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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6/15/2026 has been entered.
Status of claims
Clams 1-4, 6, 7 and 10-19 as amended on 5/18/2026 are currently pending.
Claims 13-19 were withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/29/2024.
In response to the office action, please, cancel non-elected, withdrawn and on-examined claims 13-19.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 10-12 as amended on 5/18/2026 are under examination in the instant office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Indefinite
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is rendered indefinite by the last phrase “the oleuropein metabolite provides a therapeutic effects for a longer duration than would be obtained by administration of the oleuropein metabolite itself” because it recites comparison of the same entities or comparison of “the oleuropein metabolite” to “the oleuropein metabolite”. The previous phrase of the claims encompasses that the oleuropein metabolite is formed by the combination of 3 ingredients; and, thus, it is unclear what is intended as is the oleuropein metabolite itself and what the differences would be for the same compound as recited and/or encompassed by the claimed language. In view of specification it appears that oleuropein in the combination that forms an oleuropein metabolite provides for a longer duration of therapeutic effects with regard to absorption along GI tract and/or bioavailability along GI tract (par. 0054). Yet, the present claim language is confusing about concept of caparison and/or superiority of therapeutic effects as intended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon without significantly more.
The claims recite a method for administering to an individual a therapeutic composition consisting of a combination of 1) oleuropein, 2) an esterase, and 3) probiotic with beta-glucosidase but without esterase activity. The oleuropein, enzyme and probiotic are natural products; and their combination is also a natural edible product. The individual under administration is a generic representative of unlimited population since all living individuals (including young and/or elderly) have loss of bone, of cartilage and/or of mobility to more or less degree or they all in need in treating and preventing loss of bone, cartilage and/or mobility. The claims fail to point out what are needs of individuals under administration and what specific conditions the individuals have. For example: claims 2 and 3 clearly recite what specific conditions the individuals have in order to distinguish them from a general unlimited population. Therefore, the claims 1, 4, 6, 7 and 10-12 are directed to a consumption of natural nutrition or to a mere act of eating.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claimed elements in combination do not add a meaningful limitation or extra-solution to the claimed product, and the claimed product as a whole is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the product of nature to a particular technological environment.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/18/2026 with respect to the claims as amended on 5/18/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The rejection of claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0263139 (Horcajada et al), US 2016/0120891 (Horcajada et al), Santos et al (World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 2012, Vol. 28, No. 6, pages 2435-2440) and US 2008/0014322 (Ibarra et al) has been withdrawn in view of current claim amendment and applicants’ arguments that the cited US 2016/0263139 (Horcajada et al) and US 2016/0120891 (Horcajada et al) emphasize administration of a combination of several polyphenols including oleuropein with curcumin, quercetin and rutin as providing synergetic effects for joint health, for treating synovitis, bone and cartilage loss while claimed invention is limited to oleuropein as the only polyphenol, that the cited US 2016/0263139 (Horcajada et al) and US 2016/0120891 (Horcajada et al) do not teach and/or suggests incorporation of enzymes and probiotics with esterase and glycosidase activity respectively together with polyphenols and that the cited secondary references would not be considered by one of skill in the art because they disclosure relates to distinct technical fields of increasing value of olive oil production but they do not teach and suggest the use of enzymes and probiotics with esterase and glycosidase activity respectively for therapeutic purposes for joint health.
Claims 1-4, 6, 7 and 10-12 as amended on 5/18/2026 are free from the prior art of record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VERA AFREMOVA whose telephone number is (571)272-0914. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8.30am-5pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sharmila Landau can be reached on (571) 272-0614. 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.
Vera Afremova
September 8, 2026
/VERA AFREMOVA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1653
Prosecution Insights