DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The amendments, and arguments, filed February 19, 2026, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Claims 1-17 and 21-22 are pending. Claims 16 and 17 have been amended; new claims 21-22 have been added; claims 1-15 have been withdrawn; and claims 18-20 have been cancelled. Claims 16-17 and 21-22 are currently under consideration. 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 Office Action: Final
Withdrawn Claim Objections & Rejections
The objections to claims 16-17 and 19-20 (items A., B., C. and D. at par. 3-4 of the 11/19/2025 Office action) is withdrawn in light of applicant’s 02/19/2026 amendments. Applicant’s 02/19/2026 remarks at pp. 5-6 are acknowledged.
The rejection of claims 16-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over KYU (KR 2003 0066566 A), in view of KIM (Food Sci. Biotechnol., 17 (2008) pp. 279-286) (at par. 5-13 of the 11/19/2025 Office action), is withdrawn in light of applicant’s 02/19/2026 amendments (in particular, the amendment to independent claim 16 reciting “wherein the fermented extract is obtained by extracting using water as a solvent and then fermenting with Bacillus subtilis or Lactobacillus rhamnosus”). Applicant’s 02/19/2026 remarks at pp. 6-12 are acknowledged, but are moot in light of the new rejections presented herein.
The rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over KYU, in view of KIM, and further in view of WANG (App. Microbiol. Biotechnol., 100 (2016) pp. 9757-9771) (at par. 14-18 of the 11/19/2025 Office action), is withdrawn in light of applicant’s 02/19/2026 amendments.
The rejection of claims 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over KYU, in view of KIM, and further in view of WANG, and further in view of SUN (Animal, 7 (2013) pp. 216-222) (at par. 19-21 of the 11/19/2025 Office action), is withdrawn in light of applicant’s 02/19/2026 amendments.
New Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 103 – Necessitated by Amendments
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16-17 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over KYU (KR 2003 0066566 A, Publ. Aug. 09, 2003; as evidenced by English language translation of KR 2003 0066566 A; hereinafter, “Kyu”; of record), in view of KIM (Kim, E.-K., et al., Antioxidative and N europrotective Effects of Enzymatic Extracts from Leaves of Perilla frutescens var. japonica, Food Sci. Biotechnol., 17 (2008) pp. 279-286; on 11/02/2022 IDS;hereinafter, “Kim”; of record) and BAEK (KR 20090039941 A, Publ. Apr. 23, 2009; as evidenced by English language translation of KR 20090039941 A; hereinafter, “Baek”).
Page and paragraph numbers for Kyu and Bark refer to English language translation of KR 2003 0066566 A and English language translation of KR 20090039941 A, respectively.
Kyu is directed to:
Manufacturing Method the rew materal of mnlti tional foods Cosmetics, and olrugs
Abstract
The present invention relates to a functional food of the present invention, which relates to a method of extracting the components of the perilla leaf used as edible vinegar as a main ingredient to cure various diseases of the human body and supply nutrients.
In the present invention, the upper part of perilla grown over 20 cm in order to extract the components of the perilla leaves 7 cm in a closed container or device to maintain a temperature of about 30 ℃ ~ 40 ℃ fermented for about a week and then remove the residue and sap It relates to a method of obtaining and using herbal medicine multi-purpose food condensed to be used as a skin treatment or gastrointestinal disease or nutritional food, cosmetic raw material by drying the perilla leaf moisture to about 1 to 20% to powder 120WT.
The present invention is suitable for cosmetic materials such as malignant dermatitis, which is difficult to heal even in modern medicine, the ability to heal gastrointestinal diseases without side effects, foods using a large amount of nutrients, and the function of skin whitening and hair dye removal. It relates to a method using natural plant resource extracts.
Kyu, title & abstract.
Regarding independent claim 16 and the requirements:
16. ([…]): A method for treating cognitive ability or memory ability-related disease, comprising administering a fermented extract of Perilla frutescens to a patient with cognitive ability or memory ability-related disease, wherein the fermented extract is obtained by extracting using water as a solvent and then fermenting with Bacillus subtilis or Lactobacillus rhamnosus.
Kyu clearly teaches “the upper part of perilla grown over 20 cm in order to extract the components of the perilla leaves 7 cm in a closed container or device to maintain a temperature of about 30 ℃ ~ 40 ℃ fermented for about a week and then remove the residue” (Kyu, abstract), which relates to “a fermented extract of Perilla frutescens” of claim 16, but for the particular species, “frutescens.” However it is noted that:
(i) Kyu DOES NOT EXPRESSLY TEACH the particular species, “frutescens,” as required by claim 16;
(ii) although Kyu teaches “extracting the components of the perilla leaf used as edible vinegar as a main ingredient to cure various diseases of the human body and supply nutrients” (Kyu, abstract), Kyu DOES NOT TEACH the particular patient population of a “patient with cognitive ability or memory ability-related disease” per the active “administering” step of claim 16; AND
(iii) although Kyu teaches “the upper part of perilla grown over 20 cm in order to extract the components of the perilla leaves 7 cm in a closed container or device to maintain a temperature of about 30 ℃ ~ 40 ℃ fermented for about a week and then remove the residue” (Kyu, abstract),” Kyu DOES NOT TEACH the particular product-by-process requirements of claim 17, “wherein the fermented extract is obtained by extracting using water as a solvent and then fermenting with Bacillus subtilis or Lactobacillus rhamnosus,” as well as the requirements of claims 21-22 for:
21. ([…]) The method of claim 16, wherein the fermenting is with Bacillus subtilis.
22. ([…]) The method of claim 16, wherein the fermenting is with Lactobacillus rhamnosus.
Based on the state of the art, an artisan of ordinary skill would have found each of these features obvious.
Regarding (i) and (ii), Kim, for instance, is directed to:
Antioxidative and Neuroprotective Effects of Enzymatic Extracts from Leaves of Perilla frutescens var. japonica
Abstract The antioxidative activity of various enzymatic extracts from leaves of Perilla frutescens var. japonica was evaluated by measuring 1,1-diphenyl-2-picrylhydrazyl (DPPH), hydroxyl, and alkyl radical scavenging activity using an electron spin resonance (ESR) spectrometer. For this study, the leaves were enzymatically hydrolyzed by 8 carbohydrases (Dextrozyme, AMG, Promozyme, Maltogenase, Termamyl, Viscozyme, Celluclast, and BAN) and 9 proteases [Flavourzyme, Neutrase, Protamex, Alcalase, PP-trypsin (trypsin from porcine pancreas), papain, pepsin, α-chymotrypsin, and BP-trypsin (trypsin from bovine pancreas)]. The DPPH radical scavenging activities of Promozyme and Alcalase extracts were the highest, and the IC50 values were 77.25 and 109.66 µg/mL, respectively. All enzymatic extracts of the leaves scavenged hydroxyl radical, and the IC50 values of Celluclast and pepsin extracts which were the highest activity were 243.34 and 241.86 µg/mL, respectively. The BAN and α-chymotrypsin extracts showed the highest scavenging activities, and the IC50 values were 21.13 and 33.23 µg/mL$, respectively. The pepsin extracts from the leaves showed protective effect on H2O2-induced DNA damage. In addition, the pepsin extracts decreased cell death in PC-12 cells against H2O2-induced oxidative damage. The findings of the present study suggest that enzymatic extracts of the leaves possess antioxidative activity.
(Kim, title & abstract), whereby it is noted:
(i) “Perilla frutescens” (Kim, abstract) relates to “Perilla frutescens” of claim 16; and
(ii) antioxidative and neuroprotective effects (Kim, title) relate to “patient with cognitive ability or memory ability-related disease” per the active “administering” step of claim 16.
In light of these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform Kyu’s procedure, wherein “the upper part of perilla grown over 20 cm in order to extract the components of the perilla leaves 7 cm in a closed container or device to maintain a temperature of about 30 ℃ ~ 40 ℃ fermented for about a week and then remove the residue” (Kyu, abstract), and to have used “Perilla frutescens,” as taught by Kim (Kim, abstract) as the particular Perilla species. One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in order to obtain the advantage of the antioxidative and neuroprotective effects (Kim, title) of (i) “Perilla frutescens” (Kim, abstract) for (ii) administration as “a main ingredient to cure various diseases of the human body” (Kyu, abstract).
Therefore, the prior art renders (i) and (ii), as noted above, obvious.
Regarding (iii), Baek, for instance is directed to:
FUNCTION-RELATED FERMENTATION RAW MATERIALS USING THE COMPOSITION WHICH MIXED CHLORELLA IN RUBUS COREANUS AND METHOD TO PRODUCE THEREOF
Abstract
A method for preparing functional fermented material using Korean raspberry and chlorella mixture is provided to allow functional food products to be manufactured using the functional fermented materials, thereby enabling a consumer to easily obtain medicinal effects of chlorella. A method for preparing functional fermented material comprises the following steps of: inoculating fermented microorganisms to a mixture of 95~50wt% of Korean raspberry and 5~50wt% of chlorella; and aging the inoculated mixture at 30~40°C for 3~7 days. The Korean raspberry represents Korean raspberry itself, frozen Korean raspberry or Korean raspberry juice. The fermented microorganisms represent lactic acid bacteria, Bacillus subtilis or a mixed strain thereof. The prepared functional fermented material has a formulation of powder, liquid or viscous liquid.
