DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are made. Skin care formulation is a broad title which does not convey the application in any sense, and the applicant has replete applications with the similar titles that are not descriptive.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment and argument filed 07/07/2026, in response to the non-final rejection, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any previous rejection or objection not mentioned herein is withdrawn.
Claims 12-31 are being examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 12-31 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Claude Jarkae Jensen and Heidi Robinson (US6589514B2) and Biatry Bruno and Lheureux Eric (KR2003-0043766A), hereinafter Bruno. This is a new rejection based on the amendments filed on 07/07/2026.
Jensen’s general disclosure is to cosmetic intensive repair serum with Morinda citrifolia (see abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Jensen teaches compositions which are intended to treat fine lines (see column 2, lines 47-51) and teaches the compositions to prevent and reduce the appearance of wrinkles (see column 10, lines 31-36). Jensen teaches compositions can comprise Vitis Vinifera seed extract, Centella Asiatica extract, glycerin, butylene glycol, carbomer, xanthan gum, purified water, phenoxyethanol (see example six, column 13, claims 57-59) and teaches compositions to comprise glyceryl stearate in amounts of 1 and 5 percent weight (see claim 28), cetyl alcohol in amounts from 1 and 5 percent weight (see claim 27), vitamin E, dimethicone (see claim 55).
Regarding claim 13, Jensen teaches compositions to comprise Camellia Sinensis (see claims 57-59).
Regarding claim 14, Jensen teaches compositions to comprise caprylic/Capric triglyceride (see claim 55), PEG-100 stearate (see claim 44), sodium hyaluronate (see claim 56), Aloe Barbadensis (see claim 57), squalene as an emollient (see column 10, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, Jensen teaches compositions to comprise propylene glycol (see claim 37), disodium EDTA (see claim 55).
Regarding claim 16, Jensen teaches compositions to comprise lecithin (claims 15, 57 and 59), BHT (see claims 53-55).
Regarding claim 17, Jensen teaches compositions to comprise bisabolol and stearyl alcohol (see claim 55).
Regarding claim 18, Jensen teaches compositions to comprise caprylic/capric triglyceride, PEG-100 stearate, disodium EDTA, BHT (see above).
Regarding claim 19, Jensen teaches compositions to comprise sodium hydroxide and sodium hyaluronate (see claim 56).
Regarding claim 20, Jensen teaches compositions to comprise caprylic/capric triglyceride, PEG-100 stearate (see above).
Regarding claim 21, Jensen teaches tocopherol acetate as vitamin E (see claim 55 and 57).
Regarding claim 22-25, Jensen teaches Camellia sinensis, disodium EDTA, propylene glycol, lecithin, aloe barbaensis, PEG-100 stearate, etc. (see above).
Regarding claim 26, Jensen teaches compositions to further include moisturizers such as sodium PCA (see column 8, lines 55-53), thickeners (see column 10, lines 5-15).
Regarding claims 27-30, pertaining to wherein topically applying the composition to the skin has the instantly claimed effects, these limitations are intended uses of the composition and do not structurally limit the composition itself. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding claim 31, Jensen teaches the composition as a lotion, cream or gel (see column10, lines 51-52).
Jensen does not teach the composition to comprise of sodium lactate, phospholipids, magnesium ascorbyl phosphate or ceramides.
Bruno’s general disclosure is to at least one oxidation-sensitive hydrophilic agent selected from ascorbic acid and derivatives thereof in a physiologically acceptable medium including an aqueous phase for promoting the synthesis of epidermal ceramides and / or for promoting the barrier function of the skin (see abstract).
Bruno teaches that compounds such as sodium lactate can directly increase the water content in skin (see page 10, para. 7), that phosphololipids act on the skin’s barrier function (see page 10, para. 6), magnesium ascorbyl phosphate or esters of fatty acids and ascorbic acids are used as chemical derivatives of ascorbic acid for stimulating synthesis of connective tissues and especially collagen, strengthens defense of skin tissues against external attacks from UV rays and offsets vitamin E deficiency of skin, fights free radicals etc. (see page 5, para. 4-6). Bruno teaches ceramides are needed for maintaining moisture in the skin.
Jensen teaches compositions which can include the instantly claimed ingredients, however, does not teach a single composition to include each ingredient; however, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date to persons skilled in the art to create the instant method of treating skin having fine lines or wrinkles with the instantly claimed ingredients because Jensen teaches compositions which can comprise of the same ingredients, in combination for such a purpose. Picking and choosing which of the prior arts ingredients to include into a composition for reducing wrinkles and fine lines is a matter of mere judicious selection especially since they are taught for the same purpose and many of the ingredients are known in the art to be included in cosmetic formulations. The instantly claimed composition does not appear to make any enhancement over the prior arts teachings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to add the components sodium lactate, phospholipids, magnesium ascorbyl phosphate, ceramides taught by Bruno in the composition taught by Jensen in order to create a more well-rounded cosmetic composition which can assist with water retention and protecting the skins barrier function.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the instant invention because Jensen’s art teaches the same ingredients in cosmetic compositions for treating fine lines and wrinkles.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Jensen does not teach the newly amended ingredients. The Office brings in new art from Bruno to teach the added ingredients. The applicant argues that Jensen does teach a method of treating fine lines and wrinkles using the newly added ingredients however Bruno does teach reasons to include those into the composition taught by Jensen and Jensen teaches the ingredients to be useful for treating fine lines and wrinkles.
The applicant argues that the Office has not articulated why one would modify Jensen to arrive at the instant invention. A PHOSITA would add the ingredients taught by Bruno in the composition taught by Jensen in order to help the skin retain water and protect the skins barrier function. The applicant does not understand why a PHOSITA would select the ingredients being claimed and formulate them into a composition for treating fine lines and wrinkles. The reasons are because Jensen teaches each to be useful for such a purpose and selecting and choosing these from the list Jensen has provided is merely a matter of judicious selection, especially since the applicant has not shown any improvement over the art. The ingredients listed are not merely known to be in cosmetics but are known for treating fine lines and wrinkles and supporting barrier function of the skin. The applicant claims that Jensen merely teaches that Morinda citrifolia is known to diminish the appearance of fine lines and visible signs of aging and to reduce the appearance of wrinkled, lined or aged skin so why would a PHOSITA add the other ingredients taught in Jensen’s art? Jensen does not merely teach only Morinda citrifolia being beneficial to include in the cosmetic composition for aging skin just as the instant applicant does.
The applicant argues that Jensen provides no reason to add Centella asiatica extract in the composition. Jensen specifically teaches adding ingredients selected from a finite amount to include along with Morinda citrifolia (see claims 57-58) and one would indeed be guided by Jensen’s art to include such an extract. Jensen teaches the same components as what the instant applicant teaches, and it appears the applicant’s own invention could have been made through a mere selection of ingredients selected from Jensen’s own teachings. The applicant argues that there is no reason for selecting these items, however Jensen’s art is directed to the same ingredients and for the same purpose so arguing that one would not have a reason to include these items is not persuasive. The applicant’s invention is not patentably distinct over the prior art and shows no improvement or distinction.
Conclusion
Currently 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 JACOB ANDREW BOECKELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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.
JACOB A BOECKELMANExaminer, Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights