DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment and argument filed 01/28/2026, in response to the final rejection, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Any previous rejection or objection not mentioned herein is withdrawn.
Claims 13 and 19 are being examined on the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Musco et. al. (US9724376B2) and Sudjana et. al. (Antimicrobial activity of commercial Ole europaea (olive) leaf extract, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 33 (2009) 461-463) and You (CN208742767U). This rejection is not changed due to the arguments presented on 01/28/2026.
Musco teaches “The present invention provides methods of producing high quality olive leaf powders using infrared dry blanching, drying, and milling. Also provided are powders prepared by the methods of the invention. The powders can be included in various food, pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and antimicrobial compositions” (see abstract).
Musco teaches “Blanching is a procedure used to inactivate enzymes responsible for quality deterioration of various food products, such as fruits and vegetables. This inactivation is normally achieved by exposing fruits and vegetables to an elevated temperature (e.g., 70 to 100° C.). Besides inactivating enzymes, blanching also reduces microbial contamination, stabilizes color, and facilitates further processing and handling” (see column 3, 1st para.).
Musco teaches “In the typical embodiment, the infrared blanching results in a surface temperature on the olive leaves of between 200° F. and 300° F., usually about 260 F. (see column 1, lines 58-61) which would sterilize the composition because as described in the specifications “suitably sterilizing said pulverized olive or acebuche, preferably at a temperature of 121° C. or 134° C.” and “ In the context of the present disclosure sterilization at 121° C. and 134° C.” (see specification paragraph [0025], [0040]); thus, the method taught in the reference would necessarily result in sterilization as recognized by the applicant (as 260F = 126.7C, within the range of 121C-134C).
This would indicate that the olive composition is put through a process of removing moisture (drying) and sterilizing as instantly claimed. Musco also teaches milling (grinding/comminution) the olive composition to be within 200-500 microns (see claim 1, 13-14 and column 6 and 8). This step would be the same as pulverizing the olive composition. Although Musco does not teach the process to be done simultaneously, the process taught would still end up with the same instantly claimed composition.
Musco teaches examples of solid preparations for oral administration (see column 4, lines 27-35) and teaches the composition is for the control of bacteria and fungi (see column 4, lines 59-61).
Musco teaches “the composition can also be in the form of a topical liquid, lotion, cream or gel for applying topically to the skin of a patent in need of treatment with the antimicrobial agent” (see column 5, lines 9-12) and it is clear that the composition is meant for a patient not a patent as misspelled.
Musco teaches adding thickeners such as fatty acids, fatty alcohols, carboxy methyl cellulose, xanthan gum, guar gum and the like (see column 4, lines 46-50 and column 5, lines 12-15).
Musco does not specifically teach wherein the composition can be useful in treating antibiotic resistant or multiple resistant bacteria, or teaches sterilizing the composition or the use of a Venturi nozzle.
Sudjana’s general disclosure is to the antimicrobial properties of olive leaf extract (see abstract).
Regarding claims 13 and 19, Sudjana teaches that olive leaf extract was found to be most effective against Campylobacter jejuni, Helicobacter pylori and Staphylococcus aureus [including meticillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA)], with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) as low as 0.31–0.78% (v/v) (see abstract).
You teaches of “A kind of modified flat air flow crusher, including body, feeding device and grinding device; The feeding device includes a feed hopper, which be connected to a Venturi nozzle, and the grinding device includes work nozzle and impact ring, the work nozzle and is inserted into crushing chamber interior walls, and work nozzle connects with the air inlet of organism bottom; The impact ring and crushing chamber interior walls coaxial arrangement, the space crushed between chamber interior walls and impact ring form pulverizing chamber; The work nozzle is biased relative to impact ring axle center. Fixed impact part is changed to rotatable impact ring by the utility model, reduce the abrasion to impact part, impact ring is angled with nozzle, and the rotation direction of impact ring and the injection direction of air-flow are opposite, the relative velocity for increasing impact, improves crushing effect” (see abstract). You teaches these air disintegrating mills are used in fields such as pharmacy, chemical industry (see background technology, first para.).
Therefore it would have been obvious to persons of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to create the instant invention as claimed. Musco teaches creating antimicrobial compositions in almost an identical manner as the instant applicant. Musco teaches providing olive (acebuche plant), removing moisture through drying, grinding (comminution) to obtain smaller particles. Musco teaches blanching at the instantly described temperatures used for sterilizing. Although Musco does not teach sterilizing, persons having ordinary skill would appreciate that blanching is a process that would indeed remove the presence of some microbes and would easily be able to extend the blanching time in order to properly sterilize the acebuche components. Musco teaches adding thickeners to the composition and so the same process Musco teaches along with the slight modifications would have made the instant invention prima facie obvious. Furthermore, using the composition for treating antibiotic or multi-resistant bacteria such as MRSA which is known to be an antibiotic-resistant bacteria would have been obvious given that Sudjana teaches the olive leaf extract is useful for such a bacterium.
It would have also been obvious to use a Venturi nozzle as described You because You details the use of a kind of modified flat air flow crusher that will simultaneously dry and grind/crush particles with increased efficiency and low energy consumption. Musco teaches to air dry the composition and so the use of the Venturi nozzle for grinding and air drying simultaneously would have been obvious given the fact that You teaches of an air flow crusher device which can do both for reasons of saving time and for increased efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that Musco does not teach using a Venturi nozzle for the simultaneous drying and comminution of acebuche parts. The Office is not relying solely on Musco to teach each limitation. You teaches why one would rely on the use of a Venturi nozzle for simultaneous drying and comminution. The applicant argues that one skilled in the art would not recognize that the process used to produce the composition by Musco would arrive at a different product than the instant invention. The Office relies on not only Musco but multiple pieces of art to teach the instant invention as recited in the above rejection. The applicant argues that they have previously shown evidence that their product is advantageous. The applicant has merely supplied evidence that when drying and grinding with that of a Venturi dryer that this would help to preserve active components, however there is no comparison to the prior art or to different drying methods to show superiority. Reasons to use the Venturi dryer are made obvious by You’s art. You teaches that using one would simultaneously dry and grind/crush particles with increased efficiency and low energy consumption. The applicant argues that the cited art does not give a reason to combine the prior art together to arrive at the instant invention however that motivation was just articulated. The applicant argues that Musco teaches sequential processing steps and You merely teaches of general uses of air disintegrating mills. The applicant argues that You does not teach the Venturi device could be used as a drying device, but You indeed teaches of modified air flow devices and air flow essentially dries in the same manner as being claimed.
Conclusion
Currently no claims are allowed.
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 JACOB ANDREW BOECKELMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0043. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 571-272-0947. 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.
JACOB A BOECKELMANExaminer, Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655