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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-4, in the reply filed on 19 May 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of the Claims
Claims 5-9 have been withdrawn.
New claims 10 and 11 have been submitted.
Claims 1-4 and 10-11 are presented for examination on the merits.
A mildew-proof composite composition with a synergistic effect comprising cinnamon essential oil and of mustard essential oil is claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The MPEP states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the invention had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him or her. The courts have stated:
“To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that the inventor invented the claimed invention.’ Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F. 3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Gostelli, 872 F. 2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“[T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.”). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement “by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, no that which makes it obvious,” and by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood, 107 F. 3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398.
The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the Application. These include “level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient” MPEP § 2163.
Level of Skill and Knowledge in the Art:
The MPEP indicates:
The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice (see i)(A), above), reduction to drawings (see i)(B), above), or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus (see i)(C), above). See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
What constitutes a “representative number” is an inverse function of the skill and knowledge in the art. Satisfactory disclosure of a “representative number” depends on whether one of skill in the art would recognize that the applicant was in possession of the necessary common attributes or features possessed by the members of the genus in view of the species disclosed. For inventions in an unpredictable art, adequate written description of a genus which embraces widely variant species cannot be achieved by disclosing only one species within the genus. See, e.g., Eli Lilly.
In Ariad Pharm. Inc. v. Eli Lily & Co. 598 F ad 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010) en banc}, the Federal Circuit noted the importance of an application's disclosure, stating, “the hallmark of written description is disclosure.” A disclosure adequately describes an invention when it “reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id. at 1354. “A ‘mere wish or plan’ for obtaining the claimed invention is not adequate written description.” Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbot Labs, 636 F.3d 1341, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
Satisfying the written description requirement “varies with the nature and scape of the invention at issue, and with the scientific and technologic knowledge already in existence.” Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F. 3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2005). The Federal Circuit explained what is required to meet the written description requirement in Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co:
This inquiry, as we have long held, is a question of fact. Ralston Purina, 772 F.2d at 575. Thus, we have recognized that determining whether a patent complies with the written description requirement will necessarily vary depending on the context. Capon v Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357-58 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Specifically, the level of detail required to satisfy the written description requirement varies depending on the nature and scope of the claims and on the complexity and predictability of the relevant technology. Id. For generic claims, we have set forth a number of factors for evaluating the adequacy of the disclosure, including “the existing knowledge in the particular field, the extent and content of the prior art, the maturity of the science or technology, [and] the predictability of the aspect at issue." Id. at 1359.
A written description of a genus in biotechnological arts “requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name” of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 199 F.3d 1559, 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The Federal Circuit reflected on Eli Lilly in Ariad while explaining how to sufficiently describe a genus in biotechnological applications:
We held that a sufficient description of a genus instead requires the disclosure of either a representative number of species fitting within the scope of the genus of structural features common to the members of the genus so that one of skill in the art can “visualize or recognize” the members of the genus. Id. at 1568-69. We explained that an adequate written description requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, physical properties, or other properties, of species falling within the genus sufficient to distinguish the genus from other materials. Id. at 1568 (quoting Fiers v. Revel 984 F.2d 1164, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993). We have also held that functional claim language can meet the written description requirement when the art has established a correlation between structure and function. See Enzo, 323 F.3d at 964 (quoting 66 Fed. Reg. 1099 (Jan. 5, 2001). But merely drawing a fence around the outer limits of a purported genus is not an adequate substitute for describing a variety of materials constituting the genus and showing that one has invented a genus and not just a species.
A “representative number of species” must typify the entire claimed genus and account for variation between the species of the genus:
[A] patentee of a biotechnological invention cannot necessarily claim a genus after only describing a limited number of species because there may be unpredictably in the results obtained from species other than those specifically enumerated. Noelle v. Lederman, 355 F.3d 1343, 1350, 69 USPQ2d 1508, 1514 (Fed. Or. 2004).
Applicant has provided only three examples of synergistic combinations of cinnamon and mustard essential oils against specific fungi. As the specification shows:
0044] The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the single cinnamon essential oil for the Aspergillus niger was 0.25 μl/ml; the minimum inhibitory concentration for the Trichoderma viridis was 0.125 μl/ml; and the minimum inhibitory concentration for the Penicillium chrysogenum was 0.125 μl/ml.
[0045] The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of the single mustard essential oil for the Aspergillus niger was 0.125 μl/ml; the minimum inhibitory concentration for the Trichoderma viridis was 0.125 μl/ml; and the minimum inhibitory concentration for the Penicillium chrysogenum was 0.0625 μl/ml.
[0046] The minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of the cinnamon essential oil and the mustard essential oil in the mildew-proof composite composition with the synergistic effect for the Aspergillus niger were 0.03125 μL/mL respectively when mixed according to a ratio of 1: 3 and 1: 5.
[0047] The minimum inhibitory concentrations of the mustard essential oil and the cinnamon essential oil in the mildew-proof composite composition with the synergistic effect for the Trichoderma viridis were 0.125 μL/mL respectively when mixed according to a ratio of 1: 3 and 1: 5.
[0048] The minimum inhibitory concentrations of the cinnamon essential oil and the mustard essential oil in the mildew-proof composite composition with the synergistic effect for the Penicillium chrysogenum were 0.03125 μL/mL respectively when mixed according to a ratio of 1: 1, 1: 3 and 1: 5.
Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1117 (Fed. Cir. 1991), states that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed" (See page 1117). The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed" (See Vas-Cath at page 1116).
Thus it would appear that Applicant is in possession of specific combinations of cinnamon oil and mustard essential oil that have shown synergy in providing resistance to Aspergillus niger, Trichoderma viridis or Penicillium chrysogenum. However, the claims are directed to a “mildew-proof composition”. However, mildew can result from a number of certain kinds of mold or fungus. Furthermore, the claims include a large range of proportions of essential that have not shown to provide synergy.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-4 and 10-11 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.
Claim 1 is rendered vague and indefinite by the term “mildew-proof”. It is unclear if this is mean that the composition is completely immune from mildew or that it is simply resistant to mildew. Furthermore, it is unclear if this immunity/resistance applies to any mold or fungus. That is – is applicant using the terms mildew and mold synonymously? Typically, mildew refers to certain kinds of mold or fungus. The term mildew is often used generically to refer to mold growth, usually with a flat growth habit. Molds include all species of microscopic fungi that grow in the form of multicellular filaments, called hyphae.
Claim 1 is rendered vague and indefinite by the term “synergistic effect”. It is unclear for what the composition is synergistic. Presumably, the resistance to specific species of fungus.
All other claims depend directly or indirectly from rejected claims and are, therefore, also rejected under U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, for the reasons set forth above.
For purposes of examination, the claims as drafted are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. In the instant case, the claims being examined are directed to a composition comprising 10 to 50% of cinnamon essential oil and 50 to 90% of mustard essential oil. Functional properties (i.e., synergy in resistant to fungi) resulting from this combination are intrinsic to any composition that contains these proportions of essential oils.
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.
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) 1-4 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clemente et al. (2019).
Clemente et al. beneficially disclose the antifungal effects of cinnamon and mustard essential oil. Evaluation was performed of the antifungal effect of cinnamon and mustard essential oil (EO) alone and in combination against a range of mould strains. The antifungal effect of cinnamon/mustard EO in combination was evaluated, with results mostly additive and synergistic. The ratio of the combination was defined taking into account the most resistant strain. This combination maintained the antifungal activity presented by mustard EO by itself and masked the mustard flavour, providing positive results in the acceptability tests. It was therefore suggested to be used at industrial scale.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to combine the instant ingredients for their known benefit since each is well known in the art for the same purpose and for the following reasons: each of the essential oils of mustard and cinnamon are known to have antifungal effects. In KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court reaffirmed "the conclusion that when a patent 'simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform' and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious." Id. at 417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273,282 (1976)). The Supreme Court also emphasized a flexible approach to the obviousness question, stating that the analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103 "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418; see also id. at 421 ("A person of ordinary skill is... a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton."). The Supreme Court thus implicitly endorsed the principle, stated in In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850 (CCPA 1980) (citations omitted), that: 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 which is 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.
The adjustment of particular conventional working conditions is deemd merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan. It is well settled that "discovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art." In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205 USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980). See also Merck & Co. V. Biocraft Labs. Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 809, 10 USPQ2d 1843, 1847-48 (Fed. Cir. 1989) As both dosages, routes of administration, dosage frequency and timing are known to the ordinary artisan, it would have been obvious to optimize the mode of administration as well as dosage amounts and frequency. It also would have been prima facie obvious to optimize the dosage regimen for an additive or synergistic therapeutic result because the general conditions of the dosages are disclosed in the prior art and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation and the art expects that dosages of the invention will vary depending upon such factors as the subject's age, weight, height, sex, general medical conditions and previous medical conditions.
Generally, differences in concentration will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration 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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40oC and 80oC and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100oC and an acid concentration of 10%); See also, Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ 2d at 1382 ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references where held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molar proportions). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ 2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ 2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ 2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Applicant’s invention is predicated on an unexpected result, which typically involves synergism - an unpredictable phenomenon, highly dependent upon specific proportions and/or amounts of particular ingredients. With respect to such unexpected results, please note that in KSR, the Court also reaffirmed that evidence of unexpected results may overcome an examiner's prima facie case of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416 ("The fact that the elements worked together in an unexpected and fruitful manner supported the conclusion that Adams' design was not obvious to those skilled in the art" - discussing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39). However, "any superior property must be unexpected to be considered as evidence of non-obviousness." Pfizer, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, "[m]ere improvement in properties does not always suffice to show unexpected results ....[W]hen an applicant demonstrates substantially improved results.., and states that the results were unexpected, this should suffice to establish unexpected results in the absence of evidence to the contrary." In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 751 (Fed. Cir. 1995). Moreover, in order to establish unexpected results for claimed invention, objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support. In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189 (CCPA 1978). Please also note that "the discovery of an optimum value of a variable in a known process is usually obvious." Pfizer v. Apotex, 480 F.3d at 1368. The rationale for determining the optimal parameters for prior art result effective variables "flows from the 'normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known.'" Id. (quoting In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Accordingly, the instant claims, in the range of proportions where no unexpected results are observed, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill having the above cited references before him/her.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSSELL G FIEBIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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 5712720947. 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.
/RUSSELL G FIEBIG/Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights