Application 16/311,321

Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office Action

Dermatological preparations for maintaining and/or restoring healthy skin microbiota

Art Unit 1651·Examiner GOUGH, TIFFANY MAUREEN·Filed Dec 19, 2018·Status since Feb 3, 2022

Applicant Yun NV·Inventor Sarah Lebeer et al.

The latest Office Action

Mailed Feb 5, 2021 · Final Office Action · response window has passed

The examiner has issued a Final Office Action maintaining rejections on all pending claims. The §101 rejection asserts that the claimed dermatological preparation is a 'product of nature' — a naturally occurring substance that hasn't been changed enough to become patent-eligible. Two separate §103 obviousness rejections argue that different combinations of prior art patents (including Korean and international publications) teach or suggest the claimed skin microbiota compositions.

A response is due within three months of February 5, 2021 (extendable to six months with fees). Because this is Final, the applicant's options are narrower: argue that the examiner misapplied the law, amend claims within a very limited scope, file a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) to reopen prosecution, or appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Compiled case file available

abandoned

This application's complete prosecution record has been compiled by PatentReply — every office action, response, claim version, and cited reference, verified against the USPTO file wrapper.

Office actions: 3
Pending claims: 16
References on file: 4
History through: 2022-02-08

All Office Actions (3)

Final Office ActionLatest

Feb 5, 2021 · §101, §103

Final Office Action — claims 1, 8-9, 14-16 rejected under §101 (product of nature) and §103 (obviousness)

Rejection groups (3)

§ 101Abstract Ideaclaims 1, 8-9, 14, 16

Claims 1, 8, 9, 14, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. a product of nature without significantly more.

Examiner theory

The claim(s) recite(s) a composition comprising live L. plantarum in combination with L. pentosus or L. rhamnosus, wherein L. plantarum is YUN-V2.0 accession number LMG P-29456, L. pentosus YUN –V1.0 Accession number LMG P-29455, or L. rhamnosus YUN-S1.0 accession number LMG P-29611 .This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to a product of nature with no practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the product of nature claims does not exhibit markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. “If the claim includes a nature-based product that does not exhibit mark

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1, 8-9, 14-16

Claims 1, 8, 9, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR20120089530A in view of Nonaka et al (US2005/0265984), WO03/033681 and WO2015/022297.

Examiner theory

KR530 teaches a composition comprising live viable cells of L. plantarum SY99 having antibacterial activity which has 100% sequence similarity with SEQ ID No. 4 in its 16s rRNA gene (fig. 5) used in topical compositions as external preparations in the form of a gel, cream, or ointment according to claims 8, 9 (see entire document, translated document, Fig. 5). KR’530 does not teach the composition to additionally comprise L. pentosus YUN-V1.0 deposited under accession number LMG P-29455 having at least 97% sequence identity with SEQ ID NO:1 in its 16s rRNA gene according to claims 1 and 16. Nonaka teaches lactic acid bacteria L. plantarum and L. pentosus having beneficial bioactivities (0003, 0004, Table 2). Nonaka teaches compositions comprising viable (0054) Lactobacillus pentosus, whe

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1, 8-9, 14, 16

Claims 1, 8, 9, 14, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2016023688 in view of KR20120089530A, Nonaka et al (US2005/0265984), WO03/033681 and WO2015/022297.

Examiner theory

WO’688 teaches a skin topical composition comprising live L. plantarum (p.4, lines 23-p. 5, lines 1-6, abstract, p. 1-5) in the form of a gel, skin cream, ointment or lotion (p. 10, lines 21-25, p.11, lines 11-23). WO’688 does not disclose if the L. plantarum strain has sequence similarity with SEQ ID No. 4 in its 16s rRNA gene. KR530 teaches a composition comprising live viable cells of L. plantarum SY99 having antibacterial activity which has 100% sequence similarity with SEQ ID No. 4 in its 16s rRNA gene (fig. 5) used in topical compositions as external preparations in the form of a gel, cream, or ointment according to claims 8, 9 (see entire document, translated document, Fig. 5). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the L.

Prior art consulted (3)

Identifier	Type	Name / Author	Link
US20050265984	patent publication	Nonaka et al.	View ↗
WO2015022297	foreign patent	—	View ↗
WO2016023688	foreign patent	—	View ↗

Procedural framework (12)

MPEP§ 2106.04(b)·§ 2159·§ 717.02·§ 706.07(a)

Case lawIn Re Berg·In Re Goodman·In Re Longi·In Re Thorington·In Re Van Ornum·In Re Vogel·In Re Keller·In Re Merck

Non-Final Office Action

Aug 7, 2020 · §101, §102, §103, §112

Rejection groups (5)

§ 101Abstract Ideaclaims 1, 8-9, 14-16

Claims 1, 8, 9, 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, i.e. a product of nature without significantly more.

Examiner theory

The claim(s) recite(s) a composition comprising one or more live Lactobacillus species, at least one being L. plantarum strain and additionally a strain of L. pentosus or L. rhamnosus, including L. plantarum YUN-V2.0 accession number LMG P-29456, L. pentosus YUN –V1.0 Accession number LMG P-29455, or L. rhamnosus YUN-S1.0 accession number LMG P-29611 .This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to a product of nature with no practical application. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the product of nature claims does not exhibit markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. “If

§ 102(a)(1)Anticipationclaims 1, 8-9

Claim(s) 1, 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR20120089530A.

Unity of Invention Requirement

May 27, 2020

Restriction Requirement — six invention groups identified; applicant must elect one group for examination

The applicant must respond by electing one invention group for examination, typically within the statutory period (commonly 2-3 months, extendable). The applicant may also traverse (challenge) the restriction requirement if they believe the examiner's groupings are incorrect, though traverse is often unsuccessful. Once an election is made, the examiner will examine only the elected claims; non-elected claims are withdrawn from consideration in this application but can be filed as divisionals. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Unity of invention requirement

Traverse status: with traverse

Group I

claims 1

a topical dermatological composition comprising L

Group II

claims 4, 13

a method for restoring skin microbiota with L

Group III

claims 5

method for restoring skin microbiota comprising Lactobacillus species

Group IV

claims 6

Dermatological preparations for maintaining and/or restoring healthy skin microbiota

The latest Office Action

Compiled case file available

Draft a response to this Office Action

Claim status

Prosecution history

All Office Actions (3)

Final Office ActionLatest

Rejection groups (3)

Prior art consulted (3)

Non-Final Office Action

Rejection groups (5)

Unity of Invention Requirement

Unity of invention requirement

Prior art consulted (3)