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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114) and the Response and Amendment filed 13 August 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following by virtue of amendment of the claims: (1) the objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1, 4-8, and 12-15
Previously withdrawn claims: None
Previously canceled claims: 2-3, 9-11 and 16-21
Newly canceled claims: None
Amended claims: 1, 8, and 12
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1, 4-8, and 12-15
Currently rejected claims: 1, 4-8, and 12-15
Allowed claims: None
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 13 August 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the clause, “wherein said stabilizing agent comprises ellagic acid and/or punicalagin” in line 13. Claim 1 also recites the clause, “wherein said stabilizing agent is one or several hydrolysis products obtained from punicalagin having a content of at least 40 wt %”. For clarity that ellagic acid is a hydrolysis product of punicalagin and consistency with the requirement that the stabilizing agent comprises ellagic acid and/or punicalagin, it is recommended to amend the second clause to instead recite, “wherein said stabilizing agent is one or several hydrolysis products obtained from punicalagin, including ellagic acid, having a content of at least 40 wt %”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the clause, “wherein said stabilizing agent is one or several hydrolysis products obtained from punicalagin having a content of at least 40 wt %”. The term “several” is ambiguous and therefore does not clearly define the scope of the claim. The language “one or more” is suggested. Additionally, it is unclear what “a content of at least 40 wt %” refers to—the purity of the punicalagin, or that the stabilizing agent has a content of one or more hydrolysis products of at least 40 wt %. For purposes of examination, this clause is construed as “wherein said stabilizing agent is one or more hydrolysis products obtained from punicalagin, including ellagic acid, and has a content of the one or more hydrolysis products of at least 40 wt %”.
Claims 4-8 and 12-15 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
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 1, 4-8, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster II et al. (US 2020/0172839 A1) in view of Aloqbi et al. (Aloqbi A., Omar U., Yousr M., Grace M., Lila M.A., and Howell N. (2016) “Antioxidant Activity of Pomegranate Juice and Punicalagin." Natural Science, 8, pp. 235-246, cited on the IDS filed on 29 December 2023) and as evidenced by Landete (Landete, J. M. (2011). Ellagitannins, ellagic acid and their derived metabolites: A review about source, metabolism, functions and health. Food Res Int, 44, 1150-1160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2011.04.02).
Regarding claim 1:
Claim Interpretation:
The limitation, “wherein said stabilizing agent is one or more hydrolysis products obtained from punicalagin, including ellagic acid, and has a content of the one or more hydrolysis products of at least 40 wt %” does not recite an active method step of obtaining the one or more hydrolysis products, including ellagic acid, from punicalagin. Therefore, the limitation only requires that the stabilizing agent is one or more hydrolysis products, including ellagic acid, that are obtainable by, or are resultant of, punicalagin hydrolysis. As such, any prior art disclosing or suggesting adding these hydrolysis products, regardless of their source, satisfies this limitation. In order to overcome this interpretation, Applicant may amend the claim to include active method steps of providing punicalagin, subjecting it to conditions that cause hydrolysis to occur, and adding the resultant hydrolysis products as the stabilizing agent. Such amendment must be supported by the disclosure.
Claim Rejection:
Foster teaches a method for producing a beverage comprising the following steps – for steps (i)-(viii), see the brewing process as disclosed by Foster in paragraphs [0004] – [0014] as indicated below:
(i) providing a malt, wherein said malt comprises Pilsner malt, Munich malt, a color malt, a flavor malt, a caramel malt, a roast malt, a melanoidin malt or a combination thereof – “Fermented malt beverages, such as beer, are produced by boiling warm water extract of malted barley…” ([0004]). “The malt bill, which may actually be a blend of malts (i.e., standard brewer’s malt, high color, low amylase, specialty malts, etc.), is ground and mixed with 2.5 to 4 times its weight of warm water.” ([0006]). Therefore, Foster discloses a malt bill comprising at least a color malt from among the claimed malts.
(ii) mashing the malt to obtain a wort ([0006], [0008]),
(iii) lautering ([0009]) and boiling of the wort ([0010] – [0011]),
(iv) optionally, whirlpool rest of the wort – “centrifugal action” ([0012]),
(v) fermenting the wort by using a yeast ([0012]),
(vi) obtaining a beverage ([0012]),
(vii) optionally, maturation of the beverage ([0013]),
(viii) optionally, filtration of the beverage ([0014]),
wherein said method further comprises adding a stabilizing agent before, during, or after any of steps (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), and/or (viii) – “This invention provides compositions and methods for stabilizing the flavor of a fermented beverage made from a fermentable medium by adding a composition comprising a tannin and a solid carrier to the fermentable medium. In particular, the composition comprising the tannin and the solid carrier is added to the fermentable medium prior to fermentation.” ([0029]).
wherein said stabilizing agent comprises ellagic acid and/or punicalagin – “…a hydrolyzable tannin may be defined as an aromatic compound, e.g., a gallic acid or an ellagic acid, and a sugar, e.g., glucose, that have formed an ester bond.” ([0073]). “In one specific embodiment, a tannin is provided as a hydrolyzable tannin…” ([0074]). A hydrolyzable tannin comprising ellagic acid is an ellagitannin. As evidenced by Landete, hydrolysis of ellagitannins with acids or bases yields hexahydroxydiphenic acid (HHDP), which spontaneously lactonizes to ellagic acid (p. 1151, col. 1, ¶ 1). In view of the teachings of Foster as evidenced by Landete, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that an ellagitannin is a hydrolyzable tannin comprising ellagic acid. Therefore, where Foster teaches that the tannin may be a hydrolyzable tannin of, for example, gallic acid or ellagic acid, and a sugar, Foster teaches that the stabilizing agent may be an ellagitannin, which comprises ellagic acid.
wherein said stabilizing agent is added at a concentration in a range of from 0.01 mg/L to 250 mg/L – “In one embodiment, the tannin is in the composition in a range from about 3 weight % to about 20 weight % of the composition…” ([0036]). “In this method, the composition may be added to the fermentable medium in an amount ranging from about 1 to 1500 ppm [i.e., mg/L] by weight.” ([0042]). Therefore, Foster teaches the tannin in an amount of 1 mg/L x 3% = 0.03 mg/L to 1500 mg/L x 20% = 300 mg/L. The claimed range of 0.01 mg/L to 250 mg/L overlaps the disclosed range of 0.03 mg/L to 300 mg/L. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Foster does not discuss that said stabilizing agent is a natural pomegranate extract comprising punicalagin and having a content of punicalagin and/or ellagic acid of at least 40 wt%, and/or wherein said stabilizing agent has a punicalagin content of at least 40 wt%, and/or wherein said stabilizing agent is one or more hydrolysis products obtained from punicalagin, including ellagic acid, and has a content of the one or more hydrolysis products of at least 40 wt %.
However, Aloqbi, like Foster, discloses that antioxidants prevent food degradation and are used as food additives (p. 236, ¶ 2, line 2). Aloqbi also discloses that pomegranate contains hydrolyzable tannins that are high in antioxidant activity stemming from hydrolyzable tannins, and that pomegranate contains punicalagin, ellagic acid, and gallic acid (p. 236, ¶ 3). Punicalagin is an ellagitannin. Aloqbi further teaches that punicalagin exhibits a significant ferrous (divalent iron) chelating capacity and reducing power ability (Abstract; p. 243, Figure 8; p. 244, Figure 10).
Notably, Foster discloses that tannins are chelating agents of divalent metals and work quickly in aqueous solutions ([0092]), and that aldehydes formed through oxidation catalyzed by divalent metals, especially iron and to a lesser extent manganese and copper, contribute to reduced flavor stability of the fermented beverage ([0023]). Foster discloses, “The flavor stability pellet retards the harmful enzymatic and auto-oxidative lipoxygenase oxidation reactions at malt hydration in at least two ways: as a chelating agent, trapping the catalytic divalent cations that catalyze reactive oxygen species propagation, and as a reducing agent to quench already formed free radicals via hydrogen abstraction from hop polyphenol molecules.” ([0047]).
Where Foster teaches that the stabilizing agent is a hydrolyzable tannin, such as an ellagitannin ([0073] – [0074]) and that tannins, including ellagitannins, act as chelating agents ([0047], [0092]), and where Aloqbi teaches that punicalagin is a hydrolyzable tannin (p. 236, ¶ 3) with divalent iron chelating capacity and reducing power ability (Abstract; p. 243, Figure 8; p. 244, Figure 10), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to substitute the ellagitannin of Foster for punicalagin as disclosed by Aloqbi by simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The result of the substitution would have been predictable because punicalagin is an ellagitannin with divalent metal chelating capacity and reducing power ability, which acts through the same flavor stability mechanism as disclosed by Foster. See MPEP §2143(I)(B).
