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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-9 in the reply filed on January 09, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 10-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 09, 2026.
Claims 1-9 are examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “obtained” should read “obtain”
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 5 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 4 is indefinite because it is unclear what Fractions A-E represents; the specification does not list or specify the compound(s) within each fraction. In addition, the claim states that the fractions “are used” but does not state what the fractions are “used” for.
Claim 5 is indefinite because it is unclear what Fractions C-E represents the specification does not list or specify the compound(s) within each fraction. In addition, the claim states that the fractions “are used” but does not state what the fractions are “used” for.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chung (KR 20110029893 A – English translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, the Chung reference teaches a method of extracting from onions is performed by subcritical extraction using subcritical water (abstract). Chung teaches preparing onion sample (abstract). Chung teaches extraction temperature ranges at 163-167 oC (abstract). Chung teaches that the extraction method may be carried out for 5 minutes to 30 minutes (page 4). Chung teaches that the subcritical extraction method has a pressure of the subcritical water is more preferably 1300 to 1700 psi (page 4).
Regarding claim 6, the Chung reference teaches extraction temperature ranges at 163-167 oC (abstract).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, the Chung reference teaches that onion varieties are divided into rounded and flat rounded scales, with red, yellow and white scales (page 5). The Chung reference also teaches specifically an orange onion (page 5).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chung (KR 20110029893 A – English translation provided) in view of Yang et al (Food and Chemical Toxicology, (Year: 2012), vol. 50, issue. 6, pp. 2042-2048).
The teachings of Chung in regards to claim 1 are discussed above.
The Chung reference teaches that the extraction time is 10-20 minutes (abstract). Chung teaches [a compound: quercetin within the extract was] measured using HPLC (High Performance Liquid Chromatography method) (page 7). Chung teaches an onion extraction fraction ([which is quercetin from the onion extract]) (figure 3, page 23).
Chung does not explicitly teach HPLC fractionation based on signal intensity (e.g. three fractions – Fraction 1, 2 and 3 as stated within claim 3 of the present invention) and does not teach multiple fractions (e.g. Fraction A-E of the present invention as stated within claims 4-5 of the present invention) from the onion extract.
Yang et al teaches the HPLC profile of onion (A. cepa) extracts (page 2045, figure 2 (A)).
The method of extraction of quercetin from an onion (e.g. A. cepa) as taught by Chung can be modified to include additional information that an onion extract that is subjected to HPLC analysis, as taught by Yang et al, can yield multiple fractions that is indicative of different components from the onion extract. One of ordinary skill in the art would know the analytical chemistry technique - HPLC and the principle behind fraction collection. The combination of references show that it was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present invention to use the method of extraction of an onion and to also conduct HPLC analysis of components present within the extraction.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nashara L Moreau whose telephone number is (571)272-5804. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 AM - 4 PM ET.
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 at (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 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.
NASHARA L MOREAUExaminer, Art Unit 1655
/SUSAN HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655