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 .
Claim Status
Applicant’s remarks and amendments, filed 29 December 2025 in response to the non-final rejection mailed 30 September, are acknowledged and have been fully considered. Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged. The listing of claims filed 29 December 2025 replaces all prior versions and listings of the claims.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are pending. Claims 2-4 and 7-9 are canceled by Applicant’s amendment. Claims 1 and 5 are amended. Claims 1, 5, and 6 are being examined on the merits.
Response to Amendment
Any previous rejection or objection not mentioned herein is withdrawn.
Applicant’s submission of replacement drawings has overcome the drawings objection in regards to obscured text in Figure 3A. The objection to the drawings has thus been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification has overcome the specification objection in regards to spacing in Tables 1-5. The objection to the specification has thus been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome the claims objection in regards to minor informalities. The objection to the claims has thus been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment, in view of the remarks, including as directed to the temperature and concentration distinguishing over the grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103 over Lv in view of Obubu, and as further in view of Mason & Zhao, is found to be persuasive and accordingly these grounds have been withdrawn. However, please note, new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment (Lv in view of Mao) are presented herein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
(necessitated by amendment)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 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.
The limitation “concentration of the extract is 0.01 mg/ml” in Claims 1 and 5 is indefinite because it is unclear what component of the extract the concentration refers to. In the tables presented on page 2 of the remarks dated 29 December 2025, the extract concentration refers to the concentration of purple tea leaf extract used in the DPPH and ABTS assays. As presented in the current claims, the purple tea leaf extract is the product and therefore the concentration of the extract would be 100% at the end of the process to obtain that extract. It is unclear whether the concentration, as written, is supposed to refer to a particular component of the extract (e.g., the concentration of antioxidants in the extract) or wherein the extract has a particular effect when administered in a specific concentration. Appropriate clarification is necessary.
All other claims depend directly or indirectly from rejected claims and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
(maintained - grounds modified as necessitated by amendment)
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lv et al. (J Funct Food, 2015, 449-458) in view of Mao et al. (Int J Food Sci Tech, 2018, 2586-2594).
The instant claims are as of record, drawn to a method of increasing antioxidant activity of purple tea leaves comprising roasting and subsequent water or ultrasonic extraction, and compositions comprising extracts derived using said method.
Lv et al. teaches that preparing purple tea leaves using the roasted green tea method (roasting purple tea leaves) maintains anthocyanin levels, antioxidant activity, and sensory quality (active ingredient; Lv et al., 4., page 456; as required for instant Claims 1 and 5). The purple tea leaves were prepared using various traditional methods and subsequent tea brewing (antioxidant food composition; as required for instant Claim 6) was conducted using boiled (e.g., 100°C; as required for instant Claims 1 and 5) water (Lv et al., 2.3.1.(ii), page 452). The teas prepared using the roasted green tea method were shown to have higher antioxidant activity (increasing the antioxidant activity) compared to other traditional preparation methods (Lv et al., T2 in Figure 4, page 455; as required for instant Claim 1).
Lv et al. do not teach the specific roasting temperature of Claims 1 or 5, or wherein the concentration of the extract is 0.1 mg/ml.
Mao et al. teach that various roasting treatments have different effects upon green tea and that roasting at 140°C for 30 minutes was one method that achieved the most satisfying sensory quality (Mao et al., Summary, page 2586; as required for instant Claims 1 and 5).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the method of Lv et al. to prepare antioxidant-enriched purple tea products using the roasted green tea method of Mao et al. in order to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. A skilled artisan would have a reasonable expectation of success at using the roasting method of Mao et al. because the roasted green tea method used by Lv et al. produced tea with higher antioxidant level and would be motivated to use the roasting temperature taught by Mao et al. because it imparts a satisfying sensory quality for the drinker. A skilled artisan would additionally be motivated to use the method of Mao et al. because increased roasting temperatures reduce the amount of polyphenol content in tea (Mao et al., Figure 1, page 2589), and presence of polyphenols can contribute to reduction in anthocyanin (antioxidant) content (Lv et al., 3.2., page 455).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Please note, since the Office does not have the facilities for examining and comparing Applicants’ composition with the composition of the prior art, the burden is on applicant to show a novel or unobvious difference between the claimed product and the product of the prior art. See In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980), and “as a practical matter, the Patent Office is not equipped to manufacture products by the myriad of processes put before it and then obtain prior art products and make physical comparisons therewith.” In re Brown, 459 F.2d 531, 535, 173 USPQ 685,
688 (CCPA 1972).
Conclusion
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 JENNIFER L CAIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1318. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 11:00am to 10:00pm 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, Terry McKelvey can be reached at (571)272-0775. 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.
/J.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1655
/AARON J KOSAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655