JSonnabend

[Voda]

What I would like to patent is a non-medical health product. It has 9 ingredients and enters the body via the skin, i.e. a transdermal. Say there happens to be an oral formula in the public domain that has 8 of the ingredients and is for the same purpose.

The differences:
It's obvious that a certain vitamin should be added. The addition I made is a combination of this vitamin and another substance, and it's more effective than the addition of the single vitamin (could I include the single vitamin and the combination vitamin in the patent, as in, you can use either/or?)
The other half of the combination vitamin serves to offset the (perhaps minor) negative effects of the other active ingredients, to enhance the transport into cells, and enhance nerve signals. The single vitamin can't do any of this (yet it's only the addition of one ingredient, so I'm wondering)
It is a transdermal, making absorption and its effects occur faster. The 9 ingredients are in addition to any transdermal carriers
There are less active ingredients per dose
1 of the active ingredients is a metabolite (a byproduct) of one of the oral formula's vitamins (otherwise it's not practical as a transdermal)

Would my product pass as patentable in the US?

[MYK]

I doubt it.

The metabolite is already known, right?  So that's not novel.

Let me guess, your ninth ingredient is the transdermal-ing goop, and is the same as in any other transdermal medication.  So, its use is not novel, and the results of its combination with the other eight is obvious.

I assume that the two effects (lower dosage, faster action) are not unexpected, and are well-known.  If this is not the case, you have a chance.

Just my opinion, I am not a USPTO examiner, this post doesn't constitute legal advice, your mileage may vary (especially if you use E-85).

[horsechute]

Nonsense. Do you even work with this kind of stuff? I thought you were a programmer.

[MYK]

Nonsense. Do you even work with this kind of stuff? I thought you were a programmer.

Hah!  I thought that tripledirect reference would wake you up.  What's your evaluation of this one?

[horsechute]

I was hoping we could avoid this, but at any rate, here is what you said:

"Let me guess, your ninth ingredient is the transdermal-ing goop, and is the same as in any other transdermal medication.  So, its use is not novel, and the results of its combination with the other eight is obvious."

Let's skip the metabolite issue and assume your "guess" is correct, that the ninth ingredient is, as you say, a "transermal-ing goop" that is already known in the art. We'll assume it is polypropylene glycol.

Polyproplene glycol is known in the art for transdermally administering a compound for treating herpes in the medication known as Lidoderm. See claim 9 of USPN 5411738:

"A gel formulation for treatment of pain from herpes zoster or post-herpetic neuralgia comprising: from about 70 to 90 weight % of propylene glycol; from about 1 to 20 weight % of lidocaine; from about 2 to 20 weight % of a non-ionic surfactant comprising physiologically acceptable sorbitan esters; from about 0.1 to 5 weight % of a physiologically acceptable gelling agent; and not more than about a total of 10 weight % of physiologically acceptable excipients."

Now, just because Polypropylene glycol, admittedly a well known compound, is known to be a transdermal carrier for a compound for treating shingles does not mean that a person cannot receive a patent for combining it with a some other known compound, in this case, for arguments sake, apparently some kind of known nutrient. Say the person took a known combination of 8 (or 9) different vitamins to be effective for treating arthritis. Now say our inventor discovered, low and behold, that you can obtain a much more potent administration of the compound to the body by administering it transdermally. Now, assume that they found that Polyropylene glycol would be an effective carrier. Are they precluded from obtaining a patent on this combination of compounds, just because some someone used polyproplene glycol to administer a compound for treating shingles? Not at all. People do this sort of thing all the time (in fact, hundreds, according to a rough lexis/patent search I just did). It is not the carrier in patches that administer substances such as fentanyl, nitroglycerin, clonidine, or lidoderm, to mention a few, which makes their patch patentable, it is the discovery that the combination of the active ingredients may, when combined with a suitable carrier, be administered transdermally that makes the combination, when properly claimed, patentable.

Note, I have made every assumption in your favor, and to tell you the truth, I would probably need more information before I even said what I just did.

[Voda]

This sounds promising. Thanks horsechute