Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/758,701

GRAPE SEED EXTRACTS FOR USE IN THE PREVENTION OR REDUCTION OF STRESS

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Jul 13, 2022
Examiner
CHANDRAKUMAR, NIZAL S
Art Unit
1625
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
Indena S P A
OA Round
2 (Final)
73%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 4m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 73% — above average
73%
Career Allow Rate
1273 granted / 1752 resolved
+12.7% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+17.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
76 currently pending
Career history
1828
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.1%
-38.9% vs TC avg
§103
30.0%
-10.0% vs TC avg
§102
12.0%
-28.0% vs TC avg
§112
35.3%
-4.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1752 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
STN 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 . Instantly amended claims 1, 2, 6 and 7 are examined. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Previously presented rejection of claim(s) 1, 2, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Talbott WO 2019046660, Kuranov RU 2315616, Belcaro, Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Vol. 1 2013-01-01, pages 1-5 and Pedersen US 20060024385 is maintained further in view of Bagchi, Gen. Pharmac. Vol. 30, No. 5, pp. 771–776, 1998; Milanesch, Men and Women. PLoS ONE 8(6): e65406, 1-8, 2013; and Shichiri, J. Clin. Biochem. Nutr. | May 2014 | vol. 54 | no. 3 | 151–160. Bagchi, Milanesch, Pérez and Shichiri are added to address Applicants arguments in the context of amendments to claims. Applicants arguments focus on the amendments to claims PNG media_image1.png 164 576 media_image1.png Greyscale Prior art with regards to the ingredients are discussed in the previous action. As such the transitinal phrase ‘consisting of’ does not change the active ingredients proanthocyanidin content greater than 95% by weight and a catechin and epicatechin (dependent claim 2). Bagchi teaches Protective Effects of Grape Seed Proanthocyanidins and Selected Antioxidants against TPA-Induced Hepatic and Brain Lipid Peroxidation. Bagchi at page 775 column A, Proanthocyanidins including catechin and epicatechin. Milanesch explicitly teaches that oxidative stress may represent one of the underlying mechanism linking late-life depression with negative health outcomes and the effect of Lipid Peroxidation and Depressed Mood in Men (see title and Abstract) . Likewise, Shichiri also teaches the role of lipid peroxidation in neurological disorders and that lipid peroxidation is involved in neurological disorders, including AD, PD, stroke, and DS. There are few clinical reports about the efficacy of antioxidants for neurological disorders. See page 158 column B section under Conclusion. As such the inherent property of the extract relating to lipid peroxidation and the consequence of lipid peroxidation in depression in men are not applicants invention. As per MPEP 2112 Requirements of Rejection Based on Inherency; Burden of Proof [R-10.2019], "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." The discovery of a new use for an old structure based on unknown properties of the structure might be patentable to the discoverer as a process of using. In re Hack, 245 F.2d 246, 248, 114 USPQ 161, 163 (CCPA 1957). However, when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the “use” is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978). Again as previously noted. obviousness can be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such Applicants arguments are not persuasive. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NIZAL S CHANDRAKUMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-6202. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST. 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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at (571) 272-0913. 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. /NIZAL S CHANDRAKUMAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 13, 2022
Application Filed
Jun 16, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Sep 15, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 22, 2025
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599671
COMPOUNDS, COMPOSITIONS, AND METHODS FOR PROTEIN DEGRADATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599672
KRAS Proteolysis Targeting Chimeras
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590090
PYRIMIDINE-AND NITROGEN-CONTAINING BICYCLIC COMPOUND
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583872
PHOTOSENSITIZER COMPOUNDS, METHODS OF MANUFACTURE AND APPLICATION TO PLANTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12582719
Chimeric Compounds and Methods of Managing Neurological Disorders or Conditions
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
73%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (+17.9%)
2y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1752 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month