DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The amendment filed September 10, 2025 has been received and entered. 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 Any rejection set forth in a previous Office action that is not specifically set forth below is withdrawn.
3. Claims 1-19 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
4. In the reply filed on March 10, 2025, applicant elected Group I, claims 1-8 and 12-19, a pore size of 0.01 to 50 micrometers for species A, aqueous alcoholic mixtures of C1-C5 alcohols including structural isomers thereof for species B, Hypericum sp. for species C, and waxes for species D without traverse.
5. Claims 9-11, 14, and 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
6. Claims 1-8, 12, 13, and 16-19 are examined on the merits in regards to the elected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 13, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sygouni (Membranes (February 2019), vol, 9, no. 27, 16 pages) for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action.
All of applicant’s arguments regarding this ground of rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the reference does not anticipate the claimed invention because the reference teaches that the extracts are not concentrated, but fed directly to microfiltration. However, as discussed in the previous Office action, after the extraction of the olive material with the solvent, the extract is filtered to remove insoluble material. This step creates a concentrated extract in comparison with the initial extract. The concentrated extract is then subjected to an additional microfiltration step which then results in an extract where the suspended lipids are removed and the polyphenolic compounds of interest are obtained. Thus, the reference is considered to properly anticipate the state claims because the reference extraction comprises the same steps as claimed.
8. Claim(s) 1, 5-8, 12, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Whitton (GB 2 404 854 A) for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action.
All of applicant’s arguments regarding this ground of rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the reference does not anticipate the claimed invention because the reference teaches that the extracts are not concentrated to a dry substance content where the lipids of lipoids in the extract form suspended or emulsified aggregate. However, the reference the extraction of plant material with a solvent and removal of the solid material by filtration. This would form a concentrated extract. The reference teaches that the liquid filtrate contains suspended particles in the form of colloids. The reference teaches the colloids can be removed by microfiltration to form a concentrated extract (see page 2). Thus, the reference does teach that the initial extract can be concentrated prior to the microfiltration. Therefore, the reference is considered to properly anticipate the stated claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sygouni (Membranes (February 2019), vol, 9, no. 27, 16 pages) in view of prior art admitted by applicant in the specification for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action.
All of applicant’s arguments regarding this ground of rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the reference does not teach the claimed invention because the reference does not teach the step of concentrating the extract. However, as discussed above, the reference is considered to teach this step. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persausive.
10. Claim(s) 1, 4, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sygouni (Membranes (February 2019), vol, 9, no. 27, 16 pages) in view of prior art admitted by applicant in the specification for the reasons set forth in the previous Office action.
All of applicant’s arguments regarding this ground of rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed invention is patentable over the prior art because the claimed dry substance content leads to significantly improved release kinetics of the final tablet drug form. However, applicant has not provided any evidence to support the assertion that the specific dry substance content of claims 4 and 16 produces an unexpected result. In addition, the reference specifically teaches that the method results in the removal of lipid and lipoid components from the final extract. Therefore, any results seen in the claimed invention resulting from the removal of lipids would also be seen in the reference extract. Thus, the reference is still considered to properly teach the claimed invention.
11. 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 Susan Hoffman whose telephone number is (571)272-0963. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am - 3:30pm.
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, Terry McKelvey can be reached at 571-272-0775. 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.
/SUSAN HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights