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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/30/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-4 and 10-13 are pending and examined on the merits.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Any rejection not reiterated below are hereby withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the species improving cognitive function, Island thistle, water and an organic solvent, ethanol in the reply filed on March 28, 2025 is acknowledged.
A search of the elected species, Cirsium nipponicum, has determined these elected species to be free of the art. Following the procedure set forth in MPEP section 803.02, the search has been extended to additional species to the extent to determine patentability. The search was extended to include Deodeo as the plant material.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/30/2026, 2/24/25, 6/30/22 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: a space is required between “60” and “mg/kg”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and; there 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(1) as being anticipated by 강일준 et al. (KR 101319829 B1).
강일준 et al. teaches a method of treating Alzheimer’s disease with deodeok (Abstract) extracted in 70% ethanol (page 3, Example, Sample Preparation 2) wherein the Codonopsis composition is 0.1-99 wt% (page 5, last line). In laboratory conditions, when no temperature is given, the experiment is performed under room temperature, which is 25 degree C. Codonopsis is a healthy food (page 2, paragraph 3). A person with Alzheimer’s disease would be a subject in need thereof.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 강일준 et al. (KR 101319829 B1).
강일준 et al. teaches a method of treating Alzheimer’s disease with deodeok (Abstract) extracted in 70% ethanol (page 3, Example, Sample Preparation 2) wherein the Codonopsis composition is 0.1-99 wt% (page 5, last line). In laboratory conditions, when no temperature is given, the experiment is performed under room temperature, which is 25 degree C. Codonopsis is a healthy food (page 2, paragraph 3). A person with Alzheimer’s disease would be a subject in need thereof.
However, 강일준 et al. does not teach 50 to 60 mg/kg daily.
The reference teaches using a dosage of Codonopsis composition is 0.1-99 wt% (page 5, last line) per day. However, the reference does not specifically teach using all of the specific dosages claimed by applicant. 강일준 et al. teaches a method of treating Alzheimer’s disease with deodeok (Abstract) extracted in 70% ethanol (page 3, Example, Sample Preparation 2). The amount of a specific dosage in a composition is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The reference teaches that the dosage and administration can be varied. Thus, the reference has recognized these parameters as variables. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal dosage in order to best achieve the desired results. Thus, absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, this optimization of dosage amount would have been obvious at the time of applicant’s invention.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERYNE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9947. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5:30 PM.
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 U Desai can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Catheryne Chen Examiner Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights