Patent Application 17759310 - COMPOSITION FOR PREVENTING HAIR LOSS OR - Rejection

Patent Application 17759310 - COMPOSITION FOR PREVENTING HAIR LOSS OR

Title: COMPOSITION FOR PREVENTING HAIR LOSS OR PROMOTING HAIR GROWTH

Application Information

• Invention Title: COMPOSITION FOR PREVENTING HAIR LOSS OR PROMOTING HAIR GROWTH
• Application Number: 17759310
• Submission Date: 2025-04-10T00:00:00.000Z
• Effective Filing Date: 2022-07-22T00:00:00.000Z
• Filing Date: 2022-07-22T00:00:00.000Z
• National Class: 424
• National Sub-Class: 725000
• Examiner Employee Number: 92523
• Art Unit: 1615
• Tech Center: 1600

Rejection Summary

• 102 Rejections: 0
• 103 Rejections: 1

Cited Patents

No patents were cited in this rejection.

Office Action Text

    DETAILED ACTIONStatus of Application
	The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
	Claims 1-11 are pending.

Claim Interpretation
The claimed composition is drawn to a product claim and therefore the intended use of the composition, “for preventing hair loss or promoting hair growth” does not carry patentable weight over the teachings of the prior art. Claims 2-11 depend from claim 1 drawn to a product claim and therefore the intended use of the composition does not carry patentable weight over the teachings of the prior art.

Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:  
Claim 1, line 2, recites “a group consisting of” which should be corrected to “the group consisting of” in light of proper Markush language.
Claim 10, line 2, recites “a group consisting of” which should be corrected to “the group consisting of” in light of proper Markush language.
Appropriate correction is required.

Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.


Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.  
 	Claims 1-11 are directed to a composition for preventing hair loss or promoting hair growth, comprising one or more selected from a group consisting of momordin Ic, platycodin D2, polygalacin D, asiaticoside B, bacopaside I, notoginsenoside R2, picfeltarraenin IB, pseudoginsenoside RT5, raddeanin A, vina-ginsenoside R4 and ziyuglycoside II as an active ingredient.	The Examiner notes that the markedly different characteristics analysis was used to identify products of nature in the instant claims. Since there is no nature-based product of the individual component(s) or combination (i.e. the composition), the closest counterparts to the individual naturally occurring ingredients momordin Ic, platycodin D2, polygalacin D, asiaticoside B, bacopaside I, notoginsenoside R2, picfeltarraenin IB, pseudoginsenoside RT5, raddeanin A, vina-ginsenoside R4 and ziyuglycoside II as an active ingredient were analyzed.	The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because the individual naturally occurring ingredients momordin Ic, platycodin D2, polygalacin D, asiaticoside B, bacopaside I, notoginsenoside R2, picfeltarraenin IB, pseudoginsenoside RT5, raddeanin A, vina-ginsenoside R4 and ziyuglycoside II individually or in combination do not appear to change the biological/ pharmacological functions, chemical/physical properties, or the structure/form of said ingredients. Because the claimed composition does not have markedly different characteristics, it is a product of nature.	Instant claim 2 recites wherein the content of the active ingredient is 0.00001-50 wt% based on the total weight of the composition. However, even though the claimed subject matter recites specific amounts, the claims are still patent ineligible because each naturally occurring product would still be structurally identical to what exists in nature. The components, momordin Ic, platycodin D2, polygalacin D, asiaticoside B, bacopaside I, notoginsenoside R2, picfeltarraenin IB, pseudoginsenoside RT5, raddeanin A, vina-ginsenoside R4 and ziyuglycoside II, themselves are not structurally altered by being mixed together in any combination.

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 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 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.
	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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al. (Formulation and Evaluation of Poly Herbal Hair Oil An Economical Cosmetic, International Journal Of Advanced Research In Medical & Pharmaceutical Sciences (IJARMPS-ISSN:2455-6998) Volum1, Issue. 2, March.2016) hereinafter Kumar.
Regarding claims 1-11, Kumar is drawn to herbal formulations always have activity and comparatively lesser or no side effects with synthetic. The growth activity in a concentration range for 1-10% separately. Based on these results mixture of crude drugs fruits of Embelica officinalis, flowers of Hibiscus rosasinensis, leaves of Bacopamonnieri and seeds of Trigonella foenumgraecum were prepared in the form of herbal hair oil by boiling cloth method and were tested for hair growth activity, refractive index, acid value, saponification value. It holds the promise of potent herbal alternative for synthetic hair oils. Excellent results of hair growth were seen in formulation prepared by boiling method of oils preparation technique (abstract). Kumar discloses other bacosides such as bacopaside-I may be present ranging from 1.43% (within the range of 0.00001-50 wt%) (pg. 12).
 	Kumar does not explicitly disclose bacopaside-I as a standalone ingredient in the composition exemplified in a single embodiment for an anticipation rejection.	
	However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kumar, to arrive at the instant invention. 
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Kumar discloses that bacopaside-I is included as a chemical component in Bacopa monnieri (pg. 12).  Further, one having ordinary still in the art would reasonably expect success in combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, see MPEP 2141.
Pertinent Art Not Relied Upon
	Examiner has identified and included the reference Gan et al. (US 20040171693 A1) drawn to hair growth formulations can also include a firming component which promotes the support in the basement membrane and dermis to encourage and support the hair structure, such compounds include, but are not limited to asiaticoside [0016], as pertinent prior art but has not directly relied upon the teachings from the reference in this action. 
Conclusion
	No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUANGLONG N TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0719.  The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, 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.
/QUANGLONG N TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1615