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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 20, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-13
Withdrawn claims:
None
Previously canceled claims:
5-6
Newly canceled claims:
2, 9
Amended claims:
1, 3-4, 10
New claims:
11-13
Claims currently under consideration:
1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-13
Currently rejected claims:
1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-13
Allowed claims:
None
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhosle (IN 1750/MUM/2007 A).
Regarding claim 1, Bhosle teaches a tea composition comprising 30 to 95 wt% black tea (which overlaps with the claimed range of “85 to 98.5% by weight”), 0.5 to 40% of a binder, 0.01 to 5 wt% of a micronutrient including zinc (which encompasses the claimed range of “0.5 to 5% by weight), dried to a moisture content of less than 10% by weight (which matches the claimed range of “less than 10% moisture) (Abstract). Bhosle also teaches that the black tea of the invention is black leaf tea (p. 7, ¶ 4). Bhosle also teaches that the binders include maltodextrins and gum acacia (i.e., gum arabic) (p. 8, ¶ 3).
Although Bhosle does not disclose including both maltodextrins and gum arabic as binders, MPEP §2144.06(I) states “’It is prima facie obvious to combine two compositions each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose, in order to form a third composition to be used for the very same purpose.... [T]he idea of combining them flows logically from their having been individually taught in the prior art.’ In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980)”. Thus, it would have been obvious to include both maltodextrin and gum arabic in an amount of 0.5 to 40% total, which overlaps with the claimed range of “0.5 to 5% by weight” for maltodextrin and “0.05 to 6% by weight” for gum arabic.
With respect to the overlapping ranges, MPEP §2144.05 teaches that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Bhosle teaches that preferred sources of zinc include zinc sulphate (p. 10, ¶ 2).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, Bhosle teaches that the tea composition comprises black tea (Abstract).
Regarding claim 10-13, Bhosle teaches that the tea composition has micronutrients such as vitamins, calcium, or iron (p. 4, ¶ 2).
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections: Applicant has overcome the objections to the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) based on amendments in the Claims. Accordingly, the objections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1, 7, and 8 over Hans and Europa; claims 2 and 3 over Hans, Europa, and Kester: Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The rejections of claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, and 10-13 have been maintained herein.
Double Patenting: Following abandonment of application 18/256,188, the Double Patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached Generally available M-Th 8:00a-5:00p, F 8:00-2:00.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/A.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793