Regarding the content of at least 40 wt%, Foster discloses, “The composition may be formed from a method comprising the steps of mixing a tannin powder and solid carrier particles to create a mixture and pelletizing the mixture to produce the composition. Before mixing, the tannin powder and/or the solid carrier may be dry, in a powder form, and have a moisture content ranging from about 0 to 15%.” ([0082]). In an exemplary embodiment where the tannins are gallotannins, the tannin powder comprises >99% dry matter tannins ([0092], Table 1).
Therefore, in the method of Foster as modified by Aloqbi where the tannin is punicalagin, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to likewise prepare the composition using a highly pure (e.g. >99%) punicalagin powder, following the direction of Foster. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the claimed invention because such a modification would result in the stabilizing agent (i.e., punicalagin) having a punicalagin content of at least 40 wt %.
Claim 1 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 4, Foster also teaches that said stabilizing agent is added in step (ii) before or during onset of mashing – “In a further embodiment, the fermentable medium is malt and the composition is added to the malt before mashing of the malt.” ([0042]).
Claim 4 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 5, Foster also teaches that said stabilizing agent is added in step (iii) before or during said boiling of the wort, and/or wherein said stabilizing agent is added in step (iv) before or during said whirlpool rest, and/or wherein said stabilizing agent is added in step (v) before fermentation, and/or wherein said stabilizing agent is added in step (vii) before maturation, and/or wherein said stabilizing agent is added in step (viii) before or during filtration – “In yet another embodiment, the fermentable medium is wort and the composition is added to the wort before boiling of the wort.” ([0042]). Addition of the composition at this step is also before the whirlpool rest. Foster also discloses, “In particular, the composition comprising the tannin and the solid carrier is added to the fermentable medium prior to fermentation.” ([0029], [0072]). Addition of the composition at this step is also before maturation and filtration.
Claim 5 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 6, Foster also teaches that said stabilizing agent is added more than once in any of steps (ii)-(viii) and/or is added in more than one of steps (ii)-(viii) – “In one non-limiting example embodiment of the invention, a process is described for mixing dry gallotannin powder with spent hop powder and/or malt fines/flour and water to form a 3-to-20 minute, slow dissolving pellet. The flavor stability pellet is then added to the malt mash-in vessel at the very start of the incoming water for the hydration of the malt at the mash-in process or to the dry ground malt bill hopper, prior to malt mash-in.” ([0047]). Thus, Foster teaches that the stabilizing agent, which may be an ellagitannin/ellagic acid, is added to the malt or mash continuously over a period of 3-20 minutes as a slow dissolving pellet. This disclosure reads on the limitation “wherein said stabilizing agent is added more than once in any of steps (ii)-(viii)”.
Claim 6 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 7, Foster also teaches that said stabilizing agent is added in the form of a powder – “Tannins are to be used as an antioxidant and/or chelating agent for the fermentable medium applied thereto. Further, in the preferred embodiment, the tannin is in a solid form. Preferably, the tannin is provided as a powder or a pellet.” ([0075]).
Claim 7 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claim 8, Foster also teaches that said stabilizing agent is added at a concentration in the range of from 1 mg/L to 200 mg/L – “…the tannin is in the composition in a range from about 3 weight % to about 20 weight % of the composition…” ([0036]). “In this method, the composition may be added to the fermentable medium in an amount ranging from about 1 to 1500 ppm [i.e., mg/L] by weight.” ([0042]). Therefore, Foster teaches the tannin in an amount of 1 mg/L x 3% = 0.03 mg/L to 1500 mg/L x 20% = 300 mg/L. The claimed range of 1 mg/L to 200 mg/L lies inside the disclosed range of 0.03 mg/L to 300 mg/L. In a case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05(I).
Claim 8 is therefore rendered obvious.
Regarding claims 13-14, Foster and Aloqbi teach the method of claim 1.
As described regarding claim 1, Foster discloses that tannins are chelating agents of divalent metals and work quickly in aqueous solutions ([0092]), and that aldehydes formed through oxidation catalyzed by divalent metals, especially iron and to a lesser extent manganese and copper, contribute to reduced flavor stability of the fermented beverage ([0023]). Aloqbi further teaches that punicalagin exhibits a significant ferrous (divalent iron) chelating capacity and reducing power ability (Abstract; p. 243, Figure 8; p. 244, Figure 10). Thus, Foster as modified by Aloqbi to use punicalagin as the tannin also teaches the limitations of claim 13 (wherein said stabilizing agent binds to a pro-oxidative acting transition metal in said wort and/or beverage) and claim 14 (wherein said pro-oxidative acting transition metal is any of iron, manganese, and copper).
