly teaches curcumin as the principal biologically active component of curcuma longa root extract (see, Ingredients Explained).
The recitation of a “composition for protecting or improving sensitive skin, soothing the skin, or strengthening the skin barrier” is considered an intended use and does not further limit the claimed composition (See MPEP §2111.02). Nevertheless, INCIDecoder teaches that that curcuma longa root extract provides soothing benefits and is beneficial for sensitive skin (as evidenced by INCI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , prior to the instant effective filing date, to use the disclosed composition for protecting or improving sensitive skin, or soothing the skin, as such use represents the predictable application of the known properties of the composition.
In regard to claim 2, INCIDecoder teaches the claimed composition, which is formed using the same combination of ingredients disclosed in the instant application. As stated in In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990), "[p]roducts of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , prior to the instant effective filing date, that the composition of the reference application would promote beta-defensin 2 (β-defensin 2) synthesis.
In regard to claim 5, INCIDecoder teaches aqua also called water (see, Ingredients Explained). Instant application discloses water as carriers in paragraphs [0044] and [0045]. Therefore, the reference teaches a cosmetically acceptable carrier.
In regard to claims 6 and 7, INCIDecoder teaches an Eye Tone lotion packaged in an airless pump bottle, wherein the reference teaches that the product provides skin plumping effects and rebuilds fragile skin (see, Image and Description). INCIDecoder further teaches, based on the disclosed INCI ingredient listing, that the composition provides soothing benefits and is suitable for sensitive skin.
Accordingly, INCIDecoder teaches a method of protecting, improving, or treating sensitive skin, including soothing the skin and/or strengthening the skin barrier, comprising applying the composition to the skin of a subject in need thereof, where the reference teaches use of the composition for improving skin condition, soothing sensitivity, and treating fragile or compromised skin. The specification does not distinguish between “applying” and “administering;” therefore, these terms are treated as synonymous in the present context (see, paragraphs [0009], [0010], [0050] and [0051]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to apply/administer the taught composition to the skin of a subject in need thereof to protect, improve, or treat sensitive skin, including soothing the skin and/or strengthening the skin barrier, as recited in the instant claims.
[7] Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over INCIDecoder (DMK Eye Tone, published 05/06/2020) as applied to 1-2 and 5-7 above, further in view of Chaniyilparampu et al. (“Chaniyilparampu”), (US20120052095A1, published 03/01/2012), and further in view of Biergiesser et al. (“Biergiesser”) (US20050238679A1, published 10/27/2005).
The teachings of INCIDecoder are discussed above. In particular, INCIDecoder discloses a cosmetic composition comprising taurine, acetyl hexapeptide-8 (Argireline), and curcumin. INCIDecoder further teaches formulations containing acetyl hexapeptide-8 at concentrations of 5% and 10% (see, Ingredients Explained).
However, INCIDecoder does not explicitly teach the concentrations of taurine or curcumin present in the composition. INCIDecoder also does not teach the weight ratios between the respective components.
Chaniyilparampu teaches a topical formulation comprising curcumin and at least one pharmaceutically acceptable excipient or inactive ingredient, wherein curcumin is present in an amount of 0.001% to 50% by weight of the formulation (see, claims 1-2; Abstract). Chaniyilparampu further teaches that curcumin is useful for treating various skin conditions, including acne, eczema, wounds, burns, photoaged skin, and provides anti-inflammatory benefits when used in topical formulations (see, paragraph [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to incorporate curcumin into the cosmetic composition of INCIDecoder at a concentration range taught by Chaniyilparampu in order to obtain its recognized skincare and anti-inflammatory benefits. Selecting a particular curcumin concentration from within the disclosed range of 0.001% to 50% would have constituted routine optimization of a known result-effective variable, yielding predictable results with a reasonable expectation of success.
However, INCIDecoder and Chaniyilparampu do not explicitly teach concentrations for taurine. INCIDecoder also does not teach the weight ratios between the respective components.
Biergiesser teaches cosmetic and dermatological compositions containing taurine in an amount of from 0.001 to 5% by weight (see, Title; claim 5). Biergiesser further teaches that such compositions improve the skin barrier function and may be used to moisturize the skin, improve skin microtopography and elasticity, and treat or prevent signs of skin ageing (see, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the instant effective filing date, to further modify the composition of INCIDecoder, as modified by Chaniyilparampu, by employing taurine within the concentration range taught by Biergiesser. The motivation to combine arises from the shared objective of improving skin appearance and function. Because INCIDecoder already identifies taurine as a desirable component, a skilled artisan would have prompted to select a known effective concentration taught by Biergiesser, which constitute routine optimization of a result effective variable.
Accordingly, selecting relative amount of curcumin, taurine, and acetyl hexapeptide-8 within their respective known or suggested ranges, as taught by the cited references, would have amounted to routine optimization of result effective variables. For example, as taught by Chaniyilparampu, curcumin may be present at about 5% by weight; as taught by Biergiesser, taurine may be present at about 5% by weight; and as taught by INCIDecoder, acetyl hexapeptide-8 may be present at about 5% in cosmetic formulation.
These selections correspond to amounts satisfying the ratios recited in instant claim 3 and yield a relative ratio of approximately 1:1:1 (curcumin source : taurine: acetyl hexapeptide-8). The resulting composition represents a predictable optimization of known formulation parameters, yielding expected cosmetic benefits with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/04/2026 have been fully considered but are rendered moot by the claim amendments. The prior rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 are hereby withdrawn. In view of the amendments, new rejections under 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103 are set forth herein.
Conclusion
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 ALI M ALAOUIE whose telephone number is 571-272-0844. The examiner can normally be reached Flextime: (M-TH) 7:30 am 6:30 pm.
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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 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 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, vis it: 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.
/ALI M. ALAOUIE/Examiner, Art Unit 1614
/ALI SOROUSH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1614
Prosecution Insights