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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10 are pending. Claims 1-6 are examined on the merits. Claims 7-10 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-6) in the reply filed on 1/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/28/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 2/12/2026, 8/30/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 1-6 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.
In Claim 1, line 3, the term “early-harvested” is indefinite because it is unclear when is the time considered “early” for harvesting the fruit. Please define or describe.
In Claim 2, line 2, the ratio is in parentheses. Is it part of the claim or not? Please amend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma’arif et al. (from IDS) in view of Chen (CN 106261323 A, translation provided).
Ma’arif et al. teaches a method treating osteoporosis with C. caimito extract (Abstract). The treatment of osteoporosis would inherently result in improving bone quality of Claims 4-6.
However, Mar’arif et al. does not teach adding 0.1% cellulase complex in water, ratio of Claim 2.
Chen teaches a nutritional solution of Chrysophyllum cainito extract obtained by enzymolysis in 0.05-0.07% pectinase at temperature of 45-55 degree C, pH 5.5, 30-50 min (Claim 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use enzymatic process to extract C. cainito because Chen teaches a nutritional solution of Chrysophyllum cainito extract obtained by enzymolysis in 0.05-0.07% pectinase at temperature of 45-55 degree C, pH 5.5, 30-50 min (Claim 2). One would have been motivated to make a medicament for the expected benefit of treating osteoporosis with C. caimito extract as taught by Ma’arif et al. (Abstract). Absent evidence to the contrary, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the claimed invention from the combined teachings of the cited references.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to make a composition comprising adding 0.1% cellulase complex in water, ratio of Claim 2 of the active agent combination for the following reasons. The reference does teach the composition for treating C. cainito. Chen teaches a nutritional solution of Chrysophyllum cainito extract obtained by enzymolysis in 0.05-0.07% pectinase at temperature of 45-55 degree C, pH 5.5, 30-50 min (Claim 2). Thus, it would have been obvious to make a concentrated cellulase for use as a supplement to the diet. Additionally, the amount of a specific ingredient in a composition that is used for a particular purpose (the composition itself or that particular ingredient) is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. "[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). Thus, optimization of general conditions is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal amount of each ingredient to add in order to best achieve the desired results, especially within the ranges taught by the reference. Thus, absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, this optimization of ingredient amount would have been obvious at the time of applicant’s invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma’arif et al. (from IDS) in view of Chen (CN 106261323 A, translation provided) as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-6 above, and further in view of Luo et al. (2002, J. Agric. Food Chem., Vol. 50, No. 6, pages1379-1382).
The teachings of Ma’arif et al. and Chen are set forth above and applied as before.
The combination of Ma’arif et al. and Chen do not specifically teach the ice crystal wall breaking, -10 degree C to 0 degree C for 7 days, extract at 45-60 degree C for 50-70 min and 85 for 50-70 min.
Luo et al. teaches extraction of C. caimito fruit by using fresh frozen fruit. Frozen fruits were shipped and stored at -20 °C until extracted (Plant Material).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use frozen fruit and enzymatic process to extract C. cainito because Chen teaches a nutritional solution of Chrysophyllum cainito extract obtained by enzymolysis in 0.05-0.07% pectinase at temperature of 45-55 degree C, pH 5.5, 30-50 min (Claim 2). Luo et al. teaches extraction of C. caimito fruit by using fresh frozen fruit. Frozen fruits were shipped and stored at -20 °C until extracted (Plant Material). One would have been motivated to make a medicament for the expected benefit of treating osteoporosis with C. caimito extract as taught by Ma’arif et al. (Abstract). Absent evidence to the contrary, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in making the claimed invention from the combined teachings of the cited references.
The references also do not specifically teach performing the process in the time span and temperature range claimed by applicant. Chen teaches a nutritional solution of Chrysophyllum cainito extract obtained by enzymolysis in 0.05-0.07% pectinase at temperature of 45-55 degree C, pH 5.5, 30-50 min (Claim 2). The high temperature is to inactivate the enzyme pectinase. The process in the time span and temperature range is clearly a result effective parameter that a person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize. "[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). Thus, optimization of general conditions is a routine practice that would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to employ. It would have been customary for an artisan of ordinary skill to determine the optimal process in the time span and temperature range to use in order to best achieve the desired results. Thus, absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, this optimization of ingredient amount would have been obvious at the time of applicant’s invention.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERYNE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9947. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5:30 PM.
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 U Desai can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Catheryne Chen Examiner Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655