Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/571,559

HAIR GROWTH AGENT

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Dec 18, 2023
Examiner
COHEN, MICHAEL P
Art Unit
1612
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Adjuvant Holdings Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
58%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 58% of resolved cases
58%
Career Allow Rate
484 granted / 829 resolved
-1.6% vs TC avg
Strong +28% interview lift
Without
With
+27.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
877
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.6%
-39.4% vs TC avg
§103
55.3%
+15.3% vs TC avg
§102
7.3%
-32.7% vs TC avg
§112
7.7%
-32.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 829 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . 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 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. Claim Status Claims 1-10 and 18 are pending and are examined on the merits in this prosecution. Claim Objections Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites the limitation “according to any one among claim 1 to a subject.” Appropriate correction is required. CLAIM REJECTIONS Obviousness Rejection 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. The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 1) Claims 1-5, 9-10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (KR 20170114317 (A), cited in IDS dated 12/18/2023; citations below are from the English translation provided by the applicant). Kwon teaches a composition for preventing hair loss and stimulating hair growth comprising phytosphingosine and a yeast extract as active ingredients (pg 1, [0001]). Kwon further teaches minoxidil as active ingredient for hair growth (pg 2, [0004]). These teachings read on claims 1-5. For claim 9, Kwon teaches a liquid composition (pgs 13-14, [0066]). For claims 10 and 18, one of ordinary skill would reasonably conclude that Kwon teaches a composition for baldness of the head. See MPEP 2144.01. The skilled artisan would have expected success in adding minoxidil to the Kwon's composition for preventing hair loss and stimulating hair growth comprising phytosphingosine and a yeast extract because Kwon teaches that minoxidil is useful for preventing hair loss and stimulating hair growth and, generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. 2) Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (cited above), in view of Vañó-Galván (“Safety of low-dose oral minoxidil for hair loss: A multicenter study of 1404 patients,” J Am Acad Dermatol, 2021; 84: 1644-51). The teachings of Kwon are discussed above. Kwon does not teach an improvement of maximum hair length or an increase in hair shaft diameter. Vañó-Galván teaches the missing elements of Kwon. Vañó-Galván teaches oral minoxidil shortens the telogen phase of the hair growth cycle, causing premature transition to anagen (the active growth phase of hair follicles), and prolongs anagen, resulting in increased hair length and diameter (pg 1645, left column). The skilled artisan would have expected success in utilizing the composition of Kwon to increase hair length and hair shaft diameter since Vañó-Galván teaches minoxidil shortens the telogen phase of the hair growth cycle, causing premature transition to anagen, and prolongs anagen, resulting in increased hair length and diameter. 3) Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwon (cited above), in view of Price (“Changes in hair weight and hair count in men with androgenetic alopecia, after application of 5% and 2% topical minoxidil, placebo, or no treatment,” J Am Acad Dermatol, 1999, 41: 717-721). The teachings of Kwon are discussed above. Kwon does not teach an increase in the number of hairs. Price teaches the missing element of Kwon. Price teaches the quantity of hair and the amount of hair growth increased during a 96 week clinical trial, using either 2% or 5% minoxidil solution, or vehicle. The fourth group, unblinded, received no treatment (Abstract). The skilled artisan would have expected success in utilizing the composition of Kwon to increase the number of hairs since Price teaches minoxidil causes an increase in the quantity of hair and the amount of hair growth. CONCLUSION Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7402. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8:30-5:30; F 9-4. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana S. Kaup, can be reached on (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. /MICHAEL P COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600990
mRNA INDUCED EXPRESSION OF BONE MORPHOGENIC PROTEIN AND RECEPTOR AND METHODS RELATED THERETO
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582608
COATINGS FOR GASTRIC RESIDENCE DOSAGE FORMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582581
LAMINATE SHEET FOR COSMETIC, AND COSMETIC SET
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582669
COMPOSITION CONTROLLING PHARMACOKINETICS IN THE BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576037
POLYMER-ENCAPSULATED DRUG PARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
58%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+27.6%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 829 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month