Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/706,232

COMPOUND CONTAINING ASCORBIC ACID DERIVATIVE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Apr 30, 2024
Examiner
CRAIGO, WILLIAM A
Art Unit
1615
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Dr'S Choice Co. Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
49%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 49% of resolved cases
49%
Career Allow Rate
357 granted / 725 resolved
-10.8% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+38.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
55 currently pending
Career history
780
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
40.2%
+0.2% vs TC avg
§102
14.5%
-25.5% vs TC avg
§112
22.5%
-17.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 725 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/30/2024 has been considered by the examiner. Status of the Claims The claim amendment filed 04/30/2024 is under consideration. Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1, 5, and 10 are independent The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Rejections not reiterated herein have been withdrawn. 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 1-10 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. Claims 1, 5, and 10 include the limitation of an ascorbic acid 2-glucoside basic amino acid salt. It is not clear if this refers to a salt made from ascorbic acid 2-glucoside and a basic amino acid, or a simple mixture of ascorbic acid 2-glucoside with a basic amino acid salt. That is, it is not clear if the term salt modifies only the basic amino acid, or if salt was intended to refer to a single ionic compound of ascorbic acid 2-glucoside and a basic amino acid. Claims referring to a composition comprising the salt (claims 1-9) read as product by process limitations, i.e., a composition comprising a salt made from ascorbic acid 2-glucoside and a basic amino acid are indistinguishable from compositions made from a mixture of the two ingredients separately. Clarification is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pachuk, US 20210315792. Pachuk teaches compositions comprising ascorbic acid glucoside and a basic amino acid, i.e., arginine (Pachuk, e.g., entire document, e.g., Example 1, 0075-0076). The composition may be formulated with a pH of from 5-6 (Pachuk, e.g., 0057). The claimed compositions are indistinguishable from the prior art compositions since there is no difference between adding ascorbic acid glucoside and a basic amino acid separately or in combination. The salt will form in the prior art composition since they are mixed together with pH adjustment. Pachuk anticipates the subject matter of instant claims 1-4. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sakata, JP 2006188461 (cited on IDS dated 04/30/2024). Citations refer to the attached English translation. Sakata teaches compositions comprising ascorbic acid glucoside and a basic amino acid, e.g., arginine, histidine or lysine (Sakata, entire document, e.g., claims 1-5, 0004-0005, and examples 1-7). The claimed compositions are indistinguishable from the prior art compositions since there is no difference between adding ascorbic acid glucoside and a basic amino acid separately or in combination. The salt will form in the prior art composition since they are mixed together with pH adjustment. Sakata anticipates the subject matter of instant claims 1-4. Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nomura, WO 2013065705 A1 (cited on IDS dated 04/30/2024). Citations refer to the attached English translation. Applicable to claim 10: Nomura teaches a powder cosmetic (Nomura, e.g., claim 1) comprising a combination of ascorbic acid glucoside and a pH adjuster (Nomura, e.g., claim 1), and wherein the pH adjuster is arginine (Nomura, e.g., claim 4). Alternative pH adjusters include lysine or histidine (Nomura, e.g., pg. 7, pg. 20-21, and example 1). Nomura teaches a powder comprising ascorbyl glycoside and amino acid salt. The ingredients are combined in water and dried to obtain the powder. The method of production will result in a salt as recited in claims 1 and 10 after removal of the water because Nomura teaches combining acidic ascorbic acid with a basic amino acid. An acid and a base will form a salt upon removal of the water. Applicable to claims 1-4: Nomura teaches the combination in a cosmetic composition having a pH in the claimed range (Nomura, e.g., example 9, pp. 30-33). Nomura anticipates the subject matter of instant claims 1-4 and 10. 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 of this title, 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 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pachuk, US 20210315792 in view of Sakata, JP 2006188461. Pachuk teaches a serum comprising ascorbyl glucoside and ascorbic acid (Pachuk, e.g., claims 28-30 and 0053-0057). The composition has a pH in the claimed range, e.g., 5-6 (Pachuk, e.g., 0057). Pachuk does not expressly teach the serum containing a basic amino acid. However, Sakata teaches combining a basic amino acid with ascorbyl glucoside for improved ascorbyl glucoside stability, reduced stickiness, and improved skin softness (Sakata, e.g., 0004). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to modify Pachuk’s serum with a basic amino acid using techniques known from Sakata with a reasonable expectation of success. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification for improved ascorbyl glucoside stability, reduced stickiness, and improved skin softness in the same way suggested by Sakata with a reasonable expectation of success. The skilled artisan would have seen this modification as the use of known techniques to improve similar cosmetic compositions in the same way. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both references teach compositions comprising ascorbyl glucoside for cosmetic use. Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 5-9 would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary. Claims 1-4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakata, JP 2006188461 in view of Nomura, WO 2013065705 A1 (both cited on IDS dated 04/30/2024). The teachings of Sakata enumerated above apply here. Sakata does not expressly teach the composition comprising ascorbic acid glucoside and basic amino acid, e.g., lysine, arginine, or histidine, in the form of a powder. Nomura teaches a powder comprising ascorbyl glycoside and amino acid salt. The ingredients are combined in water and dried to obtain the powder. The method of production will result in a salt as recited in claims 1 and 10 after removal of the water. Nomura teaches forming powders comprising ascorbic acid glycoside and a basic amino acid, e.g., arginine, lysine, or histidine which offer improved stability to the ascorbic acid glycoside (Nomura, e.g., pg. 3 or 7/37). Nomura teaches powders allow easy identification of the area where they have been applied and can be applied uniformly (Nomura, e.g., pg. 3 or 7/37). Claim 1 refers to a composition made with the recited salt. Claim 10 refers to a powder of ascorbic acid 2-glucoside basic amino acid salt. As enumerated above, Nomura teaches a powder made from combining ascorbic acid glucoside and a basic amino acid in an aqueous medium and then removing the water to obtain a powder. This appears to result in an ascorbic acid 2-glucoside basic amino acid salt in the form of a powder as required by claim 10. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention to prepare compositions of Sakata in a powder form or using the powder of Nomura with a reasonable expectation of success. The skilled artisan would have been motivated to formulate Sakata’s compositions using a powder comprising an ascorbyl glycoside and amino acid salt known form Nomura because Nomura teaches the combination of ascorbic acid glycoside and basic amino acid offers greater stability to ascorbic acid glycoside during storage. The skilled artisan would have reasoned that Nomura’s powder would offer greater stability to Sakata’s compositions. Alternatively, the skilled artisan would have been motivated to prepare compositions of Sakura which contain ascorbyl glucoside and a basic amino acid in powder form since Nomura teaches powders allow easy identification of the area where they have been applied and can be applied uniformly. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success since both references teach compositions comprising ascorbic acid glycoside and a basic amino acid. Accordingly, the subject matter of claims 1-4 and 10 would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the presently claimed invention, absent evidence to the contrary. Conclusion No claim is allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM A CRAIGO whose telephone number is (571)270-1347. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 9am - 6pm, PDT. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert A WAX can be reached on 571-272-0623. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /WILLIAM CRAIGO/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 30, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582546
METHODS AND DEVICES FOR CONTROLLED DELIVERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576056
AMINO ACID-CONTAINING GRANULES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12576192
Multi-Layered Graft for Tissue Engineering Applications
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569430
Biodegradable Implant Including Naltrexone
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564714
REVERSE ELECTRODIALYSIS DEVICE USING PRECIPITATION REACTION, AND DRUG INJECTION DEVICE USING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 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
49%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+38.9%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 725 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