(Baek, title & abstract). In this regard, teaches suitable “fermentation microorganisms” including “Bacillus subtilis” and “Lactobacillus rhamnosus”:
TECH-SOLUTION
In order to solve the above problems, the present invention is inoculated with a mixture of 95-50% by weight of bokbunja and 5-50% by weight of chlorella to inoculate fermentation microorganisms, which are two strains of lactic acid bacteria, Bacillus subtilis or Bacillus subtilis and Lactobacillus at a temperature of 30-40 ° C. It provides a method for producing a functional fermentation raw material using a bokbunja and chlorella mixture, characterized in that it comprises a process for formulating the fermentation broth obtained in a liquid or powder form after fermentation for 3 to 7 days under the conditions.
In addition, the present invention provides a method for producing a functional fermentation raw material using bokbunja and chlorella mixture, characterized in that the bokbunja is natural bokbunja, frozen bokbunja or bokbunja juice.
In addition, the present invention, the lactic acid bacteria is Lactobacillus casei, Lactobacillus plantarium, Lactobacillus lactis, Lactobacillus asidophilus, Lactobacillus brevis, Lactobacillus vulgaris, Lactobacillus rhamnosus, Pediococcus pentosa A mixture of bokbunja and chlorella, characterized in that it is one or two or more mixed strains selected from the group consisting of Seutus, Streptococcus thermophilus, Bifidobacterium butineri, Bifidobacterium infantis, and Bifidobacterium longum. It provides a method for producing a functional fermentation raw material using.
In addition, the present invention is the Bacillus subtilis, Bacillus licheniformis, Bacillus natto, Bacillus sirius, Bacillus Spices (cam) and Bacillus Sushi (Ewha) is one or two or more mixed strains selected from the group consisting of It provides a method for producing a functional fermentation raw material using a bokbunja and chlorella mixture, characterized in that.
In addition, the present invention is a mixed strain of lactic acid bacteria and Bacillus subtilis mixed strains of Lactobacillus casei and Bacillus subtilis, mixed strains of Lactobacillus casei and Bacillus sp. (Cam), Lactobacillus casei and Bacillus sp. Group consisting of mixed strains of Lactobacillus plantarium and Bacillus subtilis, mixed strains of Lactobacillus plantarium and Bacillus sp. (Cam) or mixed strains of Lactobacillus plantarium and Bacillus sp. It provides a method for producing a functional fermentation raw material using a mixture of bokbunja and chlorella, characterized in that one species selected from.
(Baek, p. 3, par. 1-5), which relates to “Bacillus subtilis” of claims 16 and 21, and “Lactobacillus rhamnosus” of claims 16 and 22. Further, Baek teaches “water content” for a Bacillus and Lactobacillus fermentation process (Baek, p. 12, par. 1-2), which relates to product-by-process requirements of claim 22 for “water as a solvent.”
In light of these teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to perform Kyu’s procedure, wherein “the upper part of perilla grown over 20 cm in order to extract the components of the perilla leaves 7 cm in a closed container or device to maintain a temperature of about 30 ℃ ~ 40 ℃ fermented for about a week and then remove the residue” (Kyu, abstract), and to have used “fermented microorganisms,” in water, as taught by Baek (Baek, abstract, and p. 12, par. 1-2). One would have been motivated to do so with a reasonable expectation of success since both Kyu and Baek are concerned with similar problems in the art, namely the obtaining of a “functional food” (Kyu, abstract; Baek, abstract) by fermentation at 30~40°C at up to 7 days (Kyu, abstract; Baek, p. 3, par. 1). Further, it is well within the skill of the ordinary artisan to select suitable bacterial strains for fermentation. Doing so amounts to no more than combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP § 2144.07 stating that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is prima facie obvious, which cites Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945), wherein “Reading a list and selecting a known compound to meet known requirements is no more ingenious than selecting the last piece to put in the last opening in a jig-saw puzzle.”
Therefore, the prior art renders (iii), as noted above, obvious.
Thus, the prior art renders claims 16 and 21-22 obvious.
Regarding claim 17 and the requirements:
17. ([…]): The method of claim 16, wherein the fermented extract is extracted from any one or more parts of Perilla frutescens selected from the group consisting of leaves, stems, flowers, fruits and whole plants.
Kyu teaches “the upper part of perilla grown over 20 cm in order to extract the components of the perilla leaves 7 cm in a closed container or device to maintain a temperature of about 30 ℃ ~ 40 ℃ fermented for about a week and then remove the residue” (Kyu, abstract), which encompasses “leaves” of claim 17.
Thus, the prior art renders claim 17 obvious.
Summary/Conclusion
Claims 16-17 and 21-22 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOMINIC LAZARO whose telephone number is (571)272-2845. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30am to 5:00pm EST; alternating Fridays out.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, BETHANY BARHAM can be reached on (571)272-6175. 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.
/DOMINIC LAZARO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights