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 response to the application filed on June 14, 2023. The earliest effective filing date of the application is December 15, 2020.
Priority
The present application is a 371 National Stage Application of PCT/EP2021/067549 which has a filing date of June 25, 2021.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 August 17, 2026 has been entered.
Status of Application
The amendment filed August 17, 2026 with the Request for Continued Examination has been entered. The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 16 – 18, 20 – 26, and 29 – 33
Withdrawn claims: 29 – 31
Amended claims: 20
Previously cancelled claims: 1 – 15, 19, and 27
Newly cancelled claims: 28
New claims: 32 and 33
Claims currently under consideration: 16 – 18, 20 – 26, 32, and 33
By not repeating the previously presented objection/rejection(s), it is sufficiently clear that said objection/rejection(s) are withdrawn.
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 16 – 18, 20, 21, 23 – 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diosady et al. in view of Armstrong et al. and Tian et al.
(a) Diosady et al. (WO 2017054084 A1);
(b) Armstrong et al. (Improving Adhesion of Seasonings to Crackers with Hydrocolloid Solutions. Journal of Food Science. Vol 78, Iss 11. Pp. 1704 – 1712. (2013)); and
(c) Tian et al. (Dissolution behaviour of ferric pyrophosphate and its mixtures with soluble pyrophosphates: Potential strategy for increasing iron bioavailability. Food Chemistry. Vol 208. Pp. 97 – 102. (2016)).
Regarding claim 16, Diosady teaches an iron-fortified tea preparation comprising dried tea (i.e., a leaf tea product); and a mixture of a chelator and iron (i.e., a micronized iron compound) adhered to the dried tea (Abstract). Diosady teaches the mixture of the chelator and the iron is adhered to dried tea with an adhesive to yield the iron-fortified tea preparation (i.e., the micronized iron compound and polysaccharides form a coating on the leaf tea product – [0017]). Diosady teaches the adhesive comprises a modified dextrin or a gum (i.e., polysaccharides – [0018]).
Regarding the amount of dried tea (i.e., leaf tea product) in the iron-fortified tea preparation, Diosady teaches the amount of iron present in the tea preparation may be from about 0.1 (0.001g) mg iron per g of dried tea to about 20 mg (0.02g) iron per g of dried tea ([0020]). The range disclosed by Diosady corresponds to the iron-fortified tea preparation comprising 98.0 – 99.9 wt% dried tea (i.e., leaf tea product).
The range of dried tea (i.e., leaf tea product) content in the iron-fortified tea preparation, 98.0 – 99.9 wt%, as disclosed by Diosady, overlaps with the claimed range of 85 – 98.5 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 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.
Diosady does not explicitly state the adhesive comprises maltodextrin or gum arabic.
Armstrong teaches adhesive hydrocolloids for adhering flavor powder to crackers (i.e., a dry food surface). Armstrong teaches both maltodextrin and gum arabic are effective food adhesives for adhering edible powders to dry food surfaces (p. 1705, paragraphs 3 and 7; p. 1708, Figure 4).
Diosady and Armstrong are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, adhering edible powders to dry food surfaces. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected maltodextrin or gum arabic to include in the adhesive of Diosady, as taught by Armstrong, Armstrong provides that it was known for maltodextrin and gum arabic to be successfully used as food adhesives and published at the time of filing, which means it was within the general skill of a worker in the art to select maltodextrin or gum arabic as adhesives in the composition of Diosady, because it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to do such a thing on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
While Diosady does not explicitly state the adhesive comprises both maltodextrin and gum arabic, 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). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined maltodextrin and gum arabic to form the adhesive in the composition of Diosady.
Diosady does not teach the particle size of the micronized iron. Diosady teaches the iron source may be ferric pyrophosphate ([0049]). Diosady teaches inclusion of ascorbic acid in the mixture may incrementally improve absorption of the iron, particularly in cases where the iron source has low bioavailability, such as ferric pyrophosphate ([0061]).
Tian investigates the impact of pH on the solubility of ferric pyrophosphate by adjusting pH (Abstract). Tian utilizes ferric pyrophosphate powder with a particle size of 2.5 µm (microns – p. 98, paragraph 5). Tian teaches adjusting the pH significantly alters the solubility of the ferric pyrophosphate (p. 99, Figure 1).
Diosady and Tian are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, iron-fortified tea. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected ferric pyrophosphate with a particle size of 2.5 µm (microns), as taught by Tian in the composition of Diosady because Tian shows ferric pyrophosphate with a particle size of 2.5 µm (microns) was susceptible to solubility (i.e., bioavailability) adjustment by pH, as discussed in the disclosure of Diosady. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of skill in the art to select ferric pyrophosphate with a particle size of 2.5 µm (microns) on the basis of its suitability for a similar intended use. See MPEP § 2144.07.
While Diosady does not explicitly teach the moisture content of the dried tea (i.e., leaf tea product), Diosady teaches the dried tea is dried. Furthermore, Diosady clarifies that once the chelator/iron mixture is adhered to the dried tea, the treated tea may then be further dried to remove residual moisture that may remain from the adhesion process ([0094]). Diosady insists the dried tea is dry, therefore, while Diosady is not explicit about the exact moisture content of the dried tea (i.e., leaf tea product), the implicit disclosure teaches a dried tea (i.e., leaf tea product) with a moisture content of 10% moisture by weight or less by weight of the dried tea (i.e., leaf tea product).
Regarding claim 17, Diosady teaches for non-chelated iron sources, water solubility of the iron source tends to correlate with bioavailability of the iron ([0050]). Diosady teaches inclusion of ascorbic acid in the mixture may incrementally improve absorption of the iron, particularly in cases where the iron source has low bioavailability, such as ferric pyrophosphate ([0061]).
Furthermore, Tian teaches ferric pyrophosphate is insoluble (p. 97, paragraph 1).
Therefore, the prior art concurs ferric pyrophosphate is insoluble in water at 25 °C.
Regarding claims 18 and 21, Diosady teaches the iron source may be ferric pyrophosphate ([0049]).
Regarding claim 20, Diosady teaches the mixture may further comprise a flavouring, a colouring, a perfume, an essential oil, or ascorbic acid (i.e., additional nutrients – [0021]).
Regarding claim 23, Diosady teaches the adhesive may be added to the mixture of chelator and iron at a concentration of about 0.5 % (w/v) to about 25 % (w/v) ([0026]). Diosady teaches the amount of iron present in the tea preparation may be from about 0.1 (0.001g) mg iron per g of dried tea to about 20 mg (0.02g) iron per g of dried tea ([0020]). Diosady teaches the present invention includes a chelator with the iron, in a molar ratio of about 2:1 chelator:iron or greater ([0012]). Diosady teaches the chelator is EDTA ([0016]).
Given the molar mass of EDTA is 292.24 g/mol and the molar mass of ferric pyrophosphate is 745.224 g/mol, a 2:1 chelator:iron ratio would result in a mixture comprising 28.2 wt% chelator and 71.8 wt% ferric pyrophosphate. Assuming a 1 g/ml density for the chelator:iron mixture, the addition of 0.5 % (w/v) to about 25 % (w/v) of adhesive would result in an adhesive mixture of 0.5 – 25 wt% adhesive, 15.67 – 27.92 wt% chelator, and 59.33 – 71.58 wt% ferric pyrophosphate, while maintaining a molar ratio of about 2:1 chelator:iron or greater. Finally, the amount of iron present in the tea preparation may be from about 0.1 (0.001g) mg iron (i.e., ferric pyrophosphate) per g of dried tea to about 20 mg (0.02g) iron (i.e., ferric pyrophosphate) per g of dried tea, as taught by Diosady ([0020]). Therefore, the range disclosed by Diosady corresponds to the iron-fortified tea preparation comprising 0.0007 – 0.82 wt% adhesive.
While Diosady does not teach the iron-fortified tea preparation comprises 0.5 – 5 wt% maltodextrin, Armstrong teaches combining adhesives does not provide greater adhesion than the best individual adhesives (p. 1709, paragraph 4). Given each adhesive is suitable for its intended use, and no unique adhesive ability is garnered from the combined use of maltodextrin and gum arabic, any ratio of maltodextrin and gum arabic would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, the range of maltodextrin content in the iron-fortified tea preparation, 0.0007 – 0.82 wt%, as disclosed by Diosady, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.5 – 5 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 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 claim 24, Diosady teaches the adhesive may be added to the mixture of chelator and iron at a concentration of about 0.5 % (w/v) to about 25 % (w/v) ([0026]). Diosady teaches the amount of iron present in the tea preparation may be from about 0.1 (0.001g) mg iron per g of dried tea to about 20 mg (0.02g) iron per g of dried tea ([0020]). Diosady teaches the present invention includes a chelator with the iron, in a molar ratio of about 2:1 chelator:iron or greater ([0012]). Diosady teaches the chelator is EDTA ([0016]).
Given the molar mass of EDTA is 292.24 g/mol and the molar mass of ferric pyrophosphate is 745.224 g/mol, a 2:1 chelator:iron ratio would result in a mixture comprising 28.2 wt% chelator and 71.8 wt% ferric pyrophosphate. Assuming a 1 g/ml density for the chelator:iron mixture, the addition of 0.5 % (w/v) to about 25 % (w/v) of adhesive would result in an adhesive mixture of 0.5 – 25 wt% adhesive, 15.67 – 27.92 wt% chelator, and 59.33 – 71.58 wt% ferric pyrophosphate, while maintaining a molar ratio of about 2:1 chelator:iron or greater. Finally, the amount of iron present in the tea preparation may be from about 0.1 (0.001g) mg iron (i.e., ferric pyrophosphate) per g of dried tea to about 20 mg (0.02g) iron (i.e., ferric pyrophosphate) per g of dried tea, as taught by Diosady ([0020]). Therefore, the range disclosed by Diosady corresponds to the iron-fortified tea preparation comprising 0.0007 – 0.82 wt% adhesive.
While Diosady does not teach the iron-fortified tea preparation comprises 0.5 – 5 wt% maltodextrin, Armstrong teaches combining adhesives does not provide greater adhesion than the best individual adhesives (p. 1709, paragraph 4). Given each adhesive is suitable for its intended use, and no unique adhesive ability is garnered from the combined use of maltodextrin and gum arabic, any ratio of maltodextrin and gum arabic would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, the range of gum arabic content in the iron-fortified tea preparation, 0.0007 – 0.82 wt%, as disclosed by Diosady, overlaps with the claimed range of 0.05 – 6 wt%. MPEP § 2114.05 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 claim 25, Diosady teaches the tea may be white tea, green tea, oolong tea or black tea ([0043]).
Regarding claim 26, Diosady teaches the tea may be black tea ([0043]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diosady et al. in view of Armstrong et al. and Tian et al., as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Marshman et al. (US 20090061068 A1 – IDS Filed on August 9, 2023).
Regarding claim 22, Diosady teaches the iron source may be ferric pyrophosphate ([0049]).
Diosady does not explicitly state the iron source may also be iron oxide.
Marshman teaches a food product fortified with biopolymer-stabilized iron-containing nanoparticles (Abstract). Marshman teaches the food product may be a beverage such as tea ([0007]; [0035]). Marshman teaches the advantages of using the biopolymer-stabilized iron-containing nanoparticles the excellent chemical stability in respect to interaction with other elements, oxidation, complexion activity, color change, and, due to the presence of stabilizing biopolymer, these particles are compatible with many products containing other biopolymers ([0028]). Marshman teaches the iron in the biopolymer-stabilized iron-containing nanoparticles is ferric oxide (i.e., iron oxide – [0038]).
Diosady and Marshman are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, beverages comprising iron supplements. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include biopolymer-stabilized iron oxide-containing nanoparticles, as taught by Marshman in the product of Diosady, in addition to the chelated ferrous pyrophosphate, because biopolymer-stabilized iron oxide-containing nanoparticles have excellent chemical stability in respect to interaction with other elements, oxidation, complexion activity, and color change.
Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diosady et al. in view of Armstrong et al. and Tian et al., as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Marshman et al. (US 20090061068 A1 – IDS Filed on August 9, 2023).
Regarding claims 32 and 33, Diosady does not explicitly state the iron source is iron oxide.
Marshman teaches a food product fortified with biopolymer-stabilized iron-containing nanoparticles (Abstract). Marshman teaches the food product may be a beverage such as tea ([0007]; [0035]). Marshman teaches the advantages of using the biopolymer-stabilized iron-containing nanoparticles the excellent chemical stability in respect to interaction with other elements, oxidation, complexion activity, color change, and, due to the presence of stabilizing biopolymer, these particles are compatible with many products containing other biopolymers ([0028]). Marshman teaches the iron in the biopolymer-stabilized iron-containing nanoparticles is ferric oxide (i.e., iron oxide – [0038]).
Diosady and Marshman are combinable because they are concerned with the same field of endeavor, namely, beverages comprising iron supplements. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include biopolymer-stabilized iron oxide-containing nanoparticles, as taught by Marshman in the product of Diosady as the iron source, because biopolymer-stabilized iron oxide-containing nanoparticles have excellent chemical stability in respect to interaction with other elements, oxidation, complexion activity, and color change.
Affidavit
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed August 17, 2026 (hereinafter “Singh Declaration”) is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 16 – 18, 20 – 26, and 28 based upon Diosady as set forth in the last Office action.
MPEP § 716.01(c)(III) states “In assessing the probative value of an expert opinion, the examiner must consider
1) the nature of the matter sought to be established,
2) the strength of any opposing evidence,
3) the interest of the expert in the outcome of the case, and
4) the presence or absence of factual support for the expert’s opinion.
Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 227 USPQ 657 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986).”
The Singh Declaration seeks to establish nonobviousness of the significant improvement of iron delivery resulting from the use of the presently claimed composition recited in claim 16.
The strength of the evidence submitted in the Singh Declaration is evaluated below:
It is asserted that it was surprisingly discovered that the composition of claim 16 provided significantly improved iron delivery compared to a control that did not contain micronized iron of the precisely claimed particle size (Paragraph 6).
In response, the results presented in the Examples 1 – 4 of the Singh Declaration are not commensurate with the claims. The only tea product evaluated was black tea, and the only iron compounds analyzed were iron pyrophosphate and iron oxide. The only iron particle sizes evaluated within the claimed range were 2 – 5 µm. Because the examples in the Singh Declaration are not commensurate with the claims, the evidence relied upon has not established that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b).
The Singh Declaration is not submitted by an individual who is considered an interested party in the outcome of the case. As such, the Singh Declaration is considered as an expert opinion of a disinterested party.
In reviewing the Singh Declaration, it has been found that the statements of surprising/unexpected results are conclusory and unsupported by factual evidence. The Singh Declaration points to Examples 1 – 4 to provide evidence of nonobviousness of the claimed composition. However, the data provided in Examples 1 – 4 do not discuss the breadth of compositions encompassed by claim 16.
Therefore, the affidavit is not persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the composition of claim 16 provides the surprising and unexpected result of significantly improved iron delivery (p. 7, paragraph 2).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. As discussed in the response to the Singh Declaration above, the examples in the Singh Declaration are not commensurate with the claims, the evidence relied upon has not established that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b).
Applicant argues using micronized iron of the claimed size resulted in significantly improved delivery of iron compared to compositions utilizing iron of a larger size (p. 7, paragraph 3).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. As evidenced by Feng et al. (Uptake, distribution, clearance, and toxicity of iron oxide nanoparticles with different sizes and coatings. Scientific Reports. (2018)), both size and coating have remarkable impact on the cellular uptake, cytotoxicity, distribution and clearance of iron oxide nanoparticles (p. 10, paragraph 2). Among PEGylated iron oxide nanoparticles, 10 nm ones exhibited relatively higher cellular uptake and tumor accumulation than 30 nm ones (p. 10, paragraph 2). Therefore, the critical effects of particle size and surface coating have to be carefully considered in the biomedical applications of IONPs in order to improve their biocompatibility, prevent their undesirable clearance, and facilitate their targeted delivery to the disease site (p. 10, paragraph 2). Therefore, it was known prior to the effective filing date of the invention, that iron particle size has an effect on the uptake of the iron into the body.
Applicant argues the claimed combination of maltodextrin and gum arabic provides a synergistic improvement in iron delivery (p. 8, paragraph 2).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. As discussed in the response to the Singh Declaration above, the examples in the Singh Declaration are not commensurate with the claims, the evidence relied upon has not established that the differences in results are in fact unexpected and unobvious and of both statistical and practical significance. See MPEP 716.02(b).
Applicant argues the unexpected technical effect of excellent iron delivery was achieved regardless of the specific iron source (p. 8, paragraph 3).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. Only iron pyrophosphate and iron oxide were evaluated, not all iron compounds.
Applicant argues Diosady teaching using adhesives optionally, as opposed to specifically teaching the precisely claimed combination of binders (p. 9, paragraph 4).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. MPEP § 2141.02.IV states a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole. Diosady suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art an embodiment wherein adhesives are included in the iron-fortified tea preparation comprising dried tea.
Applicant argues Armstrong is directed to crackers, not tea compositions (p. 9, paragraph 5).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, the disclosure of Armstrong is relied upon to provide more information on adhesives suitable for use in foods, given that Diosady generically recites that adhesives may be used in the iron-fortified tea preparation comprising dried tea.
Applicant argues Armstrong did not select maltodextrin for experimentation (p. 10, paragraph 1).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. MPEP § 2141.02.IV states a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole. Armstrong teaches maltodextrin is a suitable hydrocolloid for use as an edible adhesive (p. 1705, paragraphs 3 and 7). Therefore, when considering the entirety of the Armstrong reference, maltodextrin is taught as a suitable adhesive.
Applicant argues Armstrong shows the combination of hydrocolloids does not significantly improve adhesion (p. 10, paragraph 1).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. MPEP § 2145.X.D.1 states “A prior art reference that "teaches away" from the claimed invention is a significant factor to be considered in determining obviousness. However, the nature of the teaching is highly relevant and must be weighed in substance. A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In this case, Armstrong does not disparage the combination of hydrocolloids, it merely comments they do not, in the experimental combinations, provide a superior result.
Applicant argues Tian does not direct one of ordinary skill in the art toward a tea composition (p. 10, paragraph 2).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. Tian is not relied upon to arrive at a tea composition. Tian provides that iron pyrophosphate of a particle size of 2.5 µm is known to be suitable for use in beverages.
Applicant argues Marshman only teaches liquid tea compositions (p. 11, paragraph 1).
Applicant’s argument has been carefully considered however the argument is not persuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Marshman provides food compositions supplemented with iron, like the iron-fortified tea preparation comprising dried tea of Diosady, wherein the iron is iron oxide.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 LARK JULIA MORENO whose telephone number is (571)272-2337. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 - 4:30 M - F.
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.
/L.J.M./
Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights