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 .
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s response filed 01/15/2026.
Claims 2-8, 10, and 14-16 are pending.
Claims 3-8 and 10 remain withdrawn from further consideration.
Claims 1, 9, and 11-13 are cancelled.
Claims 2 and 14-16 are currently under consideration to the extent that they read upon Applicant’s elected species.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejections of claim(s) 1 and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (CN 103434318) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancellation of said claims.
The rejections of claim(s) 1 and 11-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (CN 103434318) is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s cancellation of said claims.
Rejections Maintained and Made Again
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 14-16 (all claims currently under consideration) is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (CN 103434318).
Chen teaches a composition comprising 500-700g dried orange peel, 900-1100g fig, and 900-1100g bitter citrus (Seville orange) immature flower (see entire document, for instance, paragraph bridging pages 12 and 13). This results in a ratio of 2.5-3.5 parts to 4.5-6.5 parts to 4.5-6.5 parts.
Chen, while teaching amounts similar to the instantly claimed amounts, does not expressly teach the instantly claimed ratio.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to utilize the components as instantly claimed in Chen and thereby arrive at the instantly claimed invention. Further, it would have been obvious to optimize the amount of the components present, and thereby arrive at the instantly claimed ratio of the components. It is noted that MPEP 2144.05 states: "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).”
Applicant is reminded that the intended use of a product claim carries no patentable weight unless it imparts a structural limitation. See MPEP 2111.02. Therefore, since the intended use of the composition as a drug, a healthcare product, or a food is merely identifying that the composition can be taken as a drug, healthcare product, or food, and not imparting a structural limitation, it is the Examiner's position that the composition is capable of performing the intended use.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues in the Remarks filed 01/15/2026 that the prior art does not provide motivation for arriving at the instantly claimed ranges. It is noted that the prior art teaches the instantly claimed components, wherein Applicant has not established the criticality of the instantly claimed components or the instantly claimed amounts. Specifically, upon consideration of the record, including the data presented in the Specification, the instant Application does not establish that the components are critical or the amounts are the result of anything other than mere optimization. It is noted that MPEP 2144.05 states: "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).”
Conclusion
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 TREVOR M LOVE whose telephone number is (571)270-5259. The examiner can normally be reached M-F typically 6:30-3.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 5712726175. 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.
/TREVOR LOVE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611