DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments filed on 7/23/2026 wherein claims 1-13 have been amended.
Claims 1-13 are presented for examination on the merits. The following rejections are made.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 7/23/2026 overcomes the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4-9 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Liu et al. (CN 109330915), evidenced by Belabbes (2017) and Grizales et al. (2018). This rejection is withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 7/23/2026 renders moot the rejection of claims 5-7, 9 and 11-13 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 112(b). This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 7/23/2026 overcome the rejection of claims 11-13 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 101. This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments filed 7/23/2026 overcomes the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-10 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Liu et al. (CN 109330915), evidenced by Belabbes (2017) and Grizales et al. (2018), in view of Florence (US 9629793). This rejection has been withdrawn as claim 10 no longer recites the process as treating wrinkles due to UV radiation.
Applicant’s arguments filed 7/23/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1-9 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 103 over Liu et al. (CN 109330915), evidenced by Belabbes (2017) and Grizales et al. (2018), in view of Rana et al. (2017) have been fully considered but are not found persuasive and is MAINTAINED for the reasons of record in the office action mailed on 4/24/2026.
In regards to the 103 rejection, Applicant asserts the following:
A) Liu is silent regarding a glycine betaine to roselle extraction ratio of 3:1 to 3:10.
In response to A, Liu teaches that their composition comprise 0.01-3wt% of roselle hydrosol (extract) and 0.05 (or 1%) of a betaine. Using the end points of the ranges of Liu, i.e. a 1% betaine and 3% roselle extraction results in a 1:3 ratio which lies within that claimed (3:10 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1:3.3). Alternatively, 0.05% betaine and 0.01% roselle hydrosol yields a glycine to roselle extract ratio of 0.05:0.01 which is 5:1. Although this ratio is outside the range claimed, it is sufficiently close that one of ordinary skill in the art would expect similar outcomes. In any case, one of ordinary skill in the art would be capable of manipulating the amounts of each within the scope of the reference so as to identify ratios which exhibit suitable treatment outcomes. See MPEP 2144.05(I)(A) which teaches that similar/approaching ranges/proportions are considered obvious. See also MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) which states that where the general conditions of a claim are described by the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Thus, absent some evidence that the present ratio yields unexpected outcomes, the present range of glycine to roselle extract is deemed obvious as it is broadly encompassed by the prior art.
Rejections
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.
Claims 1-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 109330915; translation provided), evidenced by Belabbes et al. (Chem Biodiversity, 2017, 14, 14 pages) and Grizales et al. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 103, 2018, 3038-3049), in view of Rana et al. (Vegetable Crop Science: Roselle, 2017, 12 pages).
Liu describes an anti-wrinkle composition and method of use. The composition contains 0.01-3 wt% roselle hydrosol (see instant claims 1, 3 and 7) and 0.05% (or 1 wt%) of a betaine (see page 2 and claims 1, 2 and 4) (see instant claims 1 and 6). Using the end points of the ranges of Liu, i.e. a 1% betaine and 3% roselle extraction results in a 1:3 ratio which lies within that claimed (3:10 [Wingdings font/0xE0] 1:3.3) (see instant claim 1). Alternatively, 0.05% betaine and 0.01% roselle hydrosol yields a glycine to roselle extract ratio of 0.05:0.01 which is 5:1. The claimed ranges not directly overlapping are considered obvious in view of MPEP 2144.05(I)(A) and MPEP 2144.05(II)(A) (see instant claims 4 and 5).
Betaine is the common term for glycine betaine (see page 3038 of Grizales as evidence) as recited by instant claim 2. A hydrosol is a steam distilled extract of aromatic plants (see page 1 of Belabbes as evidence) and so the roselle hydrosol of Liu is a steam distilled extract of roselle (i.e. an aqueous extraction process).
The anti-wrinkle composition of Liu is used in methods of treating wrinkles (a sign of stress factor-induced osmolarity dysregulation of the epidermis) by application of the composition to the skin (see pages 2) (see instant claims 8-12).
Liu fails to teach the extract as being from the fruit of the roselle.
Rana teaches that roselle is a multi-use plant used in food, animal feed, nutraceuticals and cosmetics made from extracts of leaves, stems, fruits and seeds (see page 816). It would have been obvious use the fruit of the roselle plant to produce the extract of Liu with a reasonable expectation in producing a composition suitable for providing moisturizing benefit to the skin given that this part of the plant was known to exist and be used in producing medicinal and cosmetic compositions. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 109330915; translation provided), evidenced by Belabbes et al. (Chem Biodiversity, 2017, 14, 14 pages) and Grizales et al. (J Clin Endocrinol Metab, 103, 2018, 3038-3049) as applied to claims 1-12 above, and further in view of Florence et al. (US 9629793).
As noted above, Liu’s composition and method is for the treating of wrinkles on the skin.
Liu fails to teach the process of treating the skin as treating a stress factor selected from UV radiation, chemical and/or osmotic stress.
Florence, like Liu, is directed to skin treatment compositions containing botanical extracts and betaine and methods for the treatment of various skin conditions using said compositions. Florence’s method treats various skin conditions such as wrinkles caused by exposure to UV light and pollution (i.e. chemical stress) (see column 9, lines 38-52). As Liu’s method already teaches treating wrinkles, the source of the wrinkles is not considered overly critical here. However, it would have been obvious to modify Liu’s method to include treating wrinkles due to an external stress factor such as UV radiation.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is (571)270-3504. The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 571-272-6175. 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).
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights