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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Status of the Claims
Claims 23, 24 and 25 are currently pending.
Claims 23, 24 and 25 have been considered on the merits.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the use of trademarks.
The use of the terms: TeSR™2 in 0165; mTeSR™1 in 0165; TeSR™E8 in 0165; Pluriton™ reprograming medium; StemFit® in 0165; Stem-cellbanker® in 0197-0198; Triton™-X 100 in 0210; Alexa Fluor® 555 in 0211; Hyaluronan Quatikine™ Elisa Kit in 02200; Varioskan® Flash in 0220, 0225; NucleoSpin® RNA Plus in 0236; ReverTra Ace® qPCR RT Master Mix in 0236; and Thunderbird™ Next Sybr® qPCR mix in 0236, which are a trade names or a marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 25 is objected to in the recitation of “An amplifier for an expression”, and in the interest of improving claim form, it is suggested that the recited phrase be amended to recite “An amplifier for the expression”.
Appropriate correction is appreciated.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 23, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Miastkowska et al. (Cosmetics, 2018).
With respect to claims 23, 24 and 25, Miastkowska teaches a composition or agent containing an extract of a stem cell (abstract).
Miastkowska teaches the composition has anti-aging and rejuvenating properties as recited in claims 23 and 24 (abstract and pg. 1 last para. to pg. 2 para. 2). Miastkowska does not teach the composition is an amplifier for the expression of a rejuvenation factor or a rejuvenation related factor as recited in claim 25. However, the composition of the Miastkowska is the same as that claimed by applicant. Thus, the intended use of the composition as an anti-aging agent, rejuvenation agent, and an amplifier for the expression of a rejuvenation factor or a rejuvenation related factor is also inherent in the composition of the Miastkowska. It is noted that the intended use of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the composition of the prior art. In the instant case, the intended use fails to create a structural difference, thus, the intended use is not limiting. Please note that when applicant claims a composition in terms of function, and the composition of the prior art appears to be the same, the Examiner may make rejections under both 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 (MPEP 2112).
Therefore, the invention reference anticipates the claimed subject matter or the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 23, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Tan et al. (Experimental Dermatology, 2022).
With respect to claims 23, 24 and 25, Tan teaches a composition or agent containing a secretion of a stem cell (abstract). Tan teaches compositions containing mesenchymal stem cell secretomes or conditioned media for skin treatment and rejuvenation (pg. 675 Col. 1 para. 3). In addition, Tan teaches a composition containing stem cells which have regenerative properties (pg. 675 Col. 2 para. 1, pg. 677 para. 1 and Table 1).
With respect to claim 23, Tan teaches “secretomes from various MSCs contain a wide range of cytokines and growth factors that are beneficial in reducing, blocking or reversing symptoms of skin aging” (pg. 679 Col. 2 para. 2). With respect to claim 24, Tan teaches the cytokines found in the secretome restore the dermal thickness, reduce wrinkles reduction and enhance the skill texture which would be considered rejuvenating (pg. 679 Col. 2 para. 2). Tan does not teach the composition is an amplifier for the expression of a rejuvenation factor or a rejuvenation related factor as recited in claim 25. However, the composition of the Tan is the same as that claimed by applicant. Thus, the intended use of the composition as an anti-aging agent, rejuvenation agent, and an amplifier for the expression of a rejuvenation factor or a rejuvenation related factor is also inherent in the composition of the Tan. It is noted that the intended use of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the composition of the prior art. In the instant case, the intended use fails to create a structural difference, thus, the intended use is not limiting. Please note that when applicant claims a composition in terms of function, and the composition of the prior art appears to be the same, the Examiner may make rejections under both 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 (MPEP 2112).
Therefore, the invention reference anticipates the claimed subject matter or the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Claims 23, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nistor et al. (US 2018/0116951 A1).
With respect to claims 23, 24 and 25, Nistor teaches a composition containing culture medium from partially differentiation of pluripotent stem cells or biased pluriptoent stem cells (0024-0026).
Although Nistor teaches the composition improves the appearance of the skin (abstract), Nistor does not teach the composition as an anti-aging agent, rejuvenation agent, and an amplifier for the expression of a rejuvenation factor or a rejuvenation related factor as recited in claims 23, 24, and 25, respectively. However, the composition of the Nistor is the same as that claimed by applicant. Thus, the intended use of the composition as an anti-aging agent, rejuvenation agent, and an amplifier for the expression of a rejuvenation factor or a rejuvenation related factor is also inherent in the composition of the Nistor. It is noted that the intended use of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such undisclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the composition of the prior art. In the instant case, the intended use fails to create a structural difference, thus, the intended use is not limiting. Please note that when applicant claims a composition in terms of function, and the composition of the prior art appears to be the same, the Examiner may make rejections under both 35 U.S.C 102 and 103 (MPEP 2112).
Therefore, the invention reference anticipates the claimed subject matter or the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Examiner Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMILY ANN CORDAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2905. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:30 EST.
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, Peter Paras can be reached on 571-272-4517. 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.
/EMILY A CORDAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1632
