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 without traverse of Group II (claims 6-8) in the reply filed on 02/27/26 is acknowledged.
The restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 2-5 and 9-14 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant’s right to file a Divisional Application directed to non-elected claims 1-5 and 9-14 is acknowledged.
Claims 6-8 are included in the prosecution.
Priority
This Application claims foreign priority to KR 10-2023-0027520 filed on 03/02/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) an English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 03/01/24 and 06/26/25 are acknowledged. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statements. Please see the attached copies of PTO-1449.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claims 6-8, the term “Chrysanthemum” should not be capitalized. Appropriate correction is required.
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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.
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 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.
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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US 2019/0192597 A1 – “Pan”) in view of Antony (US 2012/0107432 A1).
Instant claim 6 is drawn to a method for preparation of the Chrysanthemum extract according to claim 1, comprising: performing extraction of Chrysanthemum raw material with ethanol at 40 to 60 °C for 5 to 7 hours or hot water extraction of the raw material with hot water at 100 to 120 °C for 2 to 3 hours, or immersing the raw material in ethanol followed by supersonic extraction for 2 to 3 weeks to obtain a supernatant; and drying and pulverizing the supernatant.
Pan teaches a method for preparing an extract of Chrysanthemum morifolium comprising performing an extraction procedure on Chrysanthemum morifolium with an extraction solvent to obtain an extract solution ([0022], claim 1, part (a)) wherein the extraction solvent includes water ([0023], claim 24, Example 1 – [0062]) and alcohols ([0023]), the alcohol solvent includes ethanol ([0038]), the extraction temperature is about 70-100°C and the time required for the extraction procedure is about 1-3 hours ([0024], claims 25 -26). The method includes forming a powder by drying an extract solution directly obtained from the extraction procedure ([0022], [0062], [0066], claim 21).
Pan does not expressly teach pulverizing the supernatant.
Antony teaches a method of preparing a powder of an alcoholic extract of fruits including the steps of pulverizing the dried alcohol supernatant to obtain a pulverized alcohol supernatant; and sieving the pulverized alcohol supernatant to obtain the powder of the alcoholic extract of the fruits (claim 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method for preparing an extract of Chrysanthemum morifolium comprising performing an extraction procedure on Chrysanthemum morifolium with an extraction solvent to obtain an extract solution, wherein the extraction solvent includes water and alcohols, the alcohol solvent includes ethanol, the extraction temperature is about 70-100°C, the time required for the extraction procedure is about 1-3 hours, and the extract solution is dried, as taught by Pan, in view of the steps of pulverizing the dried alcohol supernatant to obtain a pulverized alcohol supernatant and sieving the pulverized alcohol supernatant to obtain a powder of the alcoholic extract, as taught by Antony, and arrive at the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because both the references teach methods of preparing botanical extracts and it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. Please see MPEP 2141(III)(A). Furthermore, use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way is obvious according to MPEP 2141(III)(C).
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding instant claim 6, the limitation of performing extraction of Chrysanthemum raw material with ethanol at 40 to 60 °C for 5 to 7 hours or hot water extraction of the raw material with hot water at 100 to 120 °C for 2 to 3 hours, or immersing the raw material in ethanol followed by supersonic extraction for 2 to 3 weeks to obtain a supernatant would have been obvious over the method for preparing an extract of Chrysanthemum morifolium comprising performing an extraction procedure on Chrysanthemum morifolium with an extraction solvent to obtain an extract solution ([0022], claim 1, part (a)) wherein the extraction solvent includes water and alcohols ([0023], claim 24), the alcohol solvent includes ethanol ([0038]), the extraction temperature is about 70-100°C and the time required for the extraction procedure is about 1-3 hours ([0024], claims 25 -26), as taught by Pan.
Regarding instant claim 6, the limitation of drying and pulverizing the supernatant would have been obvious over the step of drying an extract solution directly obtained from the extraction procedure ([0022], [0062], [0066], claim 21), as taught by Pan, and the step of pulverizing the dried alcohol supernatant to obtain a pulverized alcohol supernatant (claim 6), as taught by Antony.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US 2019/0192597 A1 – “Pan”) in view of Antony (US 2012/0107432 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Lim ((2014) Chrysanthemum morifolium. In: Edible Medicinal and Non-Medicinal Plants: Volume 7, Flowers, Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7395-0_17, pp. 250-269).
Instant claim 7 is drawn to the method according to claim 6, wherein the Chrysanthemum raw material comprises 9.7 to 14.5 mg/g of linarin, 1.3 to 2.5 mg/g of chlorogenic acid, and 1.7 to 3.1 mg/g of isochlorogenic acid A.
The teachings of Pan and Antony are discussed above.
Pan and Antony do not expressly teach that the Chrysanthemum raw material comprises 9.7 to 14.5 mg/g of linarin, 1.3 to 2.5 mg/g of chlorogenic acid, and 1.7 to 3.1 mg/g of isochlorogenic acid A.
