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 .
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 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.
Priority
It is noted that the provisional application upon which priority is claimed fails to provide adequate support under 35 U.S.C. 112 for claims 18 and 26 of this application. The treatment of an RNA virus is initially recited in the instant application. As such, the effective filing date of claims 18 and 26 of this application is 1/8/2024, the filing date.
Previous Rejections
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 10, 2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Status
Claims 1-15 are canceled.
Claim 32 is newly added.
Claims 16-32 are pending.
Claims 17 and 21 are withdrawn.
Claims 16, 18-20, and 22-32 are examined on the merits in this prosecution.
CLAIM REJECTIONS
Obviousness Rejections
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
1) Claims 16, 19-20, 22, 24-29, 30, 31, 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehin-Delval (WO 2012/072488 A1).
Gehin-Delval teaches an emulsion comprising an antimicrobial essential oil, acacia gum, and water for improving the antimicrobial effect of the essential oil in an aqueous composition, and the composition can be used in a method of administering food supplements and medication for animals (Abstract; pg 10: 5-14).
Gehin-Delval teaches the method utilized an amount of essential oil of up to 0.08% essential oil (pg 11: 5-11), and further teaches the weight ratio of the essential oil versus acacia gum in the emulsions generated by the above processes is in the range from about 1:0.5 to 1:50, preferably from about 1:0.5 to 1:1 (pg 11: 20-23), overlapping the range recited in claim 16. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05(I). Gehin-Delval teaches the essential oils of oregano, cinnamon, thyme and clove (pg 9: 8-25).
For claims 19 and 27, cinnamon oil meets the limitations of the claim since it comprises mainly (E)-cinnamaldehyde, (E)-β-caryophyllene, α-terpineol, and eugenol.
Regarding claims 20 and 28, Gehin-Delval teaches thyme essential oil (pg 9: 13 and 18). Regarding claims 22 and 29, Gehin-Delval teaches the administration method may be food or beverage products, taken by the Examiner to mean food or beverages consumed by humans (pg 10: 5-12).
For claims 24 and 31, Gehin-Delval teaches a method wherein the emulsion is dosed “in an appropriate way and consistently to said final product” (pg 10: 34 to pg 11: 3). As such, it is within the skill of an ordinary practitioner to determine the effective dosing schedule, including multiple doses, with a reasonable expectation of success.
For claim 25, Gehin-Delval teaches a method of treatment of an animal or human comprising a composition comprising acacia gum, an antimicrobial essential oil, and water (pg 7: 14-18), wherein the one or more essential oils and the emulsifier are present in a ratio of about 1:0.5 to 1:1, within the claimed range.
For claim 32, Gehin-Delval teaches the essential oil can be one or more of oregano (origanum, origan), garlic, ginger, rose, mustard, cinnamon, rosemary, orange, lime, lemongrass, clove, clove leaf, vanilla, vanillin, mint, tea tree, thyme, cilantro, lime, coriander (a.k.a. cilantro), sage, eucalyptus, lavender, anise, basil, eucalyptus, aniseed, camphor, citrus, and sage (pg 9: 10-25).
Regarding the limitation in claims 16 and 25 regarding the limitation “wherein the average particle size of the essential oils in the emulsion is 25 microns or less,” Gehin-Delval teaches the emulsion formed is “an emulsion with a self-assembled structure….where such oil droplets are in a micrometer range and exhibit a nano-sized internal structurisation.” See pg 9: 27 to pg 10: 3. As such, Gehin-Delval teaches oil droplets in the micrometer range, overlapping the claimed particle size range.
2) Claims 18, 23, 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gehin-Delval (cited above), in view of Hoffman-Pennesi (“Antioxidant, Antibacterial, And Antiviral Effects Of Two Essential Oils, Their Components, and Caffeic Acid for use as Feed Additives in Poultry,” Master’s Thesis, University of Delaware 2010).
The teachings of Gehin-Delval are discussed above.
Gehin-Delval does not teach a method of administration of an RNA virus with the claimed composition.
Hoffman-Pennesi teaches the missing element of Gehin-Delval.
Hoffman-Pennesi teaches that essential oils derived from aromatic medicinal plants have been reported to exhibit exceptionally good antimicrobial effects against bacteria, yeasts, filamentous fungi, and viruses (pg 79, Summary).
For claims 18, 23, 26, and 30, Hoffman-Pennesi teaches thyme oil shows a modest inhibition of Newcastle Disease Virus, at concentrations that were not toxic to chicken embryos (paragraph spanning pg 52, second full paragraph to pg 53, first partial paragraph).
The skilled artisan would have expected success in utilizing thyme oil to treat Newcastle Disease Virus, an RNA virus, method of utilizing thyme essential oil because Hoffman-Pennesi teaches that compositions comprising thyme essential oil are useful for reducing the virus titer count in an in vivo poultry assay without harming the chicken embryos.
Examiner’s Reply to Attorney Arguments dated 11/10/2025
1. Rejection of claims 16, 19, 22, 25, 27, and 29 under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Ghosh.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to this rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, set forth in response to the amendment dated 11/10/2025 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
2. 1. Rejection of claims 16, 19, 20, 22, 25, and 27-29 under U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Yorgancioglu.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to this rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, set forth in response to the amendment dated 11/10/2025 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
3. Rejection of claims 24 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ghosh.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to this rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, set forth in response to the amendment dated 11/10/2025 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
4. Rejection of claims 24 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yorgancioglu.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to this rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, set forth in response to the amendment dated 11/10/2025 does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MICHAEL P COHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7402. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 8:30-5:30; F 9-4.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sahana Kaup, can be reached on 571-272-6897. 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.
/MICHAEL P COHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612