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 (1) the oligo-alpha-glucans comprises Lindera strychnifolia root extract; and (2) the tetrapeptide comprises LSVD, in the reply filed on August 10, 2026, is acknowledged. The elected species “tetrapeptide LSVD” is free of the prior art, and the examiner has selected the next species to be examined, which is, GQPR; rejections for which are presented below. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims recited a shared special technical feature that makes a contribution over the cited prior art; and the broadest claims in the application recite a tetrapeptide selected from the group consisting of: (a) U-LSXX-Z, (b) U-GPXG-Z, (c) U-XXGD-Z, (d) U-QTAV-Z, and (e) combinations thereof. Pal-GQPR (Gly-Gln-Pro-Arg) does not fall within any of these groups and does not provide any motivation or suggestion to arrive at a tetrapeptide as claimed. This is not found persuasive because the Groups lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a cosmetic composition comprising oligo-alpha-glucans and a tetrapeptide; this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make contribution over the prior art in view of FarmHouse Fresh product Three Milk Ageless Sleep Cream with Peptides, cream with peptides discloses a cream against skin aging and dryness comprising active ingredients: Lindera strychnifolia root extract (see Cream with Peptides FULL LIST OF INGREDIENTS), which is identical to the instantly claimed oligo-alpha-glucans; and Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide 7, i.e., Pal-GQPR (see Cream with Peptides FULL LIST OF INGREDIENTS), which is identical to the instantly claimed tetrapeptide. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The elected species of cosmetic composition comprising (1) the oligo-alpha-glucans comprises Lindera strychnifolia root extract; and (2) the tetrapeptide comprises LSVD, therefore Claims 1-3, 6-12, and 16 are generic and claims 4 and 17-19 read on the elected species have been considered.
Claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on August 10, 2026.
Priority
This application is 371 of PCT/EP2022/025391 filed August 25, 2022, and claims priority to EP 21020429.3 filed August 21, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Status
The claim listing, claims 1-4, and 6-19 filed August 10, 2026, are pending.
Claim 2 has been amended and claim 5 has been canceled. Claims 13-15 are withdrawn.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 16-19 are currently examined on the merits herein.
Claim Interpretation
The election of species of oligo-alpha-glucan, i.e., Lindera strychnifolia root extract read on claims 1-4, 6, 7, and 9.
BRI of claim 1 is a cosmetic composition comprising: oligo-alpha-glucans; and a tetrapeptide wherein the tetrapeptide is selected from the group consisting of; a) tetrapeptides having the amino acid sequence U-LSXX-Z wherein L is used to denote amino acid Leucine and S is used to denote Serine, as per the internationally recognized single letter code for amino acids and X denotes an amino acid selected from the group consisting of Valine (V), Aspartic acid (D), Proline (P), Glycine (G) and mixtures thereof, b) tetrapeptides having the amino acid sequence U-GPXG-Z wherein G is used to denote amino acid glycine and P denotes the amino acid proline, as per the internationally recognised single letter code for amino acids, X denotes an amino acid independently selected from the group consisting of Lysine (K), Glutamic acid (E) and Serine (S) and mixtures thereof.
When the phrase "consisting of" appears in a clause of the body of a claim, rather than immediately following the preamble, there is an "exceptionally strong presumption that a claim term set off with ‘consisting of’ is closed to unrecited elements." Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1359, 119 USPQ2d 1773, 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a layer "selected from the group consisting of" specific resins is closed to resins other than those listed). However, the "consisting of" phrase limits only the element set forth in that clause; other elements are not excluded from the claim as a whole. Mannesmann Demag Corp. v. Engineered Metal Products Co., 793 F.2d 1279, 230 USPQ 45 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 73 USPQ2d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The claims at issue "related to purified DNA molecules having promoter activity for the human involucrin gene (hINV)." Id., 73 USPQ2d at 1365. In determining the scope of applicant’s claims directed to "a purified oligonucleotide comprising at least a portion of the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 wherein said portion consists of the nucleotide sequence from … to 2473 of SEQ ID NO:1, and wherein said portion of the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 has promoter activity," the court stated that the use of "consists" in the body of the claims did not limit the open-ended "comprising" language in the claims (emphases added). Id. at 1257, 73 USPQ2d at 1367. The court held that the claimed promoter sequence designated as SEQ ID NO:1 was obtained by sequencing the same prior art plasmid and was therefore anticipated by the prior art plasmid which necessarily possessed the same DNA sequence as the claimed oligonucleotides. Id. at 1256 and 1259, 73 USPQ2d at 1366 and 1369. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretation that the transition phrase "consists" did not limit the claims to only the recited numbered nucleotide sequences of SEQ ID NO:1 and that "the transition language ‘comprising’ allowed the claims to cover the entire involucrin gene plus other portions of the plasmid, as long as the gene contained the specific portions of SEQ ID NO:1 recited by the claim[s]." Id. at 1256, 73 USPQ2d at 1366.).