Lim teaches that linarin is one of the compounds identified in the C. morifolium flowers (Page 254, ¶ bridging Col. 1 and Col. 2), along with the flavonoid chlorogenic acid (Page 254, Col. 2, 1st ¶). The content of chlorogenic acid found in the flowers were 0.060-0.467% (Page 252, Col. 2, 1st ¶). Chlorogenic acid and isochlorogenic acid were detected in C. morifolium flower head (Page 255, Col. 1, 2nd ¶).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method for preparing an extract of Chrysanthemum morifolium comprising performing an extraction procedure on Chrysanthemum morifolium with an extraction solvent to obtain an extract solution, wherein the extraction solvent includes water and alcohols, the alcohol solvent includes ethanol, the extraction temperature is about 70-100°C, the time required for the extraction procedure is about 1-3 hours, and the extract solution is dried, as taught by Pan, in view of the steps of pulverizing the dried alcohol supernatant to obtain a pulverized alcohol supernatant and sieving the pulverized alcohol supernatant to obtain a powder of the alcoholic extract, as taught by Antony, further in view of the contents of Chrysanthemum morifolium flowers which include linarin, chlorogenic acid, and isochlorogenic acid, as taught by Lim, and arrive at the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found the recited concentrations of 9.7 to 14.5 mg/g of linarin, 1.3 to 2.5 mg/g of chlorogenic acid, and 1.7 to 3.1 mg/g of isochlorogenic acid A obvious over the compounds identified in the C. morifolium including linarin (Page 254, ¶ bridging Col. 1 and Col. 2), and the flavonoids chlorogenic acid (Page 254, Col. 2, 1st ¶) and isochlorogenic acid (Page 255, Col. 1, 2nd ¶) as taught by Lim since these compounds are naturally found in C. morifolium flowers. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use the extraction process of Pan and modify it to obtain the desired concentrations of compounds in C. morifolium flowers. The recited concentrations would have been obvious variants unless there is evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Regarding instant claim 7, the limitations of the Chrysanthemum raw material comprising 9.7 to 14.5 mg/g of linarin, 1.3 to 2.5 mg/g of chlorogenic acid, and 1.7 to 3.1 mg/g of isochlorogenic acid A would have been obvious over the linarin which is one of the compounds identified in the C. morifolium flowers (Page 254, ¶ bridging Col. 1 and Col. 2), along with the flavonoid chlorogenic acid (Page 254, Col. 2, 1st ¶), the content of chlorogenic acid found in the flowers of 0.060-0.467% (Page 252, Col. 2, 1st ¶), and the chlorogenic acid and isochlorogenic acid which were detected in C. morifolium flower head (Page 255, Col. 1, 2nd ¶), as taught by Lim, unless there is evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pan et al. (US 2019/0192597 A1 – “Pan”) in view of Antony (US 2012/0107432 A1), as applied to claim 6 above, further in view of Sakai et al. (US 2004/0161524 A1 – “Sakai”) as evidenced by USP 35 (USP 35 - The United States Pharmacopeial Convention – May 1, 2012, pp. 336-339 – “USP”).
Instant claim 8 is drawn to the method according to claim 6, further comprising passing the dried Chrysanthemum extract through a hole having a size of 70 to 90 meshes.
USP teaches that 70 mesh is converted to 212 µm, 80 mesh is converted to 180 µm, and 100 mesh is converted to 150 µm (Table 1 – 2nd and 3rd pages).
The teachings of Pan and Antony are discussed above.
Pan does not expressly teach passing the dried Chrysanthemum extract through a hole having a size of 70 to 90 meshes (or about 145 µm to 212 µm).
Antony teaches sieving the sterilized powder through a 30 mesh sieve (claim 10), but does not teach passing the dried Chrysanthemum extract through a hole having a size of 70 to 90 meshes (or about 145 µm to 212 µm).
Sakai teaches a process for producing a plant extract containing powder (Title and Abstract), wherein the plant includes C. morifolium ([0056]), and the plant powder is in the form of particles in an overlapping range of 0.1 µm to 1 mm (or 1000 µm) in average particle size in dry state (claims 23 and 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method for preparing an extract of Chrysanthemum morifolium comprising performing an extraction procedure on Chrysanthemum morifolium with an extraction solvent to obtain an extract solution, wherein the extraction solvent includes water and alcohols, the alcohol solvent includes ethanol, the extraction temperature is about 70-100°C, the time required for the extraction procedure is about 1-3 hours, and the extract solution is dried, as taught by Pan, in view of the steps of pulverizing the dried alcohol supernatant to obtain a pulverized alcohol supernatant, sieving the pulverized alcohol supernatant to obtain a powder of the alcoholic extract, and sieving the sterilized powder through a 30 mesh sieve, as taught by Antony, further in view of the process for producing a plant extract containing powder, wherein the plant includes C. morifolium, and the plant powder is in the form of particles in an overlapping range of 0.1 µm to 1 mm (or 1000 µm) in average particle size in dry state, as taught by Sakai, as evidenced by the conversion of 70 mesh to 212 µm, 80 mesh to 180 µm, and 100 mesh to 150 µm (Table 1 – 2nd and 3rd pages), as taught by USP, and arrive at the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so because the range of particle sizes taught by Sakai, i.e., 0.1 µm to 1 mm (or 1000 µm) (claims 23 and 33), overlap the recited range of 70 to 90 meshes (or about 145 µm to 212 µm) as evidenced by USP (Table 1). According to MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
Regarding instant claim 8, the limitation of passing the dried Chrysanthemum extract through a hole having a size of 70 to 90 meshes (or about 145 µm to 212 µm) would have been obvious over sieving the sterilized powder through a 30 mesh sieve (claim 10), as taught by Antony in view of the process for producing a plant extract containing powder (Title and Abstract), wherein the plant includes C. morifolium ([0056]), and the plant powder is in the form of particles in an overlapping range of 0.1 µm to 1 mm (or 1000 µm) in average particle size in dry state (claims 23 and 33), as taught by Sakai, and as evidenced by the conversion of 70 mesh to 212 µm, 80 mesh to 180 µm, and 100 mesh to 150 µm (Table 1 – 2nd and 3rd pages), by USP.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARADHANA SASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 6:30 am to 3:00 pm.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached on 571-272-6023. 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.
/ARADHANA SASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights