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
Status of Claims
Note: The amendment of August 19th 2025 has been considered.
Claims 3, 4 and 6-8 have been amended.
Claims 1 and 2 are cancelled.
Claims 3-22 are pending and examined in the current application.
Any rejections not recited below have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of the amendment filed on August 19th 2025, the rejection of claims 3 and 4 under 35 USC §112(a) and the rejection of claims 6-8 under 35 USC §112(b) have been withdrawn.
The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35 of the U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 CFR 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 3-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL Chen et al., “Antioxidant activity of natural flavonoids is governed by number and location of their aromatic hydroxyl groups” (from Chemistry and Physics of Lipids 79 (1996) 157-163) in view of NPL Wang et al., “In vitro antioxidant, anti-diabetic and antilipemic potentials of quercetagetin extracted from marigold (Tagetes eracta L.) inflorescence residues” (from J. Food Sci Technol (June 2016) 53(6):2614-2624).
Regarding claims 3-5: Chen discloses using flavonoids as antioxidants, i.e., to provide antioxidative stability to oil (i.e., canola oil) and to protects lipids from oxidation in foods (see Chen abstract and Introduction on pages 157-158), but fails to disclose the flavonoid quercetagetin; However, Wang discloses the flavonoid quercetagetin provides superior antioxidant, antidiabetic and antilipemic properties (see Wang abstract, introduction and conclusion). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan at the time the application was filed to have modified Chen and to have used the flavonoid quercetagetin, in order to impart antioxidant, antidiabetic and antilipemic properties to the oils and foods containing the oil, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
Regarding claims 6-22: While Chen and Wang fail to disclose the amount of quercetagetin to add to oil, Chen discloses of adding 200ppm of flavonoids to oil to impart the antioxidant properties (see Chen materials and methods). Given the fact quercetagetin provides superior antioxidant properties (see Wang abstract; conclusion), it would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to have add at least 200ppm quercetagetin to oil to impart antioxidative properties to the oil, and thus arrive at the claimed limitations.
In the alternative, given the fact that the antioxidant effect of quercetagetin observed by Applicant is disclosed in the prior art, and since dosing an ingredient to attain the desired effect is known and conventional, using ingredients (e.g., quercetagetin) in proportions that provide the effect the ingredients are known to have (i.e., antioxidative properties), does not provide a non-obvious difference between the claims and the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on August 19th 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Citing a declaration under 37 CFR §1.132 filed on August 19th 2025 by Di Wu, Applicant argues on pages 6-10 of the “Remarks” that the prior art references fail to render the claimed invention obvious, because Declarant had shown that quercetagetin provides antioxidative protection to oil better than other flavonoids (e.g., soy isoflavones, rutin, quercetin and EQ). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
While declarant provides evidence that the known antioxidant, quercetagetin, provides antioxidative protection to oil better than soy isoflavones, rutin, quercetin and EQ fail to overcome the rejection on record As Wang teaches quercetagetin is a powerful food antioxidant and it would be within the purview of a skilled artisan to use the known food antioxidant, quercetagetin, in edible oil and expectably arrive at the claimed invention.
Moreover, the data provided by declarant fails to conclusively show unexpected superior oxidative stability provided by quercetagetin as compared to other flavonoids, as the oxidative stability provided by 2000ppm of Quercetin was better than the stability provided by 2000ppm of quercetagetin (see Table 1 of declaration).
Conclusion
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 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 ASSAF ZILBERING whose telephone number is (571)270-3029. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at (571) 270-3475. 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.
/ASSAF ZILBERING/Examiner, Art Unit 1792