It is also noted that the limitations of claims 13-14, “wherein said stabilizing agent binds to a pro-oxidative acting transition metal in said wort and/or beverage”, “wherein said pro-oxidative acting transition metal is any of iron, manganese, and copper” are not positively recited method steps, but rather latent properties of the punicalagin stabilizing agent. As provided by MPEP § 2145(II), “[m]ere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. In re Wiseman, 596 F.2d 1019, 201 USPQ 658 (CCPA 1979)”, and “‘[t]he fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious.' Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985)”. Therefore, claims 13-14 are not patentable in view of the cited prior art.
Regarding claim 15, Foster and Aloqbi teach the method of claim 1.
Foster as modified by Aloqbi discloses using claimed steps to produce its beverage, including that the stabilizing agent has a punicalagin content of at least 40 wt %. When the method steps recited in the prior art reference are substantially identical to those of the claims, claimed properties of the resulting composition are presumed to be present in the composition of the prior art. The burden of proof shifts to the applicant to provide objective evidence (i.e., test data) to the contrary. See In re Best, 562, F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 403, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP § 2112.01(I). In the present case, Foster as modified by Aloqbi teach that the stabilizing agent is highly pure punicalagin. As evidenced by the instant specification, ellagic acid, via the addition of punicalagin, which is 90% pure in ellagic acid (pp. 14-15, transitional paragraph), reduces a radical intensity in said wort, as measured by electron spin resonance spectroscopy and/or chemiluminescence (Figure 2). As such, the limitations of claim 15 are presumed to be present in the method of the cited prior art.
Claim 15 is therefore rendered obvious.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Foster II et al. in view of Aloqbi et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noyes (Noyes, E. (2018, October 23). The Complete Guide for Homebrewers. Northern Brewer. Retrieved September 18, 2026 from https://www.northernbrewer.com/blogs/beer-recipes-ingredients/grain-guide?srsltid=AU7gw4VQimmXvnm1juFYZFVquI2JqkUyqqb KvYFeYl6APmgKorlDZMsf).
Regarding claim 12, Foster and Aloqbi teach the method of claim 1.
The cited prior art does not specifically teach that said malt comprises Pilsner malt, Munich malt or a combination thereof.
Foster teaches “The malt bill, which may actually be a blend of malts (i.e., standard brewer’s malt, high color, low amylase, specialty malts, etc.), is ground…” ([0006]). “Standard brewer’s malt” as disclosed by Foster is understood to be “base malt”.
Noyes teaches that common base malts are pale malt, Pilsner malt, Vienna malt, Munich malt, mild ale malt and others (p. 1, last ¶). Noyes teaches that Munich and Vienna malts are responsible for the dark, malty lagers of Europe (p. 2, ¶ 1) and Pilsner malt has a soft, delicate maltiness that practically defines pale lagers (p. 2, ¶ 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to further modify the method of Foster to provide a Pilsner malt and/or a Munich malt as the base malt or “standard brewer’s malt” of Foster based on recipe design choice and the organoleptic properties desired in the final product. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Noyes teaches that Pilsner malt and Munich malt are common base malts that provide regional and/or stylistic features to beer.
Further, attention is invited to In re Levin, 84 USPQ 232 and the cases cited therein, which are considered in point in fact situation of the instant case. At page 234, the Court stated as follows:
This court has taken the position that new recipes or formulas for cooking food which involve the addition or elimination of common ingredients, or for treating them in ways which differ from the former practice, do not amount to invention, merely because it is not disclosed that, in the constantly developing art of preparing food, no one else ever did the particular thing upon which the applicant asserts his right to a patent. In all such cases, there is nothing patentable unless the applicant by a proper showing further establishes a coaction or cooperative relationship between the selected ingredients which produces a new, unexpected and useful function. In re Benjamin D. White, 17 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 956, 39 F.2d 974, 5 USPQ 267; In re Mason et al., 33 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 1144, 156 F.2d 189, 70 USPQ 221.
Claim 12 is therefore rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Applicant’s amendments to claim 1 have necessitated the new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Foster in view of Aloqbi as presented hereinabove. Applicant’s arguments filed on 13 August 2026 with respect to claim 1 in view of Foster have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection also relies on Aloqbi.
Nevertheless, Applicant’s assertion of unexpected results as applicable to the present rejection has been considered, but it is not persuasive as discussed below:
Applicant first argued that obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim and that a prima facie case of obviousness can be rebutted by showing that the claimed invention exhibits one or more superior properties or advantages that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found surprising or unexpected (p. 6, ¶ 3). Applicant asserted that claim 1, as amended, specifies that the stabilizing agent is either punicalagin, a hydrolysis product thereof, or a natural pomegranate extract comprising punicalagin and that this means that the stabilizing agent comprises either punicalagin and/or ellagic acid, wherein the ellagic acid may only be derived from the pomegranate extract or may be present as a hydrolysis product obtained from puicalagin (p. 6, ¶ 4). Applicant argued that experimental data filed with the Expert Declaration by Dr. Thomas Kunz on 11 September 2025 convincingly demonstrate that pomegranate extract or punicalagin as active ingredients show a superior performance as a stabilizing agent over the gallotannins of Foster (p. 6, ¶ 5).
In response, regarding Applicant’s assertion that ellagic acid may only be a hydrolysis product obtained from punicalagin, as stated in the “Claim Interpretation” above, the limitation, “wherein said stabilizing agent is one or more hydrolysis products obtained from punicalagin, including ellagic acid, and has a content of the one or more hydrolysis products of at least 40 wt %” does not recite an active method step of obtaining the one or more hydrolysis products, including ellagic acid, from punicalagin. Therefore, the limitation only requires that the stabilizing agent is one or more hydrolysis products, including ellagic acid, that are obtainable by, or are resultant of, punicalagin hydrolysis. As such, any prior art disclosing or suggesting adding these hydrolysis products, regardless of their source, satisfies this limitation. In order to overcome this interpretation, Applicant may amend the claim to include active method steps of providing punicalagin, subjecting it to conditions that cause hydrolysis to occur, and adding the resultant hydrolysis products as the stabilizing agent. Such amendment must be supported by the disclosure.
Applicant’s assertion of a surprising discovery that the claimed stabilizing agents achieve the unexpected result of superior performance with respect to iron chelation and radical suppression compared to gallotannins is acknowledged. Applicant is reminded that “[w]hether the unexpected results are the result of unexpectedly improved results or a property not taught by the prior art, the ‘objective evidence of nonobviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’ In other words, the showing of unexpected results must be reviewed to see if the results occur over the entire claimed range. In re Clemens, 622 F.2d 1029, 1036, 206 USPQ 289, 296 (CCPA 1980)”. See MPEP § 716.02(d).
In the present case, the Declaration under 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 filed 11 September 2025 and the data in the instant specification are insufficient to overcome the rejection of amended claim 1 based upon Foster in view of Aloqbi as set forth hereinabove because Applicant’s evidence is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
While at first glance the evidence provided appears to support an assertion of unexpected results that a stabilizing agent comprising an punicalagin and/or ellagic acid content of at least 40 wt % produces significantly stronger metal-chelating and radical-suppressing effects in wort as compared to gallotannin, it remains that the scope of the claimed invention is broader than the embodiments supported by Applicant’s evidence.
The data provided in the Declaration, Figure 1 provide evidence for pomegranate extract comprising 40% punicalagin as an example of a natural extract having a content of an ellagitannin and/or ellagic acid of at least 40 wt %, and punicalagin, an ellagitannin itself, as an example of a stabilizing agent having an ellagitannin content of at least 40 wt %. The data were obtained from a process wherein the stabilizing agent was added to unboiled wort during the mashing-in process. The examples of the instant specification also add the stabilizing agent to unboiled wort during the mashing process. The claims are broader than embodiments supported by the data in that the scope of the claimed method comprises adding the stabilizing agent “before, during, or after any of steps (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), and/or (viii)”. The provided data support only a method wherein the stabilizing agent is added during step (ii). From the data provided, it cannot be ascertained whether the unexpected result occurs over the entire scope of the invention.
In order for the alleged unexpected results to overcome the prima facie case of obviousness presented herein, the scope of the claims must be further narrowed and/or additional evidence must be provided such that the Applicant’s evidence is commensurate.
In view of the foregoing, when all of the evidence is considered, the totality of the rebuttal evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh the evidence of obviousness.
Regarding the amount of tannin, Applicant argued that the tannin range recited in Foster expressly relates to gallotannin and not to other possible tannins (p. 6, ¶ 7 – p. 7, ¶ 2).
Applicant’s argument has been considered, but it is not persuasive because Foster teaches that the range is applicable to the tannin in general in paragraph [0036] as cited in the rejection of claim 1 hereinabove.
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive.
Claims 1, 4-8, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as presented hereinabove.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James Shellhammer whose telephone number is (703) 756-5525. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/JAMES P. SHELLHAMMER/Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights