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 This application claims priority to foreign application JP2022-179879, filed November 9, 2022 . Claims 1-12 are pending in this application and examined on the merits herein. Priority This application claims priority to foreign patent application JP2022-179879 . While a copy of the foreign priority document is of record, the document is published in Japanese and no certified English translation has been provided. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims are written as two separate sentences . All claims must consist of a single sentence . Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 2 and 10 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 . These claims depend from claims 1 and 9 which refer to a method . However, they include the limit “comprising extract of eucalyptus plant,” which appears to be more appropriate to a claim directed to a composition of matter than to a process, thereby creating ambiguity as to the intended scope of claims 2 and 10. Claims 5, 8, 11, and 12 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 . These claims are directed to a method wherein a therapeutic composition is taken in the form of a daily unit package . It is unclear what this term “daily unit package” is intended to refer to, and what further limitations it imposes on the claims . In particular it is unclear whether this is intended as a requirement that the process include only once-daily administration, and additionally what limits “unit package” is intended to impose on the structural characteristic of the unit dosage form. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 -12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sugimoto et al . (US pre-grant publication 2014/0128585, cited in PTO-892) Independent claim 1 claims a process for inhibiting body fat accumulation, comprising taking more than a specific amount of the compound oenothein B per day . Independent claim 9 claims a similar method wherein the effect is defined as inhibiting body weight gain. Sugimoto et al. discloses a fructose absorption inhibitor comprising a hydrolysable tannin . These compounds can be used in order to prevent, treat, or improve obesity, which is reasonably considered to result in inhibiting body fat accumulation or weight gain. (p. 2 paragraph 36) Oenothein B is disclosed as one of the hydrolysable tannins that can be used in the disclosed methods. (p. 4 paragraph 49, compound (6)) Still further the preferred amount of active ingredient used in the disclosed method is 50-100 per unit dose, which is greater than 3.38 mg per day. (p. 5 paragraph 62) Therefore Sugimoto et al. anticipates present claims 1 and 9. Regarding claims 2 and 10, Sugimoto discloses that the hydrolysable tannin containing composition can be an extract of a commonly used plant such a eucalyptus. (p. 4 paragraph 52 ) regarding claims 3 , 4, 6, and 7 , p. 6 paragraph 70 describes the disclosed compositions as preventative agents for both fatty liver and accumulation of visceral fat. Regarding claims 5, 8, 11, and 12, a “daily unit package” is interpreted as simply requiring that the composition be administered as some sort of discrete unit dosage form . This is met by p. 5 paragraph 67 which describes the hydrolysable tannin as being administered as a pharmaceutical preparation such as tablets, capsules, or pills. For these reasons Sugimoto et al. anticipates the present claims. 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. Claims 5, 8, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sugimoto et al. as applied to claim s 1-12 above, and further in view of Corder . (US pre-grant publication 2017/0216245, cited in PTO-892) The disclosure o f S ugimoto is discussed above . While as discussed under 35 USC 102, claims 5, 8, 11, and 12 are interpreted in such a way as to be anticipated by Sugimoto, even assuming for the sake of argument that these claims are interpreted in such a way as to specifically require that the method involve only once daily administration of the unit dosage form, these claims would still be obvious over Sugimoto further in view of Corder. Specifically, Corder describes pharmaceutical compositions comprising a proanthocyanin and an ellagitannin. (p. 2 paragraph 14) Ellagitannins include Oenothein B. (p. 4 paragraphs 62-63) These compositions are suitable for administration 1, 2, 3, or 4 times per day. (p. 7 paragraph 126) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to administer the therapy described by Sugimoto et al. at a frequency of once per day . One of ordinary skill in the art would have found this to be obvious in view of Corder’s disclosure that a pharmaceutical composition comprising the same compound oenothein B is suitable for once daily dosing. Therefore the invention taken as a whole is prima facie obvious. Conclusion No claims are allowed in this action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ANDREA OLSON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9051 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 6am-3:00pm . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Scarlett Y Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5241 . 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. /ANDREA OLSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693 3/12/2026