Therefore, the scope of the elected species tetrapeptide having an amino acid sequence is being interpreted as open-ended requiring 100% identity to the amino acid sequence. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted broadly, i.e., the examiner has selected the next species for examination, which is, GQPR.
BRI of claim 2 is a kit comprising: a first cosmetic composition comprising oligo-alpha-glucans; and a second cosmetic composition comprising a tetrapeptide, wherein the tetrapeptide is selected from the group consisting of; a) tetrapeptides having the amino acid sequence U-LSXX-Z wherein L is used to denote amino acid Leucine and S is used to denote Serine, as per the internationally recognized single letter code for amino acids and X denotes an amino acid selected from the group consisting of Valine (V), Aspartic acid (D), Proline (P), Glycine (G) and mixtures thereof.
As stated above (see MPEP § 2111.03 II), the scope of the elected species tetrapeptide having an amino acid sequence is being interpreted as open-ended requiring 100% identity to the amino acid sequence. For the sake of compact prosecution, the claims have been interpreted broadly, i.e., the examiner has selected the next species for examination, which is, GQPR.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a natural product) without significantly more.
Claims 1 and 2 are drawn to (i) the oligo-alpha-glucans comprises Lindera strychnifolia root extract; and (ii) the tetrapeptide comprises (a) LSVD and/or (b) GQPR.
Regarding Lindera strychnifolia root extract is a plant derived product (See USDA ARS Biocollections - Lindera strychnifolia, record date July 9, 1915, accessed August 26, 2026).
Regarding the tetrapeptide, (a) a UniProt reference FBLN1_HUMAN discloses an 703 length amino acid sequence of a Human Fibulin-1 isolated from Homo sapiens where residues 432-435 are 100% identical to instant SEQ ID NO: 5 (See FBLN1 - Fibulin-1 - Homo sapiens (Human) | UniProtKB, UniProt Knowledgebase (2014), accessed August 25, 2026), and/or (b)a UniProt reference IGHG1_HUMAN discloses an 399 length amino acid sequence of a Human Immunoglobulin heavy constant gamma 1 where residues 224-227 are 100% identical to instant tetrapeptide GQPR (See IGHG1 - Immunoglobulin heavy constant gamma 1 - Homo sapiens (Human) | UniProtKB, UniProt Knowledgebase (2014), accessed September 4, 2026).
Examiner’s Note: Pal-LSVD and Pal-GQPR are conjugated with a lipophilic palmitoyl chain to enhance skin absorption. Palmitoylation is a natural biological process known in the art.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, and 16-19 are directed to compositions that comprise the claimed composition (i) and (ii) as recited in instant claims 1 and 2. Thus, the claimed invention is directed to a product or composition of matter, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Thus, claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, and 16-19 encompass a naturally occurring product and a peptide which is not markedly different from its naturally occurring counterpart because it conveys the same genetic information. Therefore, the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, and 16-19 fail to recite a practical application of the cosmetic composition comprising Lindera strychnifolia root extract and tetrapeptide LSVD and/or GQPR. It is further noted that the claims drawn to a cosmetic composition (i.e., claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9-12, and 16-18), and a kit comprising cosmetic composition (i.e., claim 2) do not include any elements in addition to the natural product (i.e., Lindera strychnifolia root extract and tetrapeptide ). Although the compositions are intended to “skin repair”, such recitation is merely indicating how the claimed invention might be used. Thus, the intended use of the judicial exception does not add a meaningful limitation to the claimed invention, as it is at such high level of generality that it fails to integrate the natural product into a practical application. Thereby, claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-12, and 16-19 are nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the structure of the claimed oligo-alpha-glucan and the tetrapeptide and compositions comprising the claimed the oligo-alpha-glucan and tetrapeptide, do not require a modification that is significantly more than the naturally occurring products in order to result in markedly different peptide and markedly different compositions.
Accordingly, it is the Examiner’s position that the claimed the oligo-alpha-glucan and tetrapeptide and compositions are directed to a “product of nature” exception without significantly more because it does not exhibit markedly different characteristics from the naturally occurring counterparts in the natural state.
Further, by virtue of their dependency, claim 8 is also rejected for this same reasoning.
Thus, claims 1-4, 6-12, and 16-19 encompass patent ineligible subject matter.
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 and 2 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 2 recite “R1 and R2 are independently selected from the group consisting of alkyl, aryl, aralkyl, alkylaryl, alkoxy, saccharide and aryloxy group, which may be linear, branched, cyclical, polycyclic, unsaturated, hydroxylates, carbonylated, phosphorylated and/or sulphurous, said groups comprising from 1 to 24 carbon atoms and being capable of including one or more”. It is unclear which specific R1 and R2 group is intended to be encompassed; as having 1 carbon atom, cannot form branched group.
Also, it is unclear what the phrase “capable of including” refers to; does it mean if methyl is present, then methanol is also included, or the recited C is replaced with one of the heteroatoms O, S and/or N. Thus, the phrase “capable of including” is not clearly defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-12, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP § 2163 states that the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the inventor was in possession of the claimed genus.
Scope of the claims
The claims are drawn to peptides comprising oligo-alpha-glucans and a tetrapeptide.
Actual Reduction to Practice
MPEP § 2163 states that the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice. A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus.
In the instant case, several embodiments of the invention were reduced to practice: see Example Formulations and Method of Manufacture.
The specification states that cosmetic compositions or kits according to the invention, are provided as exemplary compositions only and are not intended to be limiting on the invention (see [0161]; composition comprising:
Oligo-alpha-glucans
0.01
Pal-LSPD-OH
0.004
or
Oligo-alpha-glucans
0.01
Pal-LSPG-OH
0.004
(see [0161]-[0165]).
Although these variations are allowed by the claims, they are not represented in the reduction to practice. In addition, the specification fails to include a reduction to practice of a composition including both the active skin repair components.
Therefore, the instant specification has failed to meet the written description requirement by actual reduction to practice of a representative number of species alone.
Examiner’s Note: It is noted that there is no description of composition/kit where the tetrapeptide LSVD (as instantly claimed) was used.
Sufficient relevant identifying characteristic
MPEP § 2163 states that the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination thereof.
An invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function. MPEP 2163 (I)(A). The instant specification provides a Background that roots of Lindera strychnifolia, wherein the extract is subjected to an enzymatic hydrolysis step (see [0048]) and while the applicant details that the composition including the tetrapeptide is a combination of a first tetrapeptide selected from the group consisting of U-LSVD-Z (SEQ ID No. 5) (see [0083]) could be used in the cosmetic compositions and kits section of the specification, the written description enhancing protein synthesis, skin repair and regeneration is not adequately supported with details or experimental examples with results or drawings.
Physical and/or chemical properties:
The data presented in the specification raises more questions about the physical properties of the genus than they answer. The data does not suggest the physical basis for the compound composition and therefore do not describe how the active ingredient combination is driving the cosmetic effect. Understanding the physical basis for having skin repair activity is critical to determining which of the compounds that meet skin improvement requirements of the genus also meet this additional functional of stimulating dermal extracellular proteins requirement of the genus.
Functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure:
The specification does not describe a general correlation between composition and structural coordinates for the claimed genus. Oligo-alpha-glucan is Lindera strychnifolia root extract and tetrapeptide is a humanized fibrillin-1 derivative. As a result, it is impossible to predict, based on the specification, how the combinatorial composition will synergistically stimulate the production of human dermal extracellular proteins in comparison to the peptides singularly.
Method of making the claimed invention:
Skin repair activity of Lindera strychnifolia root extract and its derivatives, as well as humanized fibrillin-1 tetrapeptide against skin regeneration is well-known in the art. It is not disputed that one of ordinary skill in the art could synthesize or combine, albeit with route experimentation and optimization, the active compound provided that the composition is known. Where the specification fails to provide description is details in the composition to make. For example, the specific composition of each of the compounds, requirements for administration of the composition for skin repair/regeneration, etc. For all of the reasons presented above, one of ordinary skill in the art would not know which of the countless combinations of both the compounds that meet the composition requirements of the claims would also have specific skin repair efficacy with expected stimulating activity for the production of dermal extracellular proteins. The lack of written description about the method of treatment makes knowing if the inventor has possession of the composition at the time of filing inconclusive.
Conclusion:
For these reasons, the skilled artisan would not reasonably conclude that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the full scope of the claimed invention.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1-3 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FarmHouse Fresh product Three Milk Ageless Sleep Cream with Peptides, hereafter “Cream with Peptides” (FarmHouse Fresh® Three Milk Ageless Sleep Cream with Peptides [product ingredients/details attached], available date September 23, 2020), in view of UniProt reference FBLN1_HUMAN, hereafter “FBLN1” (See FBLN1 - Fibulin-1 - Homo sapiens (Human) | UniProtKB, UniProt Knowledgebase (2014), accessed August 25, 2026).
Cream with Peptides discloses a cream against skin aging and dryness comprising active ingredients: Lindera strychnifolia root extract (see Cream with Peptides FULL LIST OF INGREDIENTS), which is identical to the instantly claimed oligo-alpha-glucans; and Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide 7, i.e., Pal-GQPR (see Cream with Peptides FULL LIST OF INGREDIENTS), which is identical to the instantly claimed tetrapeptide. It is noted that Cream with Peptides is intensely hydrating, with a protective barrier-film that holds our top wrinkle-targeting peptide, and time-release delivery system (see Cream with Peptides general description), it includes skin-restoring peptides, a proprietary blend of extracts, and moisture boosting ingredients (see Cream with Peptides DETAILS). The tetrapeptide GQPR is a well-known commercial product stimulating skin repair and regeneration.
As discussed above LSVD is an intrinsic part of the 703 length amino acid sequence of a Human Fibulin-1 isolated from Homo sapiens where residues 432-435 are 100% identical to instantly claimed tetrapeptide (LSVD). UniProt function teaches FBLN1 incorporated into fibronectin-containing matrix fibers; may play a role in cell adhesion and migration along protein fibers within the extracellular matrix (ECM); could be important for certain developmental processes and contribute to the supramolecular organization of ECM architecture, in particular to those of basement membranes (see Function, UniProt FBLN1_HUMAN). This is in direct correlation as the instant specification states Fibrillin is a component of elastic fibres in the ECM and also contributes to the structural integrity of the skin. The most abundant fibrillinin elastic fibres of skin is the FBN1 encoded protein, fibrillin 1 (see instant specification [0006]). Fibronectin is an important glycoprotein of the ECM and is primarily responsible for mediating a wide variety of cellular interactions within the dermal ECM, playing an important role in cell adhesion, migration, growth and differentiation (see instant specification [0007]).
It would have been obvious to combine the teaching of Cream with Peptides and FBLN1 before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by considering Lindera strychnifolia root extract as an effective skin repair active agent along with skin rejuvenating agent like LSVD tetrapeptide as in the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize potent bioactive peptides for improved activity with a reasonable expectation of success in combination with active skin repair cosmetic composition taught by Creams with Peptides. Thus, one skilled in the art can adjust the composition of sequence-dependent bioactive tetrapeptide and use LSVD peptide so that the combination of the active skin repair agents is optimally effective for skin regeneration.
Regarding claims 1-3 and 16-18: Cream with Peptides discloses composition including Lindera strychnifolia Root Extract (see LIST OF INGREDIENTS).
UniProt FBLN1 was aligned with the instantly claimed amino acid sequence SEQ ID NO: 5 (LSVD), and the query match resulted as 100%. Shown below the instantly claimed tetrapeptide amino acid sequence in red box within the sequence of origin (Homo sapiens Fibulin-1):
PNG
media_image1.png
318
1244
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4, 6, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FarmHouse Fresh product Three Milk Ageless Sleep Cream with Peptides, hereafter “Cream with Peptides” (FarmHouse Fresh® Three Milk Ageless Sleep Cream with Peptides [product ingredients/details attached], available date September 23, 2020), in view of UniProt reference FBLN1_HUMAN, hereafter “FBLN1” (See FBLN1 - Fibulin-1 - Homo sapiens (Human) | UniProtKB, UniProt Knowledgebase (2014), accessed August 25, 2026), as previously applied to claims 1-3 and 16-18, and further in view of FR2989276 (published May 16, 2014, cited in IDS filed February 27, 2024).
The teachings of Cream with Peptides and FBLNI are discussed above.
FR’276 discloses a hydrolyzate of Lindera strychnifolia for its application as an active ingredient in a cutaneous application composition, active ingredient and/or said composition having an effect similar to the action of light therapy on the skin; the invention also relates to cosmetic compositions including this active ingredient and to a cosmetic skin care process (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 4: FR’276 teaches the active ingredient is an enzymatic hydrolyzate of Lindero strychnifolia (see claim 5). FR’276 discloses the active principle according to the invention is obtained by a process comprising a hydrolysis step, preferably an enzymatic hydrolysis (see PROCESS OF OBTAINING, paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 6: FR’276 teaches the active ingredient is a hydrolyzate of Lindera strychnifolia comprising oligo-α-glucans with a degree of polymerization of between 2 and 10 (see claim 3).
