Dermatological preparations for maintaining and/or restoring healthy skin microbiota

The latest Office Action

Mailed Dec 17, 2024 · Final Office Action

The examiner maintains that all pending claims are obvious under §103. Obviousness means the examiner believes a person skilled in the art could have arrived at the claimed invention by combining teachings from existing patents. Two separate rejection theories are presented: one combines Lang, KR20120089530A, Nonaka, and Henn; the other combines EP2149368, KR20120089530A, and Henn. Both theories assert that these prior patents, taken together, teach or suggest all elements of the claims directed to dermatological preparations for maintaining healthy skin microbiota.

A response is due within three months from December 17, 2024, extendable to six months with fees. Because this is Final, options are more limited than after a Non-Final action. The applicant can file a response with arguments and/or claim amendments (though amendments after Final may require showing of good and sufficient reasons), request an examiner interview to discuss claim scope, file a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) with amendments to restart 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'.

Open 17/392,895 as a matter and work this Office Action in your AI.

Connect PatentReply to Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor, or another supported AI workspace and it compiles this application: the 4 Office Actions on file, every claim version, the responses, and the cited references, with each answer pointing back to the filed passage.

One new public application a month is free. The first compile takes a few minutes.

Strategy and filing changes require your approval.

All actions (4)

Final Office ActionLatest

Dec 17, 2024 · §103

Final Office Action — claims 1, 8-16 rejected under §103 obviousness over multiple prior art combinations

Rejection groups (2)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1, 8-16
Claim(s) 1, 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US2014/0186409 A1) in view of KR20120089530A (IDS) Nonaka et al (US2005/0265984, IDS), Henn et al. (US9028841 B2).
Final Office Action mailed Dec 17, 2024
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1, 8-10, 12, 14-16
Claim(s) 1, 8-10, 12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2149368 IDS in view of KR20120089530A IDS and Henn et al. (US9028841 B2).
Final Office Action mailed Dec 17, 2024

Prior art consulted (8)

Identifier	Type	Name or author	Link
US20140186409A1	patent publication	Lang et al.	View ↗
US20050265984A1	patent publication	Nonaka et al.	View ↗
US9028841B2	us patent	Henn et al.	View ↗
US16331321	us patent	—	View ↗
US16087430

Procedural framework (8)

MPEP§ 2159·§ 717.02

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

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Mar 22, 2024 · §103, §112

Non-Final Office Action after RCE — claims 1, 8-16 rejected under §103; claim 12 also rejected under §112(b)

The applicant must respond within three months of March 22, 2024 (extendable to six months with fees). An attorney typically handles this by arguing the references don't teach the claimed invention, amending claims to distinguish over the prior art, and clarifying claim 12 to overcome the indefiniteness rejection. The attorney may also request an examiner interview to discuss the rejections. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (3)

§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1, 8-16
Claim(s) 1, 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US2014/0186409 A1) in view of KR20120089530A (IDS) Nonaka et al (US2005/0265984, IDS), Henn et al. (US9028841 B2).
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Mar 22, 2024
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 1, 8-10, 12, 14-16
Claim(s) 1, 8-10, 12, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over EP2149368 IDS in view of KR20120089530A IDS and Henn et al. (US9028841 B2).
Non-Final Office Action after RCE mailed Mar 22, 2024
§ 112(b)Indefinitenessclaims 12

Final Office Action

Aug 2, 2023 · §102, §103

Final Office Action — claims 1-2, 4, 6-10 rejected under §102 anticipation and §103 obviousness

This is a Final Office Action, meaning the applicant typically has three months (extendable to six) to respond. Common options include arguing the rejections, amending claims to distinguish over the cited prior art, requesting an examiner interview to discuss claim scope, or filing a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) if more time or amendments are needed. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (6)

§ 102(a)(1)Anticipationclaims 1, 8-10
Claim(s) 1, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lang US2014/0186409 A1.
Final Office Action mailed Aug 2, 2023
§ 103Obviousnessclaims 2
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lang et al. (US2014/0186409 A1) as applied to claims 1, 8-10 above, and further in view of KR20120089530A, IDS.
Final Office Action mailed Aug 2, 2023
Examiner theory
The teachings of Lang are found above. Lang does not teach the L. plantarum strain to have at least 97% sequence similarity with SEQ ID No. 4 in its 16s rRNA gene. KR530 teaches administering 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, as indicated in the International Search report, filed in 12/19/2018 in parent case US16331321). The administration includes topical compositions as external preparations in the form of a gel, cream, or ointment (see entire document, translated document, Fig. 5) to treat infections caused by pathogenic microbes including S. aureus and S. epidermidis. Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention topical comp

Non-Final Office Action

Mar 29, 2023 · §102, §103, §112

Non-Final Office Action — claims 1-10 rejected under §102 anticipation and §103 obviousness

The applicant has three months from March 29, 2023 to respond, extendable to six months with fees. A response typically involves amending claims to distinguish them from the cited prior art, arguing why the references don't actually disclose or render obvious the claimed invention, or both. Interviews with the examiner are common at this stage to clarify positions. An attorney typically handles this; if you'd like patentreply.ai to draft a response, click 'Get this drafted'.

Rejection groups (8)

§ 102(a)(1)Anticipationclaims 1, 3, 5, 8-10
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lang US2014/0186409 A1.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar 29, 2023
§ 102(a)(1)Anticipationclaims 1, 8-10
Claim(s) 1, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO2016023688, IDS.
Non-Final Office Action mailed Mar 29, 2023
§ 102(a)(1)Anticipationclaims 1, 5
Claim(s) 1, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO2013/188626, IDS.

The latest Office Action

Claim status

Open 17/392,895 as a matter and work this Office Action in your AI.

Prosecution history

All actions (4)

Final Office ActionLatest

Rejection groups (2)

Prior art consulted (8)

Non-Final Office Action after RCE

Rejection groups (3)

Final Office Action

Rejection groups (6)

Non-Final Office Action

Rejection groups (8)

Prior art consulted (8)

Prior art consulted (10)

Prior art consulted (11)

Objections (1)