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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed 8/7/26. Claims 1, 12-13,16 are amended and claim 28 is added. Claims 1-2,4-6,9-10,12-16,18-21, 23-24,27-28 are pending.
The previous 112 second paragraph and 103 rejection of claims 1-2,4-6,9-10,12-16,18-21,23-24 are withdrawn due to the amendment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yanling Wang et al “ Fatty Acid and Phytochemical Compositions of Plantago Seed oils and Their Functionalities in view of applicant’s admission of prior art.
Yanling discloses the potential applications of Plantago seeds to be developed as food additives and functional foods to improve human health. Yanling studies 14 different cultivars of Plantago to analyze fatty acid profiles, tocopherols, carotenoid compositions, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties. Table 2 shows PDW has the amount of omega 3 fatty acid in amount of 29.36%.
Yangling does not disclose the ratio and grinding the seeds to product a flour or meal.
In the background section, applicant discusses the known concept that diet providing high ratio of omega 6 to omega 3 causes health issues such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. Omega 3 is anti-inflammatory and omega 6 is pro-inflammatory. ( see paragraphs 0005-0010)
Knowing the benefits of omega 3 fatty acid versus omega 6 fatty acid, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to test other cultivars to find seeds having high ratio of omega 3 relative to omega 6. The exact ratio selected depends on the nutrition desired and can be determined through routine experimentation to select the most optimum level. Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. "[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) . It would have been obvious to grind the seeds to flour or meal to facilitate its usage in food products as powder material is easier to mix with other ingredients in food production.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2,4-6,9-10,12-16,18-21,24,28 are allowable over prior art. Guil-Guerrero and Yanling et al do not disclose Plantago species having the sequence identity as in claim 1. There is no prior art disclosing the sequence in a sequence search.
Claim 27 remains rejected as set forth above. Claim 27 is an independent claim and does not contain the allowable feature of the sequence identity as in claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/7/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the response, applicant doesn’t argue claim 27. The rejection of the claim is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
October 7, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
