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 Pursuant to the preliminary amendment dated 1/17/2024, claims 10-16 are cancelled and claims 1-3, 7 and 17 are amended. No claims are newly added. Claims 1-9 and 17 are pen ding in the instant application and are examined on the merits herein. Priority This application is a National Stage Application of PCT/ KR2022/006445 , filed on 5/4/2022 . The instant application claims foreign priority to KR 10-2021-0068641 filed on 5/27/2021 . Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in the instant application on 11/27/2023 . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement s (IDS) dated 11/27/2023 and 7/24/2024 compl y with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609, except where noted. Accordingly, the I DS documents ha ve been placed in the application file and the information therein has been considered as to the merits. Claim Objection Claims 3-6 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim s 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, without significantly more. Claim s 1 and 2 are directed to naturally occurring compounds extract ed from spinach . The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claimed compounds are known to exist in plants as per the disclosure of Pang et al. (J. Asian Nat. Prod. Res., 2014, IDS) and Guo et al. (Food Funct., Nov 2020, IDS) . With respect to claim 2, the source from which a naturally occurring compound is isolated does not change the inherent structure of the compound and thus does not rise to the level of being a markedly different characteristic. 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1, 2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pang et al. (J. Asian Nat. Prod. Res., 2014, IDS) . Pang et al. discloses compound 2, which is identical to instant compound 3: (p. 241) Pang also discloses that compound 2 was extracted from the seeds of Celosia argentea using ethanol/water, filtered and concentrated to yield an aqueous composition comprising compound 2. (p. 245) T he aqueous composition of Pang meets the limitation of claim 7 as being a pharmaceutical composition. With respect to claim 2 and the limitation that the compound is isolated from spinach, this limitation is not accorded patentable weight. The source from which a compound is isolated does not affect the inherent structure of the compound and thus the source cannot be used to patentably distinguish the instant compounds from those of the prior art. With respect to claims 7-9, it is noted that the combined prior art does not teach that the composition can be used in the manner instantly claimed, for treating of preventing inflammatory disease . However, the cited recitations are considered an “intended use” of the claimed composition. The “intended use” of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such disclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting. Accordingly, the instant claims are anticipated by the prior art. Claim s 1, 2 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guo et al. (Food Funct., Nov 2020, IDS) . Guo et al. discloses compound 3, which is identical to instant compound 3: (Fig. 1) Guo also discloses that compound 3 was extracted from the seeds of Celosia argentea using ethanol/water, filtered and concentrated to yield an aqueous composition comprising compound 2. (Sec 2.3) The aqueous composition of Guo meets the limitation of claim 7 as being a pharmaceutical composition. Gou further discloses that compounds extracted from Celosia argentea are known to have anti-inflammatory effects. (p. 92, Col. 1) With respect to claim 2 and the limitation that the compound is isolated from spinach, this limitation is not accorded patentable weight. The source from which a compound is isolated does not affect the inherent structure of the compound and thus the source cannot be used to patentably distinguish the instant compounds from those of the prior art. With respect to claims 7-9, it is noted that the combined prior art does not teach that the composition can be used in the manner instantly claimed, for treating of preventing inflammatory disease . However, the cited recitations are considered an “intended use” of the claimed composition. The “intended use” of the claimed composition does not patentably distinguish the composition, per se, since such disclosed use is inherent in the reference composition. In order to be limiting, the intended use must create a structural difference between the claimed composition and the prior art composition. In the instant case, the intended use does not create a structural difference, thus the intended use is not limiting. Accordingly, the instant claims are anticipated by the prior art. 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 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 of this title, 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. 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. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (Food Funct., Nov 2020, IDS) . The disclosure of Guo et al. is referenced as discussed above. Guo does not teach a method of treating an inflammatory disease. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the disclosure of Guo to apply the extract of Celosia argentea , comprising compound, to a method of treating an inflammatory disease because Guo teaches that Celosia argentea extracts are known to have anti-inflammatory effects. (p. 92, Col. 1) Accordingly, the instant claims are prima facie obvious over the teachings of the prior art. Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DALE R MILLER whose telephone number is (571) 272-6146. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:00 AM – 3:30 PM EST. 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, Scarlett Goon can be reached on (571) 270-5341 . 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /DALE R MILLER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693