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. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0001, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0004, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0005, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0008, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0009, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0014, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0017, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0018, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0019, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0025, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0030, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0031, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0032, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0033, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0034, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0035, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0036, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0037, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0051, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0052, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0054, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0056, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0058, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0059, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In paragraph 0061, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim s 1, FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 3 -6, and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 1, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In claim 3, “echinacocide” should read as “echinacoside” In claim 4, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In claim 5, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In claim 6, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) In claim 10, “Cistanche tubulosa” should read as “ Cistanche tubulosa ” (italicized) Appropriate correction is required. 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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Pub. No. US 2016/0000847 A1) further in view of Lin et al (Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology (Year: 2014), vol. 28, issue. 3, pp 173-181), Seen et al (Acta Ophthalmologica (Year: 2018), vol. 96, issue. 4, pp e412-e420) , Dogru et al (Invest Ophthalmology (Year: 2018), vol. 59, issue. 14, pp des163-des168) , and Man-Ru et al ( Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry (Year: 2018), vol. 51, issue. 1, pp 63-79). Regarding claim s 1 , 3, 4 and 10 , Lee teaches a method of using [an] extract of Cistanche tubulosa (abstract) , extract has a good protective effect for eye cells, and can be further developed to drugs or food for preventing eye disease or slowing [down] the progress of eye disease (abstract ). The reference teaches that the extract comprises echinacoside, acteoside, isoacteoside, tubuloside A, or a combination and that these components can decrease the damage of the oxidative stress to the eye cells (paragraph 0034) . In addition, Lee teaches the drugs and food prepared from extract of Cistanche tubulosa may be in any forms, such as capsules, tablets, powder, or liquid (paragraph 0029) . The Lee reference does not explicitly teach relieving dry eye syndrome. Dogru et al teaches oxidative stress damages the ocular surface and plays an important role in the mechanism of dry eye disease (abstract). Lin et al teaches that Dry eye (DE) is a common ocular disease that results in eye discomfort, visual disturbance and substantially affects the quality of life (abstract). Seen et al teaches e nvironmental factors are also often implicated in dry eye including exposure to pollutants, ultraviolet (UV) radiation and ozone (abstract) . Man-Ru et al teaches that i mprovements in technology have resulted in people spending more time using modern digital devices, and consequently, people are exposed to blue light (BL) emissions over long periods (page 64) . Overexposure to short wavelength BL (450–495 nm) results in the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), such as superoxide and hydroxyl radicals, which cause increases in oxygen consumption and induce mitochondrial DNA damage (page 64). The reference teaches that administration of C. tubulosa extract is able to protect against the ocular damage caused by such overexposures (abstract and page 76). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee’s method that uses the Cistanche tubulosa extract to help prevent or slow down the progression of eye disease with the knowledge that oxidative stress is a key mechanism in developing dry eye disease as taught by Dogru et al, and that generally, dry eye is a common ocular (or eye) disease as taught by Lin et al. T his combination of references can be made because Lee’s method treats eyes that are impacted by oxidative stress. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve treating a broad range of ocular diseases – such as dry eyes that has a root of being caused as a result of oxidative stress. Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee’s method of using the Cistanche tubulosa extract to treat eye diseases caused as a result of oxidative stress such as dry eye that could have been triggered by pollutants, as taught by Seen et al. T he combination of references can be made because Lee’s method of creating a protective effect for eye cells is similar to the present invention that discuss relieving dry eye symptoms using the Cistanche tubulosa extract, proving that the prior reference seeks to improve eye problems, just like the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such a combination to treat eyes that experience discomfort, swelling, etc as a result of exposure to household or outside debris or toxins, because one of ordinary skill would determine that the exposure to these materials would result in oxidative stress that would lead to certain ocular diseases. Regarding claim 5, the Lee reference does not specifically teach the administration of the Cistanche tubulosa extract in the dosages claimed by the applicant in claim 5 of the present invention. However, as discussed in MPEP section 2144.05(II)(A), “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).” Thus, an artisan of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the dosage of the administered extract through routine optimization in order to determine the optimal dosage for use in the method of treatment suggested by the combination of the references. It is considered obvious to administer an effective amount of the Cistanche tubulosa extract within a subject to obtain the intended result: reduction or complete amelioration of dry eye. Regarding claims 7-9, tear production increase, improvement of meibomian gland dysfunction, and an increase of tear film break-up time or tear film lipid layer thickness , as stated in the present claims, would occur naturally as a result of a subject in need thereof being administered the Cistanche tubulosa extract as taught by the combination of the references . Claim(s) 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (U.S. Pub. No. US 2016/0000847 A1) in view of Lin et al (Saudi Journal of Ophthalmology (Year: 2014), Seen et al (Acta Ophthalmologica (Year: 2018), vol. 96, issue. 4, pp e412-e420) , Dogru et al (Invest Ophthalmology (Year: 2018), vol. 59, issue. 14, pp des163-des168) , vol. 28, issue. 3, pp 173-181) and Man-Ru et al (Cellular Physiology and Biochemistry (Year: 2018), vol. 51, issue. 1, pp 63-79) , as applied to claim s 1-5 and 7-10 above, and further in view of Lu (CN 106344733 A – English translation provided) . Regarding claim 6, the teachings of Lee, Lin, Seen, Dogru, and Man-Ru are discussed above; however, the references do not teach including the additional ingredients claimed by applicant in claim 6. Lu teaches vitamin E [has] excellent oxidation resistance function, can effectively resist free radical, inhibiting lipid peroxide generation (page 4). The reference teaches that the vitamin E containing composition is also able to moisturize the eye (abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Lee’s method that uses the Cistanche tubulosa extract to help prevent or slow down the progression of eye disease with the knowledge that vitamin E can be administered with the extract due to vitamin E having oxidation resistance functions and eye moisturizing properties , as taught by Lu . Overall, oxidative stress is a key mechanism in developing dry eye disease as taught by Dogru et al, and that generally, dry eye is a common ocular (or eye) disease as taught by Lin et al . This combination of references can be made because Lee’s method combined with Lu’s vitamin E dietary supplement can more profoundly treat eyes that are impacted by oxidative stress . One would have been motivated to make such a combination to achieve treating a broad range of ocular diseases – such as dry eyes through a dietary supplement in conjunction with the Cistanche tubulosa extract to a subject in need thereof. No claims are allowed. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Nashara L Moreau whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5804 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Terry A McKelvey can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0775 . 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 MOREAU Examiner, Art Unit 1655 /SUSAN HOFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655