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 .
Specification
The use of the term “ATCC” (page 11), “Gibco” (pages 9, 12, 14, 20), “BD Pharmingen” (page 9), “Invitrogene” (page 14), “Thermo Fisher Scientific” (page 14), “Sigma” (page 14), “VISIA” (page 17) which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph 0008, “promotesantioxidants” should read “promotes antioxidants”
In paragraph 0003, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus Salicina”
In paragraph 0004, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus Salicina”
In paragraph 0005, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus Salicina”
In paragraph 0006, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus Salicina”
In paragraph 0007, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus Salicina”
In paragraph 0010, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus Salicina”
In paragraph 0020, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus Salicina”
In paragraph 0022, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus Salicina”
In paragraph 0038, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus Salicina”
In paragraph 0039, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus Salicina”
In paragraph 0042, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus Salicina”
In paragraph 0043, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus Salicina”
In paragraph 0060, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus Salicina”
In paragraph 0062, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus Salicina”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 14, and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus salicina”
In claim 4, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus salicina”
In claim 14, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus salicina”
In claim 16, “Prunussalicina” should read “Prunus salicina”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3 and 17-18 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.
Claim 1 recites a method for inhibiting skin damage caused by blue light in a subject in need thereof, comprising: administering to the subject an effective dose of queen plum extract, wherein the queen plum extract is obtained by extracting whole fruit of Prunussalicina by water. It is unclear in terms of what type of skin damage are being referred to. The claims and specification do not define a specific type or types of skin damage that can happen as a result of blue light exposure.
Claims 2-3 are dependent on claim 1 and does not clarify the type of skin damage that is being treated.
Claim 17 recites the method according to claim 16, wherein the queen plum extract comprises “cumoricanhydride.” The name given for “bioactive substance A” [(cumoricanhydride)] in paragraph 0134 does not match the structure for “bioactive substance A” shown in paragraph 0135. The name specifies the glucose linkages as 1-2/1-2, but the structure shows these linkages as 1-2/1-1. The applicant failed to properly and specifically define “cumoricanhydride” within the claims and specification.
Claim 18 is dependent on claim 17 and does not clarify the chemical compound “cumoricanhydride”.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 110897063 A – English translation provided) in view of Florence (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0276025A1), Kim (KR 20210006085 A – English translation provided), Kim Young (KR 20140125234 A– English translation provided), Wortzman et al (Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (Year: 2021), vol. 20, issue. 4, pp 1160-1165), and Schieber et al (Current Biology (Year: 2014), vol. 24, issue. 10, pp R453-R462).
Regarding claim 1, the Guo reference teaches using sanhua plum (Prunus salicina) juice from the whole fruit (page 1), for delaying the oxidative damage of the skin (pages 1-2).
The Guo reference does not teach that the P. salicina extract inhibits skin damage caused by blue light in a subject.
The Florence reference teaches compositions that include one or any combination of plants or extracts thereof selected from the group consisting of Prunus salicina (paragraph 0003), extract can be extracted with water (paragraph 0012), the reference teaches that extracts of Prunus salicina have several biological activities, which can be beneficial to skin (paragraph 0136), particular sets of ingredients can be used to treat can be used to treat certain skin conditions ranging from sagging skin (paragraph 0005), fine lines or wrinkles, inflamed or erythemic skin, oxidative damage, and skin having dark spots (e.g. liver spots, age spots, etc), melasma, hyperpigmentation, and uneven skin tone (paragraph 0007). In addition, Florence teaches that the administration of the active compositions supports collagen and the extracellular matrix of the skin to improve skin firmness and elasticity (paragraph 0290).
Wortzman et al teaches that skin damage from visible light predominantly results from exposure to the blue light spectrum (400‐500 nm) which generates Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) causing a cascade of harmful effects to skin (abstract).
Schieber et al teaches that oxidative stress denotes high levels of ROS that incur damage to DNA, protein or lipids (abstract).
The drink as taught by Guo contains a water extract of P. salicina (e.g. Prunus salicina) and as taught by Florence that can aid in delaying oxidative damage to the skin, as taught by Guo, in which the oxidative damage can be due to oxidative stress caused by ROS, as taught by Schieber that can occur as a result of exposure to blue light, as taught by Wortzman et al.
One of ordinary skill in the art know that a potential source of oxidative damage stems from oxidative stress, which is caused by ROS as a result of blue light exposure, thus contributing to a type of skin damage. It is obvious to make this drink combination for the aspect of skin improvement as claimed within the present invention.
Regarding claim 2, the Guo reference does teach that [P. salicina has] antioxidant substance (page 2), the Kim reference also teach that the Prunus salicina extract of the present invention exhibits antioxidant activity (abstract).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that a water extraction of P. salicina will yield compounds that contributes to antioxidant generation to treat the skin.
Regarding claim 3, the Guo reference does teach delaying oxidative damage of the skin (page 2) in reference to P. salicina. In addition, Wortzman et al discuss the effects of skin damage as a result of blue light and Schieber et al discuss what happens as a result of high levels of ROS.
One of ordinary skill in the art knows that oxidative damage is known to be caused by elevated levels of ROS. Thus, it is obvious to create a plum juice necessary for reducing the amount of ROS produced in response to blue light that can be damaging to the skin.
Regarding claim 4, the drink as taught by Guo contains a water extract of P. salicina, as taught by Florence that can aid in delaying oxidative damage to the skin and sagging skin.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it intrinsic that one of the effects that can come as a result of oxidative damage to the skin is skin sagging. It is obvious to make this combination for the aspect of skin improvement, as claimed within the present invention.
Regarding claims 5-13, the Florence reference teaches that the water extract of P. salicina can treat a range of skin conditions that would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to find it intrinsic that the P. salicina extract present within a drink as taught by Guo, can promote moisture retention capacity of the skin. In addition, the P. salicina extract present within a drink can also improves skin elasticity, improves collagen content, enhances expression of COL1A1 gene and/or TIMP1 gene or the LOX gene, inhibits expression of an MMP9 gene, promotes hyaluronan synthesis, or promotes expression of an HAS2 gene within a subject.
One of ordinary skill in the art would know that a P. salicina extract within a drink has the capacity to reduce the likelihood of oxidative damage to the skin which would intrinsically affect all of the components of the skin, as claimed within claims 5-13 of the present invention.
Regarding claims 14-15, the Florence reference teaches that the water extract of P. salicina can treat certain skin conditions that includes but not limited to inflamed or erthyemic skin or uneven skin tone.
This would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably expect that the P. salicina water extract contained within a drink can reduce the presence of skin porphyria content through treating dark spots and hyperpigmentation, as claimed by Florence, and that the extract can also treat oxidative damage, as claimed by Florence, which can help lessen the likelihood or occurrence of oxidative stress, leading to less acne spots or areas on the skin. This reasonable expectation of success would have motivated the artisan to modify the references to include the treatment of a subject in need of the reduction of skin porphyrin content.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo (CN 110897063 A – English translation provided) in view of Florence (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0276025A1), and Igwe et al (Phytother. Res. (Year 2016), vol. 30, issue 5, pp 701-731).
Regarding claims 16-18, the Guo reference teaches using sanhua plum juice (Prunus salicina) from the whole fruit (page 1), for delaying the oxidative damage of the skin (page 2).
The Guo reference does not teach that the P. salicina extract increases ferritin content in a subject in need thereof.
The Florence reference teaches compositions that include one or any combination of plants or extracts thereof selected from the group consisting of Prunus salicina (paragraph 0003), extract can be extracted water (paragraph 0012), the reference teaches that extracts of Prunus salicina have several biological activities, which can be beneficial to skin (paragraph 0136), particular sets of ingredients can be used to treat certain skin conditions ranging from fine lines or wrinkles, inflamed or erythemic skin, oxidative damage, and skin having dark spots (e.g. liver spots, age spots, etc), melasma, hyperpigmentation, and uneven skin tone (paragraph 0007).
Igwe et al teach Japanese plums (P. salicina) contain iron, as described in Table 1 (pp 702). The drink as taught by Guo contains a water extract of P. salicina (e.g. Prunus salicina) as taught by Florence that contains a number of components, one of which is iron that is necessary to achieve an increase of iron within a subject, as taught by Igwe, which in turn, will promote an increase of ferritin content in the body. Thus, an artisan of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that the P. salicinia extract taught by Guo and Florence would be useful in increasing the ferritin (iron) content in a subject in need thereof. This reasonable expectation of success would have motivated the artisan to modify the references to include this specific method of treatment.
In regards to claims 17 and 18, the references do not specifically teach that the P. salicina extract contains “cumoricanhydride.” As discussed above, the identity of this compound is unclear. Nevertheless, applicant’s specification states that this compound is naturally present in a water extract from P. salicina (see Examples 1 and 6). Thus, this compound would have to be naturally present in the extract taught by references.
No claims are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nashara L Moreau whose telephone number is (571)272-5804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 AM - 4 PM ET.
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, Terry A McKelvey can be reached at (571)272-0775. 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.
NASHARA L MOREAUExaminer, Art Unit 1655
/SUSAN HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655