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 April 22, 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 Any rejection set forth in a previous Office action that is not specifically set forth below is withdrawn.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 14 and 16-26 are pending.
Election/Restrictions
4. In the reply filed on December 8, 2025, applicant elected Group II, now claims 14 and 16-26, Garcinia cambogia extract for species A, chiisanogenin for species B, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for species C without traverse. As discussed in the previous Office action, the search of the prior art has determined that chiisanogenin for species B is free of the art. Based on applicant’s amendment, claims 21-26 are free of the art and allowable. Claims 14 and 16-20 are examined on the merits in regards all of the recited species.
5. Claims 14 and 16-26 are examined on the merits.
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.
6. Claim(s) 14, 16, 17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2017/0037043) in view of Lee (KR 20110027148 A – English translation).
Liu teaches a method for treating non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis by administering a composition comprising hydroxycitric acid extracted from Garcinia cambogia (see abstract; paragraphs 14-15, 22, 101, 112, 137; and claims 88, 90, 101 and 125).
Lee teaches a method for treating non-alcoholic fatty liver by administering a composition comprising a water or ethanol extract from Acanthopanax koreanum bark, roots or stems (see pages 1-3 of the translation).
These references show that it was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use the claimed ingredients in compositions that treat non-alcoholic fatty liver diseases. It is well known that it is prima facie obvious to combine two or more ingredients each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition which is useful for the same purpose. The idea for combining them flows logically from their having been used individually in the prior art.
Based on the disclosure by these references that these substances are used in compositions to treat non-alcoholic fatty liver diseases, an artisan of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation that a combination of the substances would also be useful in creating a method to treat non-alcoholic fatty liver diseases. Therefore, the artisan would have been motivated to combine the claimed ingredients into a single composition. No patentable invention resides in combining old ingredients of known properties where the results obtained thereby are no more than the additive effect of the ingredients. See MPEP section 2144.06, In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980), Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). The artisan would also be motivated to determine the best dosage scheme, specifically to determine if separate or combined administration of the two ingredients produces the best result.
7. Claim(s) 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (US 2017/0037043) in view of Lee (KR 20110027148 A – English translation) as applied to claims 14, 16, 17, and 19 above, and further in view of Majeed (US 7,063,861).
The teachings of Liu and Lee are discussed above. The references do not teach how the hydroxycitric acid is extracted from G. cambogia. However, Majeed teaches making a hydroxycitric acid containing extract from Garcinia fruits using solvents such as ethanol and methanol (see column 5). Thus, an artisan of ordinary skill would have reasonably expected that the G. cambogia extract containing hydroxycitric acid used in Liu could be made by extracting the fruits with ethanol or methanol. This reasonable expectation of success would have motivated the artisan to modify the references to include a G. cambogia fruit extract made with a solvent such as ethanol or methanol.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 21-26 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
Prosecution Insights