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 .
This office action is in regard to the application filed on December 14, 2022 and in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments/Remarks filed on October 9, 2025.
Status of Application
Claims 1-7 are currently pending in the application; claims 8 and 9 have been canceled. Claims 1-7 are hereby examined on the merits.
The previous objection to the abstract has been withdrawn in light of applicant’s submission of a replacement abstract.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diosady et al. (US PG Pub. 2018/0279638) in view of Mazumder et al. (WO 2010/116379; listed on IDS dated March 6, 2023), herein after referred to as Diosady and Mazumder respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Diosady discloses an iron-fortified tea preparation (i.e., product) comprising:
dried tea (i.e., a tea component),
iron; and
a chelator (claim 1).
Diosady also teaches that the iron is from any bioavailable iron source that contains an iron atom and that it can be a ferrous salt [0048], as well as that the chelator can be ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) [0047], specifically using EDTA disodium salt (i.e., disodium dihydrogen ethylenediaminetetraacetate (Na2H2EDTA)) as the chelator [0109].
Diosady is silent as to the iron source being specifically ferrous bisglycinate and the weight percentages of the iron and chelator (Na2H2EDTA).
Mazumder, in the same field of invention, teaches an iron-fortified tea that comprises 0.1-0.3 wt.% of an iron salt wherein the iron salt is ferrous bisglycinate (claim 1). This range lies within the claimed range of 0.03-3 wt.%. Mazumder offers the motivation that using ferrous bisglycinate as the iron salt allows for iron to remain more bioavailable for absorption in the digestive tract (p. 4 para. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have used the ferrous bisglycinate, at the taught amount, of Mazumder as the ferrous salt of Diosady, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make this modification for the benefit of improving the bioavailability of iron in the digestive tract.
Modified Diosady is silent as to the weight percentage of Na2H2EDTA in the product. However, where Diosady teaches a molar ratio of 2:1 of chelator: iron (claim 1), it can be reasonably expected that given the amount of ferrous bisglycinate that lies within the claimed range, the calculated weight percent of Na2H2EDTA would also lie within the respective claimed range. For example, when there is 1 wt.% by dry weight ferrous bisglycinate in the product, there should be around 3.3 wt.% of Na2H2EDTA in the product, which lies within the claimed range of 0.07-7 wt.%.
Regarding claim 2, Diosady teaches that the product comprises dried tea and that the product is used to brew tea (i.e., a beverage precursor) (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Diosady teaches that the tea component is derived from the plant Camellia sinensis [0043].
Regarding claim 4, Diosady teaches that the tea component is black tea [0043].
Regarding claim 5, Diosady teaches that the tea component comprises leaves (i.e., leaf tea) [0043].
Regarding claim 6, Mazumder teaches that the iron-fortified tea (i.e., product) comprises 99.5-99.88 wt.% by dry weight of regular tea (i.e., tea component) (claim 1). Mazumder teaches suitable amounts of regular tea for iron-fortified tea compositions where Diosady is silent, thereby offering a guideline as to a suitable amount of the tea component. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the iron-fortified tea of Diosady to have the tea component amount of Mazumder, thereby arriving at the claimed invention, with the reasonable expectation that the amount of tea is suitable for use in the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 7, Diosady teaches that the product comprises a molar ratio of chelator: iron (i.e., Na2H2EDTA:Fe from ferrous bisglycinate) of 2:1 (claim 1), which lies within the claimed range of 0.5:1 to 4:1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither of the prior art teaches ferrous bisglycinate and that Mazumder only teaches ferrous bis glycine sulphate and ferric trisglycinate (remarks, p. 3-4).
This argument is not persuasive. The ferrous bis glycine sulphate taught by Mazumder seems to be another name for ferrous bisglycinate. However, even if the two are different, applicant has not shown that one provides a different result from the other, in particular where the claims recite a molar ratio of Fe (instant claim 7). The claimed ratio is consistent with the ratio taught by the prior art. Thus, the prior art is considered to render obvious the claimed invention.
Applicant argues that the claimed invention exhibits surprising and unexpected results, specifically that the claimed invention reduces color change typically associated with teas fortified with FeBisglycinate. Applicant also argues that there is no teaching in the prior art to suggest this alleged unexpected result (remarks, p. 4-5).
This argument is not persuasive. For one, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See MPEP 2144.IV. Additionally, applicant has not shown or proven that these alleged unexpected results would not also occur in the composition taught by the prior art, nor has applicant compared the claimed invention to that of the prior art, both of which are required in overcoming the rejection and proving unexpected and surprising results.
In the absence of any further arguments with regard to the rejections of the additional dependent claims, the rejections of these dependent claims are maintained.
Conclusion
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 MAURA E SWEENEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0244. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571)-270-3435. 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.
/M.E.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1791
/Nikki H. Dees/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1791