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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden because there is no indication that the subject matter falls into separate classification, status in the art of field of search because both inventions have been classified in A61. This is not found persuasive because the inventions are classified in different class and subclass as they have been classified in A61Q19/08 and A61K9/0014 and are distinct inventions for reasons indicated in the Restriction Requirement mailed 11/6/2025.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/30/2025.
Claims 1-14 have been considered on the merits herein.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Each of claims 2-14 are missing a comma after “The composition of claim 1”, for example. Each independent claim should contain a comma after the claim number from which it depends. For example, for claim 2, it should read “The composition of claim 1, …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, claim 1 is missing a transitional phrase, i.e. “A composition… comprising, consisting of, or consisting essentially of…”. see MPEP 2111.03.
For examination purposes, the composition has been interpreted as a composition comprising.
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 4, 7, 8, 13, 14 are 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 7, 8, 13 and 14 appear to be missing words and are grammatically incorrect. At the last line of claims 7 and 8 they read “with the balance the carrier” and claims 13 and 14 read “with the balance the carrier base and the remainder…”. The current claims do not distinctly claim the composition. It is not clear what the balance pertains to, for example, does applicant intend to claim that the rest of the weight of the composition is from the carrier, i.e. in claim 7, PQQ, ubiquinol, shilajit, NMN and/or NAD and jiaogulan together make up 1-6% weight of the composition with the remainder made up of the carrier? Further it is not clear what is meant by “…together comprise 1-6% of a weight of the composition”. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted as PQQ, ubiquinol, shilajit, NMN and/or NAD and jiaogulan together make up 1-6% weight of the composition with the remainder made up of the carrier
Regarding claim 4, it is not clear how the composition comprises a pill, powder, liquid or gel. Is this an additional component of the composition, or is the composition in the form of a pill, powder, liquid or gel? For examination purposes, it has been interpreted that the composition is in the form of a pill, powder, liquid or gel.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Parker (US20210220422, IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 10, Parker teaches a composition (for improving energy, stress, and well-being, combating aging, improving cellular function, abstract, 0011, 0013, 0022) comprising NMN in an amount from 2-6 wt %(0108, 0116, 0117, 0132, claims 13,16,17), NAD (0108, 0113, 0132, claims 13,16,17 ), CoQ10 (0108, 0132, claims 13,16,17), PQQ (0132, claim 13, 17) , jiaogulan (0034) and shilajit in an amount of from 1-7 wt % (0034, 0038-0041) and a method of mixing the components together with a carrier according to claim 10 (0005, for example)
Regarding claims 3, 4, the composition may be in food, capsule, powder, pill, or liquid form and thus, the carriers taught are taken to be edible carriers suitable for human consumption (004, 005,0030, 0031).
Thus, the reference anticipates the claimed subject matter.
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) 1, 3, 4, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of EP3818979 (IDS) in view of GB259849 to Romy and Parker (US20210220422, IDS).
EP’979 teaches a composition (having antioxidant and anti-inflammatory properties and improving mitochondrial function applicable to the skin (col. 1-4, col. 4, lines 19-37) comprising ubiquinol CoQ10, PQQ, fulvic acid (shilajit) (col. 4, lines 29-37, col. 5, lines 26-42, col. 7, 8, 9, 0019). The reference teaches that shilajit (fulvic acid) stabilizes, preserves and revitalizes CoQ10 (ubiquinol), stimulates available CoQ10 levels to protect against mitochondrial aging and transporting nutrients to the body, is an electron reservoir and the combination of shilajit with CoQ10 increases ATP production compared to CoQ10 alone (col. 9, lines 23-51).
Regarding claim 4, the composition is in the form of a tablet, capsule, or powder (abstract), thus an edible medium and a carrier, i.e. capsule, suitable for human consumption, given that the composition is administered to human patients (0020-0028, 0031-0034).
Regarding claim 10, the reference teaches a method of mixing the components and adding to a carrier, i.e. the capsule (0009-0012).
EP979 does not teach the composition to comprise NMN and/or NAD.
GB259849 teaches a composition (for improving mitochondrial function and reversing aging, decreasing free radicals and inflammation, improving skin, Abstract, 0001, 0005, 0055) comprising NMN (100-1000 mg), NAD (100-1000mg), PQQ (5-50 mg), CoQ10 (50-500mg)(abstract, 0007, 0014, 0015, 0059, 0060, 0072, 0073) and further comprising shilajit (25-250 mg)(0023, 0063). The composition is in the form of a tablet, capsule, liquid, food, or powder (0005).
Parker teaches a composition (for improving energy, stress, and well-being, combating aging, improving cellular function, abstract, 0011, 0013, 0022) comprising NMN in an amount from 2-6 wt %(0108, 0116, 0117, 0132, claims 13,16,17), NAD (0108, 0113, 0132, claims 13,16,17 ), CoQ10 (0108, 0132, claims 13,16,17), PQQ (0132, claim 13, 17) , jiaogulan (0034) and shilajit in an amount of from 1-7 wt % (0034, 0038-0041) and a method of mixing the components together (0005, for example). The composition may be in food, capsule, powder, pill, or liquid form and thus, the carriers taught are taken to be edible carriers (0030, 0031).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the instant components/ingredients for their known use and benefit, as disclosed by the cited references above, since each is well known in the art for their claimed purpose. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the instant components/ingredients together in a single composition with a reasonable expectation of successfully obtaining a composition with an intended use of enhancing cellular function. This rejection is based upon the well-established proposition of patent law that no invention resides in combining old ingredients of known properties or function where the results obtained thereby are no more than the additive effects of the ingredients/components, In re Sussman, 1943 C.D. 518. It is well known that it is prima facie obvious to combine two or more ingredients each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition which is useful for the same purpose. The idea for combining them flows logically from their having been used individually in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious). Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 5, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US20210220422, IDS) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 10 above, and further in view of Life extension Super Ubiquinol CoQ10 with PQQ (IDS) supported by https://www.amazon.com/Life-Extension-Super-Ubiquinol-Softgels/dp/B00DBYI6RQ?th=1 and Primal Force Ultra Accel II (2018, IDS) supported by https://primalforce.net/product/ultra-accel-q/?as_campaign=ppc_google_uaq_direct_branded_20251009&as_source=google&as_medium=ppc
Regarding claims 1, 10, Parker teaches a composition (for improving energy, stress, and well-being, combating aging, improving cellular function, abstract, 0011, 0013, 0022) comprising NMN in an amount from 2-6 wt %(0108, 0116, 0117, 0132, claims 13,16,17), NAD (0108, 0113, 0132, claims 13,16,17 ), CoQ10 (0108, 0132, claims 13,16,17), PQQ (0132, claim 13, 17) , jiaogulan (0034) and shilajit in an amount of from 1-7 wt % (0034, 0038-0041) and a method of mixing the components together with a carrier according to claim 10 (0005, for example)
Regarding claims 3, 4, the composition may be in food, capsule, powder, pill, or liquid form and thus, the carriers taught are taken to be edible carriers suitable for human consumption (004, 005,0030, 0031).
Parker does not teach the carrier to comprise glycerin.
Life extension teaches a composition in soft gel form (for anti-aging and cellular health) comprising 100 mg of ubiquinol, 100 mg of shilajit and 10 mg pyrroloquinoline quinone (PQQ) and glycerin as well as other carriers. https://www.amazon.com/Life-Extension-Super-Ubiquinol-Softgels/dp/B00DBYI6RQ?th=1 teaches that the product was first available on 8/26/2013.
Ultra Accel is a softgel composition (for anti-aging and cellular health) comprising ubiquinol CoQ10, Gynostemma pentaphyllum (jiaogulan) and PQQ together with glycerin as a carrier. See https://primalforce.net/product/ultra-accel-q/?as_campaign=ppc_google_uaq_direct_branded_20251009&as_source=google&as_medium=ppc for supplement facts.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, glycerin was a known carrier in compositions formulated for oral consumption and comprising at least ubiquinol, shilajit, pyrroloquinoline quinone (PQQ)and jiaogulan. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the instant components/ingredients for their known use and benefit, as disclosed by the cited references above, since each is well known in the art for their claimed purpose. This rejection is based upon the well-established proposition of patent law that no invention resides in combining old ingredients of known properties or function where the results obtained thereby are no more than the additive effects of the ingredients/components, In re Sussman, 1943 C.D. 518. It is well known that it is prima facie obvious to combine two or more ingredients each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition which is useful for the same purpose. The idea for combining them flows logically from their having been used individually in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious). Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3818979 in view of GB259849 to Romy and Parker (US20210220422, IDS) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 10 above, and further in view of Life extension Super Ubiquinol CoQ10 with PQQ (IDS) supported by https://www.amazon.com/Life-Extension-Super-Ubiquinol-Softgels/dp/B00DBYI6RQ?th=1 and Primal Force Ultra Accel II (2018, IDS) supported by https://primalforce.net/product/ultra-accel-q/?as_campaign=ppc_google_uaq_direct_branded_20251009&as_source=google&as_medium=ppc
The teachings of EP3818979 in view of GB259849 to Romy and Parker (US20210220422, IDS) are found above.
Life extension teaches a composition in soft gel form (for anti-aging and cellular health) comprising 100 mg of ubiquinol, 100 mg of shilajit and 10 mg pyrroloquinoline quinone (PQQ) and glycerin as well as other carriers. https://www.amazon.com/Life-Extension-Super-Ubiquinol-Softgels/dp/B00DBYI6RQ?th=1 teaches that the product was first available on 8/26/2013.
Ultra Accel is a softgel composition (for anti-aging and cellular health) comprising ubiquinol CoQ10, Gynostemma pentaphyllum (jiaogulan) and PQQ together with glycerin as a carrier. See https://primalforce.net/product/ultra-accel-q/?as_campaign=ppc_google_uaq_direct_branded_20251009&as_source=google&as_medium=ppc for supplement facts.
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, glycerin was a known carrier in compositions formulated for oral consumption and comprising at least ubiquinol, shilajit, pyrroloquinoline quinone (PQQ)and jiaogulan. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the instant components/ingredients for their known use and benefit, as disclosed by the cited references above, since each is well known in the art for their claimed purpose. This rejection is based upon the well-established proposition of patent law that no invention resides in combining old ingredients of known properties or function where the results obtained thereby are no more than the additive effects of the ingredients/components, In re Sussman, 1943 C.D. 518. It is well known that it is prima facie obvious to combine two or more ingredients each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition which is useful for the same purpose. The idea for combining them flows logically from their having been used individually in the prior art. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted) (Claims to a process of preparing a spray-dried detergent by mixing together two conventional spray-dried detergents were held to be prima facie obvious.). See also In re Crockett, 279 F.2d 274, 126 USPQ 186 (CCPA 1960) (Claims directed to a method and material for treating cast iron using a mixture comprising calcium carbide and magnesium oxide were held unpatentable over prior art disclosures that the aforementioned components individually promote the formation of a nodular structure in cast iron.); and Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (mixture of two known herbicides held prima facie obvious). Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parker (US20210220422, IDS) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 10 above, and further in view of Zimmerman (US20070003536A1)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP3818979 in view of GB259849 to Romy and Parker (US20210220422, IDS) as applied to claims 1, 3, 4, 10 above, and further in view of Zimmerman (US20070003536A1)
The teachings of each of Parker, and EP3818979 in view of GB259849 to Romy and Parker (US20210220422, IDS) are found above.
The references do not teach the compositions to comprise a solid cream carrier.
Zimmerman teaches a topical composition (for defense against free radicals and improving dermal aging) comprising CoQ10 which is formulated as a cream with the acceptable carrier for cosmetic use (abstract, 0002, 0006, 0069, 0070).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been well within the purview of the skilled artisan to pursue known carriers when formulating the claimed composition as a cream, for example, given the teachings of Zimmerman.
Conclusion
Claims 6-9, 12-14 are free of the prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY MAUREEN GOUGH whose telephone number is (571)272-0697. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu 8-5.
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, Melenie Gordon can be reached at 571-272-8037. 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.
/TIFFANY M GOUGH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1651
/MELENIE L GORDON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1651