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 June 1, 2026 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 Any rejection set forth in a previous Office action that is not specifically set forth below is withdrawn.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, 4, 5, 7, and 9-20 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
4. In the reply filed on October 1, 2025, applicant elected virus for the species without traverse.
5. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, and 9-20 are examined on the merits in regards to the elected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, 9-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miljkovic (KR 20070015569 A – English translation).
This reference teaches an antiviral composition comprising an extract from coffee cherries (coffee fruit). The reference teaches that the composition is administered to a subject to achieve the anti-viral effect (see claims). The administration to the subject would treat the symptoms of the infection. The reference teaches that the coffee cherry contains at least 50% by weight polysaccharides with multiple types of saccharides and that this composition can contain up to 99.9% of the coffee cherry (see pages 4 and 5). Thus, the composition administered by the reference encompasses an embodiment with at least 50% polysaccharide. The reference teaches that the extract is made from the pulp of the fruit. The reference teaches that the composition can be administered topically or orally (systemically) in the form of a cream, ointment, spray, gel, snack bar, or beverage in combination with excipients that can be synthetic (see page 5).
The reference does not specifically teach that the administration of the coffee cherry supports the immune system. However, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. The reference teaches administering the same composition as claimed to the same subject as claimed. Therefore, the support of the immune system should inherently occur if applicant’s invention functions as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. Claim(s) 1 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miljkovic (KR 20070015569 A – English translation).
The teachings of this reference are discussed above. The reference does not specifically teach administering the composition is the dosages claimed by applicant. However, as discussed in MPEP section 2144.05(II)(A), “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. ‘[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.’ In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).” Varying the dosage of a pharmaceutical composition is not considered to be inventive unless the dosage is demonstrated as critical. In this particular case, there is no evidence that the claimed dosage of the composition produces an unexpected result. Thus, absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameter, this optimization of dosage would have been obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention.
8. Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miljkovic 1 (KR 20070015569 A – English translation) in view of Miljkovic 2 (US 2006/0263508).
The teachings of Miljkovic 1 are discussed above. The reference does not specifically teach that the coffee cherry is from Coffea arabica. However, Miljkovic 2 teaches that C. arabica is a useful source for a coffee cherry extract (see paragraph 29). Thus, an artisan of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that Miljkovic 1 could be modified to include the use of C. arabica as the source of the coffee cherry extract. This reasonable expectation of success would have motivated the artisan to modify Miljkovic 1 to use an extract from C. arabica.
9. 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 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 - 5:00pm.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 571-272-0947. 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