Regarding claim 7: FR’276 teaches the analysis of the simple sugar composition of the active principle according to the invention shows that it is composed essentially of glucose and fructose; preferentially, the sugars of the active principle comprise between 76 and 86% of monosaccharides (see Description, paragraph 11).
Regarding claim 9: FR’276 teaches the cosmetic composition for topical application, characterized in that it comprises an active ingredient according to one of claims 1 to 12 (Lindera strychnifolia hydrolyzate comprising oligo-a-glucans) present between 0.1 and 3% by total weight of the composition (see claim 13).
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Cream with Peptides, FBLN1, and FR’276, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention utilizing Lindera strychnifolia comprising oligo-α-glucans as an effective skin repair ingredient along with skin rejuvenating agent like human fibrillin fragment LSVD tetrapeptide as in the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize potent bioactive peptides for improved activity with a reasonable expectation of success in combination with active skin repair cosmetic composition taught by Creams with Peptides. Thus, one skilled in the art can adjust the composition of oligo-α-glucans so that the combination of the active skin repair agents is optimally effective for skin regeneration.
Therefore, the presently claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date.
Claims 10-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FarmHouse Fresh product Three Milk Ageless Sleep Cream with Peptides, hereafter “Cream with Peptides” (FarmHouse Fresh® Three Milk Ageless Sleep Cream with Peptides [product ingredients/details attached], available date September 23, 2020), and UniProt reference FBLN1_HUMAN, hereafter “FBLN1” (See FBLN1 - Fibulin-1 - Homo sapiens (Human) | UniProtKB, UniProt Knowledgebase (2014), accessed August 25, 2026), as previously applied to claims 1-3 and 16-18, in view of Resende et. al. (“Usage of Synthetic Peptides in Cosmetics for Sensitive Skin”; Diana I. S. P. Resende, Marta Salvador Ferreira, José Manuel Sousa-Lobo, Emília Sousa, and Isabel Filipa Almeida; Pharmaceuticals 2021, 14, 702; published July 21, 2021) and further in view of Zhao et. al. (“Collagen peptides and the related synthetic peptides: A review on improving skin health”; Xiaocao Zhao, Xuejiao Zhang, Dengyong Liu; Journal of Functional Foods Volume 86, 104680; available online August 11, 2021).
The teachings of Cream with Peptides and FBLNI are discussed above. The difference between these references and the remaining claims is that it does not specify the additional components of the composition.
While Cream with Peptides discloses the use of bioactive palmitoylated peptide with amino acid sequence GPQR, i.e., palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7, the specific wt% is not disclosed. Resende et. al. teaches about usage of synthetic peptides in cosmetics; and discusses that peptides are used in cosmetics for sensitive skin and stand out as active ingredients for their ability to interact with skin cells by multiple mechanisms, high potency at low dosage and the ability to penetrate the stratum corneum (see Abstract). This study by Resende et. al. aimed to analyze the composition of 88 facial cosmetics for sensitive skin from multinational brands regarding usage of peptides, reviewing their synthetic pathways and the scientific evidence that supports their efficacy; namely: palmitoyl tripeptide-8, acetyl tetrapeptide-15, palmitoyl tripeptide-5, palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7 and palmitoyl oligopeptide, etc. (see abstract). Resende et. al. specifies peptide sequence of the palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7 (Pal-Gly-Gln-Pro-Arg-OH) (see 3.2.6. Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide-7, page 12, paragraph 2). [Note: C-terminal palmitoylation and N-terminal hydroxyl group].
Resende et.al. performs a detailed data analysis the product ingredient lists in order to find peptides, and they were listed according to the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI); and listed peptides found at INCI lists of cosmetic products for sensitive skin and their relative usage (%), where the relative usage of palmitoyl tetrapetide-7 is disclosed as 1.1% (see 2.2 Data Analysis, Table 1).
Thus, regarding claim 10; it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Cream with Peptides, FBLNI, and Resende et. al. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying the compositions to arrive at the claimed composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the percentage composition of tetrapeptide as taught by Resende et. al. and use the tetrapeptide sequence Pal-LSVD (Pal-tetrapeptide-95) as taught by FBLNI instead of Pal-GPQR as taught by Cream with Peptide along with additional oligo-alpha-glucan skin repair agents from Lindera strychnifolia root extract as taught by Cream with Peptide. Thus, one skilled in the art can adjust the composition of tetrapeptide-95 or peptide of amino acid sequence LSVD (instant claim) so that it is optimally effective for skin repair and skin rejuvenation.
With regard to palmitoylation and other derivatives (addition of -OH, etc) of bioactive peptides for skin repair, Zhao et. al. teaches synthetic peptides such as palmitoyl peptide and acetyl peptide can also improve skin health (see 3. Anti-aging peptides, page 2). Zhao et. al. teaches polypeptides have good pharmacokinetic characteristics and can be absorbed, distributed, and metabolized in organisms; however, too large molecular weight has led to the polypeptide cannot smoothly pass through the skin barrier, resulting in a low diffusion rate in the skin or its inability to diffuse into the skin inside which can have a certain negative effect on its usage (see 3.2. Synthetic peptide, left col, page 4). Researchers used a great diversity of methods to resist peptidase degradation and improve low permeability, such as peptide structure modification, adjust the molecular weight of the peptide, or derivatization methods; for example, the polypeptide can be modified by acetylation, glycosylation, and amidation at the N-terminal and the C-terminal; and after modification, the polypeptides have various advantages, such as increase the penetration of the polypeptide on the skin, the binding ability with special receptors, and the stability and solubility of bioactive peptide; additionally, the polypeptide also can bind with palmitic acid to improve the low permeability when used topically(see 3.2. Synthetic peptide, right col, page 4). Zhao et. al. further teaches combination of fatty acids and peptides, as an effective method, has great potential in improving the stability and permeability of peptides; it can increase by five times the penetration of natural protein into human skin due to the lipophilicity of palmitate residues; palmitoyl binding polypeptide can also improve the penetration of the polypeptide in the skin; and compared with common polypeptide, the permeation rate can be increased by 100–1000 times (see 3.2.1. Palmitoyl peptide, right col, page 2). Zhao et. al. also elaborates with examples where pentapeptide combined with 16-C fatty acid palmitate to form palmitoyl pentapeptide-4 (Pal-KTTKS-OH) the results showed that the permeability after modification increased, and the physical and chemical properties were also improved (see 3.2.1. Palmitoyl peptide, right col, page 2 – left col, page 3). [Note: C-terminal palmitoylation and N-terminal hydroxyl group]. For more examples, see bioactive peptide sequences listed by Zhao et. al. (see Table 2-4).
Zhao et. al. further exemplifies polypeptides that are still active after binding with palmitic acids, such as …. Pal-Gly-Gln-Pro-Arg (GQPR), etc, and it has been proved in animal and clinical experiments that the combination of polypeptide and palmitic acid can reduce the generation of fine lines and wrinkles and resist the wrinkle effect (see 3.2.1. Palmitoyl peptide, left col, page 3). [Note: Pal-GQPR is the active tetrapeptide used in Cream with Peptides.].
Thus, regarding claims 11, 12, and 19; it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Cream with Peptides, FBLNI, Resende et. al. and Zhao et. al. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by modifying the compositions to arrive at the claimed composition. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to optimize the percentage compositions taught by Resende et. al. and use the tetrapeptide LSVD (tetrapeptide-95) as taught by FBLNI instead of GPQR (i.e. Pal-GPQR) as used by Cream with Peptide along with peptide modifications including N-terminal palmitoylation and C-terminal hydroxylation (for example like Pal-LSVD-OH) as taught by Zhao et. al. with additional oligo-alpha-glucan skin repair agents from Lindera strychnifolia root extract as taught by Cream with Peptide. Thus, one skilled in the art can adjust the composition of modified tetrapeptide-95 or peptide of amino acid sequence LSVD derivative (instant claim) so that it is optimally effective for skin penetration and stable bioactive peptide derivative for skin repair and skin regeneration.
Based on the above established facts from the cited prior art, it appears that all the claimed elements, i.e., applicants individual components in the composition of oligo-alpha-glucan and tetrapeptide derivatives (i.e. Pal-LSVD-OH) and their use in skin repair, skin rejuvenation, etc. were known in the prior art, and one skilled person in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known relationships, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make the instantly claimed cosmetic composition with a reasonable expectation of succeed.
Therefore, the presently claimed invention was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KOYELI BANERJEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5751. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5 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, Melissa Fisher can be reached at (571) 270-7430. 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.
/KOYELI BANERJEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1658
/Melissa L Fisher/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1658
Prosecution Insights