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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/21/14; 7/11/25; and 1/7/26 have been considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-14 are pending in the application.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20120045480A1 (“Tsai”) in view of CN109498537 (“Tian”).
The instant claims are drawn to compositions comprising a mixture comprising an extract of Polygonum Mulfiflorum Tuhnb and silver nanoparticles; and Copper Tripeptide-1; wherein a weight/volume ratio of the Copper Tripeptide-1 to the composition for promoting hair growth is from 0.1 to 0.2 mg/mL; and wherein the mixture comprises further a stabilizer and diluent as further detailed in the claims; additional claims are directed to a method of use of the claimed composition.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 11, Tsai teaches compositions comprising an effective amount of silver nanoparticles and extracts of Polygonam Multiforum Thunb as well as a method for increasing hair growth by administering said composition locally to a host (see abstract, in particular; see also [0001]). Tsai’s formulations comprising a stabilizer and a diluent as well (see [0007])(limitations of claim 1, for instance).
Tsai does not teach the inclusion of Copper Tripeptide-1 in the formulations or methods. Tian cures this deficiency. Tian teaches a hair growth composition comprising Copper Tripeptide-1 in a concentration of 0.05-0.8% by weight of the total formulation wherein the Copper Tripeptide-1 is in combination with Polygonum multiforum extract.
Tsai and Tian are both directed to hair growth compositions and methods comprising Polygonam Multiforum extract. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add Copper Tripeptide-1 as taught by Tian in combination with Polygonum multiforum extract to the Polygonum multiforum extract-containing formulations and methods of Tsai, with a reasonable expectation of success. One would have been motivated to do so in view of the prior art’s teachings of similar properties and uses in a predictable art to be used for the very same purpose of hair growth treatments. Moreover, to do so would have constituted the obvious combination of equivalents known for the very same purpose.
Regarding claims 2 and 4, Tsai specifies silver nanoparticles to be present in an amount preferably of 10 micromolar to 1 millimolar and the concentration of the Polygonum Multiforum Thunb to preferably be 1 g/L to 100 g/L (see [0012]), ranges overlapping the recited ranges.
Regarding claim 3, Tsai specifies the silver nanoparticles to be between 1 and 100 nm in diameter (see [0010]), a range overlapping the instantly claimed range.
Regarding claim 5, Tsai specifies that the root extract may be employed (see [0009]).
Regarding claim 6, Tsai states that the stabilizer may be polyvinylpyrrolidone (see [0008]).
Regarding claim 7, Tsai states that the diluent may be water (see [0013]).
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of the claimed composition of claim 1 are addressed above, and Tsai further specifies additional carrier type components may be included such as physiologically relevant solvents, solutions, and mixtures (see [0023]), considered an excipient as claimed.
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Tsai’s compositions are intended to be administered to a host which is preferably a human being (see [0024]).
Regarding claim 10, 13, and 14, Tsai teaches local administration from which teaching one immediately envisages topical smearing in the context as instantly claimed (see Tsai claim 11 for instance).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREA B CONIGLIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 5712720616. 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.
/AUDREA B CONIGLIO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617
Prosecution Insights