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 .
Priority
The instant application was filed 19 April 2024 and is the national stage entry of PCT/KR2022/016368 filed 25 October 2022. The Applicant claims priority to foreign application KR10-2021-0166108 filed 26 November 2021. An English copy of the foreign document has not been provided. Therefore, the effective filing date of the instant application is 25 October 2022.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 18-20) in the reply filed on 01 April 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9, 10, 13, 14, and 17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 without traverse in the reply filed on 01 April 2026.
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) 1-8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sako (US 2005/0074474 A1) and Lee et al. (A 1,1’-biuracil from Epidermidibacterium keratini EPI-7 shows anti-aging effects on human dermal fibroblasts, Appl Biol Chem, 2019), as evidenced by wwwn.cdc.gov.
Regarding claim 1, Sako teaches a topical composition comprising porous silica impregnated with a water-insoluble skin beneficial agent (abs; entire teaching). The agents may be prepared and used in their extract form, where it is interpreted to have undergone an extraction step (para. 35).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the extraction solvent is broadly interpreted as the solvent used to contain the extract. Sako teaches water-insoluble skin beneficial agents dissolved in emollients (abs). Emollients include mineral oil or soybean oil (para. 73).
Regarding claim 4, silica is interpreted as made of silicon dioxide, as evidenced by wwwn.cdc.gov, pg. 1).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, the surface of the porous silica may be treated with dimethicone (para. 31).
Regarding claims 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 18-20, the formulation has cosmetic effects (para. 34), which includes treating aging and wrinkles (para. 4), or is provided as a cosmetic (claims 5 and 6).
Sako does not teach using a strain from Epidermidibacterium keratini in claim 1.
Lee teaches that Epidermidibacterium keratini has anti-aging effects on the skin (abs).
Since Sako does not use a strain from Epidermidibacterium keratini to impregnate the porous silica particles in claim 1, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use Lee’s teaching with a reasonable expectation of success. Lee teaches that Epidermidibacterium keratini has an anti-aging effect on the skin. Therefore, a skilled artisan would have recognized the added benefit of using an extract from this strain to improve Sako’s composition, which also uses a water-insoluble skin beneficial agent to treat aging skin. “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).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Danielle Kim whose telephone number is (571)272-2035. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5 p.m. PST.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/D.A.K./Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/ANDREW S ROSENTHAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613
Prosecution Insights