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 lysine carboxymethyl cysteinate in the reply filed on 8/12/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that compounds of carboxymethyl cysteine have a reasonable number of species. This is not found persuasive because the alternatives are not similar in nature (as described on page 5 of the restriction).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The elected species reads on claims 1-10 and 12, 14-22.
Current Status of 18/716, 953
This Office Action is responsive to the claims of 6/6/2024.
Claims 1-10 and 12, 14-22 are examined on the merits.
Priority
This application is a national stage entry of PCT/EP2022/085284 and PCT/CN2021/143517, and claims foreign priority to EP22153549.5.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/06/2024 and 06/18/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 12, 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WALLE (Gavin Van De Walle, “Niacinamide: Benefits, Uses and Side Effects”, Nutrition, November 16, 2018) in view of PAULA’S CHOICE (“What is Lysine Carboxymethyl Cysteinate?”, Paula’s Choice, September 15, 2020) and DOVE (“Niacinamide +Even Tone Cream Serum”, Dove, October 6, 2016).
WALLE teaches that nicotinamide is one form of vitamin b3 (page 1) and when applied topically, niacinamide has been shown to have anti-inflammatory effects on the skin (“Helpful for certain skin conditions” on page 4). WALLE teaches that nicotinamide has been used to treat skin conditions like acne and rosacea (page 7). This helps teach the method of claim 12.
Nicotinamide is a form of vitamin B3 (from claim 5 and 16).
WALLE teaches a maximum dose of vitamin B3 as 35 mg per day (when consumed orally) (page 7). This helps teach amounts/ratios from claims 1, 6-8, 15, 17-21.
WALLE does not teach a carboxymethyl cysteine compound.
PAULA’S CHOICE teaches that Lysine carboxymethyl cysteinate has strengthening properties similar to the keratin protein found in skin and hair, and potent antioxidant properties (page 1). This helps teach a carboxymethyl cysteine compound of claims 1-3, and 14.
PAULA’S CHOICE teaches that Lysine carboxymethyl cysteinate helps in repairing skin damage (page 1). This helps teach claim 8, 12.
PAULA’S CHOICE teaches that Lysine carboxymethyl cysteinate is used in cosmetics in amounts up to 1-5% (page 1). This helps teach the weight ratio of the instant claims of claim 4, and claims 15, 18-21.
DOVE teaches a personal care product for reducing dark spots containing niacinamide, Lysine carboxymethyl cysteinate, and water (pages 1-2). This helps teach the components of claims 1-3, 5, 10, 14, 16, and 22.
Because DOVE has both oil and water in its personal care composition and uses an emulsion stabilizer (Glycol Stearate), this composition is an oil-in-water emulsion. This teaches claim 9.
DOVE teaches that this product is available in an 8 fluid oz size (page 1).
The artisan would have been motivated to optimize the amounts of vitamin B3 and Lysine carboxymethyl cysteinate in a combination such as DOVE’s personal care composition. DOVE does not disclose the amounts or ratio of vitamin B3, Lysine carboxymethyl cysteinate, or water; however, DOVE shows that these ingredients are present. PAULA’S CHOICE teaches that Lysine carboxymethyl cysteinate is used in cosmetics in amounts up to 1-5% (page 1), which teaches claims 4 and 15. WALLE teaches a maximum dose of vitamin B3 as 35 mg per day (page 7). Further, since water is listed at the first ingredient of DOVE, it has to exist in the largest amount. The artisan would have been motivated to use known amounts/weight percentages for their respective ingredients in order to form the ratios of claims 1, 4, 6-8, 10, 15, 17-22 for a topical product such as DOVE’s.
The artisan would have been motivated to optimize the dosage/ratios of vitamin B3, Lysine carboxymethyl cysteinate, and water. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence in such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(II)A.
The artisan would have also been motivated to use a composition like the one above in order to regenerate skin. WALLE teaches that nicotinamide has been used to treat skin conditions like acne (page 7). Examiner understands that healing acne would inherently also be regenerating skin. Therefore, the artisan would expect that this combination from above to be useful in, at the very least, regenerating skin because nicotinamide’s properties would be retained. This teaches claim 12.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed as currently written.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GILLIAN A HUTTER whose telephone number is (571)272-6323. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5.
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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at 571-272-0913. 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.
/G.A.H./ Examiner, Art Unit 1625 /Andrew D Kosar/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights