DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Response and Amendment after Non-Final Office Action filed 01/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has overcome the following rejections by virtue of the amendment or cancellation of the claims: (1) the objection to claim 32 has been withdrawn; (2) the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 32 over Zemel as evidenced by Martins has been withdrawn; and (3) the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of claim 34 over Zemel as evidenced by Haus has been withdrawn.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 2-5, 7-31, 33, 35-36, 38, 40-42
Withdrawn claims: None
Previously cancelled claims: 1, 6, 37, 39
Newly cancelled claims: 32, 34
Amended claims: 3-5, 7-12, 15, 18-19, 29-31, 33, 35, 40-41
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 2-5, 7-31, 33, 35-36, 38, 40-42
Currently rejected claims: 2-5, 7-31, 33, 35-36, 38, 40-42
Allowed claims: None
Priority
The Examiner notes that due to the amendment of claims 40, 41, and 42 to include amounts of ingredients that were not disclosed in the provisional application filed 04/18/2023 (e.g., panax ginseng extract in a daily dose of 0.5- 2 g), the present application no longer has the effective filing date of 04/18/2023. The present claims have the effective filing date of 04/10/2024, which is the date when the present application was filed.
Claim Objections
Claims 36 and 40 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 36, “The composition of claim 1” should be read as “The composition of claim 41”.
In claim 40, “range4-20 g” should be read as “range of 4-20 g”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2, 4, 12-14, 16-17, 21-27, 29-31, and 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a product of nature without significantly more. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2, 4, 12-14, 16-17, 21-27, 29-31, and 41 are directed to a composition comprising a nature-based product (i.e., a composition containing probiotics, resveratrol, or epigallocatechin). Claim 42 is also directed to a composition comprising a nature-based product (i.e., a composition containing chlorogenic acid and quercetin such as matcha tea leaves). These compositions are not markedly different from their closest naturally-occurring counterparts because there is no indication that the preparation has caused the nature-based products to have any characteristics that are markedly different from the closest naturally-occurring products and the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Ingredients recited in the claims are natural products that would occur naturally; thus, the claims fall within judicial exceptions. There is no indication in the record of any markedly different characteristics (either structural or functional) of the composition as broadly claimed. For example, there is no evidence of record of a structural difference between the probiotics, resveratrol, or epigallocatechin in the claimed composition and that of its nature-based counterparts. Also, there is no evidence of record of a structural difference between the chlorogenic acid and quercetin in the claimed composition and that of its nature-based counterparts. Consequently, the claimed compositions are structurally the same as their closest naturally-occurring counterparts.
Nor is there any difference in functional characteristics. To show a marked difference, the characteristic(s) must be changed as compared to its closest naturally-occurring counterpart. For example, an assertion of changed functionality must be accompanied with evidence of a comparison of the claimed composition with its closest naturally-occurring counterpart and should apply to the full scope of the claim. Furthermore, inherent or innate characteristics of the naturally-occurring counterpart cannot show a marked difference. Likewise, differences in the characteristics that came about or were produced independently of any effort or influence by Applicant cannot show a marked difference.
Thus, there is no evidence of record to indicate that the claimed products are markedly different, structurally, chemically, functionally, than their closest naturally-occurring counterparts and are not eligible subject matter under current 35 U.S.C. 101 standards.
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.
Claims 2-5, 7-36, 38, and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 40 recites a curcuminoid extract as a DPP-4 inhibitor in a daily dose of 150-2 g. It is unclear as to what unit of measurement is being used with the “150” value as neither the claims nor present specification disclose a value containing “150” associated with the curcuminoid extract. Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the “150” will be interpreted as being a typo for “750 mg” as recited in Table 1 of the present specification.
Claim 40 recites that the composition contains berberine as an endogenous GLP-1 releasing agent in a daily dose of 1-5 g and berberine as a DPP-4 inhibitor in a daily dose of 1-5 g. Claim 40 also recites that the composition contains probiotics as an endogenous GLP-1 releasing agent in a daily dose of 10-20 billion CFU and probiotics as a DPP-4 inhibitor in a daily dose of 10-20 billion CFU. Claim 40 also recites that the composition contains curcuminoid extract as an endogenous GLP-1 releasing agent in a daily dose of 0.75-2 g and curcuminoid extract as a DPP-4 inhibitor in a daily dose of 750 mg-2 g. Claim 40 also recites that the composition contains bitter melon extract as an endogenous GLP-1 releasing agent in a daily dose of 1-5 g and bitter melon extract as a DPP-4 inhibitor in a daily dose of 1-5 g. Claim 40 also recites that the composition contains resveratrol as an endogenous GLP-1 releasing agent in a daily dose of 100-500 mg and bitter melon extract as a DPP-4 inhibitor in a daily dose of 50-500 mg. Claim 40 also recites that the composition contains epigallocatechin as an endogenous GLP-1 releasing agent in a daily dose of 200-1000 mg and epigallocatechin as a DPP-4 inhibitor in a daily dose of 200-1000 mg. It is unclear as to whether: (A) the method requires the administration of the ingredients in both the amount of GLP-1 releasing agent and the amount of DPP-4 inhibitor (e.g., berberine in a daily dose of 2-10 g); or (B) the method requires the administration of the ingredients in an amount which falls within a range which overlaps the ranges recited for both the GLP-1 releasing agent and the DPP-4 inhibitor (e.g., berberine in a daily dose of 3 g). Therefore, the claim is indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the claim will be interpreted according to option (B) described above.
Regarding claims 40, 41, and 42, the phrases written in parentheses (i.e., green decaffeinated coffee, green tea extract, rebaudioside A) render the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
For the purpose of this examination, the phrases written in parentheses will not be considered as part of the claim.
Claims 29, 30, 41, and 42 recite a daily dose for the listed ingredients. However, it is unclear as to whether the “daily dose” amount is the amount of ingredient in the composition; or if the phrase “daily dose” is the amount of the ingredient that a consumer is administered each day. Therefore, the claims are indefinite.
For the purpose of this examination, the claims will be interpreted as meaning that the composition comprises the recited ingredient in any amount greater than 0 mg.
Claims 2-5, 7-28, 31-36, and 38 are rejected by reason of dependency from claim 41.
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.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-17, 20-22, 26-31, 36, 38, and 40-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zemel (US 2018/0105498; previously cited).
Regarding claim 41, Zemel teaches a composition for oral administration (corresponding to dietary supplement or a food stuff) [0495] for weight loss and glucose management (corresponding to reducing and treating obesity and diabetes) [0007] in humans and animals [0184]. Zemel teaches that the composition comprises resveratrol [0471] and thus, teaches that the dosage form comprises a composition consisting of a GLP-1 releasing agent and a DPP-4 inhibitor as presently claimed. Due to the inclusion of the claimed GLP-1 releasing agent and the claimed DPP-4 inhibitor, the composition of Zemel enhances endogenous secretion of GLP-1 and inhibits DPP-4 activity to assist in weight loss and glycemic control without significant undesirable side effects as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Zemel teaches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition further comprises a compound to improve insulin resistance (corresponding to a supplement that has beneficial effects on insulin sensitivity) [0422].
Regarding claim 3, Zemel teaches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition is in a powder form [0503] and is combined with a solubilizer [0517]. Therefore, the composition is configured to be dissolved in water or another liquid prior to oral administration. It is noted that the phrase “configured to be formulated for dissolution in water or another liquid before oral administration” in claim 3 does not actually require the composition to be dissolved in water or another liquid.
Regarding claim 4, Zemel taches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition is for oral administration in a form of a powder, granule, tablet, capsule, liquid, gel [0503], or a food item [0495].
Regarding claim 5, Zemel taches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition is an emulsion [0503].
Regarding claim 7, Zemel taches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition is a liquid, fluid, solution, or emulsion [0503].
Regarding claim 8, Zemel taches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition is a gel [0503].
Regarding claim 9, Zemel taches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition is a nano-dimensional structure (corresponding to nanoparticle), nanoparticle, liposome, or micelle [0554].
Regarding claim 10, Zemel taches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition is in the form of a powder for oral administration [0503] and contains protein (corresponding to gelatin) [0518]. Therefore, the composition is a protein powder blend for oral administration as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Zemel taches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition is administered in food form [0495].
Regarding claim 13, Zemel taches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition is a food additive (corresponding to the composition being combined with other substances for oral administration) [0503].
Regarding claim 14, Zemel teaches a composition as described above in claim 41, including the composition is a medicinal food (corresponding to pharmaceutical composition) [0075].
Regarding claim 15, Zemel taches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition is a powder for oral administration [0503].
Regarding claim 16, Zemel teaches a composition as described above in claim 41, including the composition comprises the claimed GLP-1 releasing agent and is administered to humans [0426], [0471]. Therefore, the composition is configured to enhance endogenous GLP-1 secretion in humans as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Zemel teaches a composition as described above in claim 41, including the composition comprises the claimed GLP-1 releasing agent and the claimed DPP-4 inhibitor [0426], [0471]. Therefore, the composition is configured to increase plasma GLP-1 levels as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 20, Zemel teaches a composition as described above in claim 41, including the composition reduces body weight [0487].
Regarding claim 21, Zemel teaches a composition as described above in claim 41, including the composition decreases body fat content [0283].
Regarding claim 22, Zemel teaches a composition as described above in claim 41, including the composition reduces body weight [0487] within four weeks of use [0292].
Regarding claim 26, Zemel teaches a composition as described above in claim 41, including the composition lowers the body mass index (BMI) (corresponding to treating hyperlipidemia) [0007], [0274].
Regarding claim 27, Zemel teaches a composition as described above in claim 2, including the composition reduces blood glucose levels [0272].
Regarding claims 28 and 29, Zemel teaches a composition as described above in claim 41, including the composition further comprises chlorogenic acid [0356], [0361]. Present claim 29 recites that chlorogenic acid is an agonist of glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP); therefore, Zemel teaches that the composition comprises a natural GIP agonist as recited in present claims 28 and 29.
Regarding claims 30 and 31, Zemel teaches a composition as described above in claim 41, including the composition may further comprise chlorogenic acid, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), caffeine, cocoa bean extracts (corresponding to cocoa and chocolate), and berberine [0347], [0356], [0361], [0363]. The disclosed compounds are members of the group recited in present claim 30 and are thus considered to be thermogenesis activator compounds which enhance thermogenesis in brown adipose tissue (BAT) or white adipose tissue (WAT) as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 36, Zemel teaches a composition as described above in claim 41, including the composition contains the claimed GLP-1 releasing agent [0422], [0471]; therefore, it prevents weight regain after discontinuing another medication containing GLP-1 receptor releasing agent.
Regarding claim 38, Zemel teaches a composition as described above in claim 41, including the composition reduces weight (corresponding to increasing weight loss) [0272] in dogs, cats, and animals [0184].
Regarding claim 40, Zemel teaches a method for weight loss and glucose management (corresponding to reducing and treating obesity and diabetes) [0007] in humans and animals [0184], the method consisting of: formulating a dosage form for oral administration in the form of a food product or nutritional supplement (corresponding to dietary supplement or a food stuff) [0495]. Zemel teaches that the dosage form contains resveratrol [0471] and thus, teaches that the dosage form comprises a composition consisting of a GLP-1 releasing agent and a DPP-4 inhibitor as presently claimed. Zemel teaches that the resveratrol is administered in daily doses of about 100 mg, 125 mg, 150 mg, 175, mg, 200 mg, 250 mg, 300 mg, 350 mg, or 400 mg [0471], which falls within the claimed concentration ranges.
Regarding claim 42, Zemel teaches a composition for oral administration (corresponding to dietary supplement or a food stuff) [0495] for weight loss and glucose management (corresponding to reducing and treating obesity and diabetes) [0007] in humans and animals [0184]. Zemel teaches that the composition comprises resveratrol [0471] and thus, teaches that the composition comprises a GLP-1 releasing agent and a DPP-4 inhibitor as presently claimed. Zemel teaches that the composition may further comprise chlorogenic acid [0356], [0361] and thus teaches that the composition further comprises a GIP releasing agent as presently claimed. Due to the inclusion of the claimed GLP-1 releasing agent, the claimed GIP releasing agent, and the claimed DPP-4 inhibitor, the composition of Zemel enhances endogenous secretion of GLP-1 and inhibits DPP-4 activity to assist in weight loss and glycemic control without significant undesirable side effects as presently claimed.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zemel (US 2018/0105498; previously cited) as applied to claim 41 above, as evidenced by Cervoni (Cervoni, B., “How You Can Incorporate Alfalfa Into Your Diet”, 2024, Very Well Health, https://www.verywellhealth.com/health-benefits-of-alfalfa-4584280?print; previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Zemel teaches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition comprises alfalfa [0423]. Alfalfa contains fiber as evidenced by Cervoni (page 1, first paragraph under “May Control Blood Sugar”). Therefore, Zemel teaches that the composition is a fiber blend as presently claimed.
Claims 18-19 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zemel (US 2018/0105498; previously cited) as applied to claim 41 above, as evidenced by New (“Why Do I Need Probiotics on GLP-1 Medication?”, 2024, New You, https://newyoulongview.com/blog/f/why-do-i-need-probiotics-on-glp-1-medication; previously cited).
Regarding claim 18, Zemel teaches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition comprises probiotics [0423]. Probiotics prevent adverse gastrointestinal effects associated with the use of GLP-1 releasing agents as evidenced by New (page 3, 1st paragraph). Therefore, the composition of Zemel is formulated to prevent adverse gastrointestinal effects associated with the use of GLP-1 releasing agents as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Zemel teaches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition comprises probiotics [0423]. Probiotics prevent nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea associated with the use of GLP-1 releasing agents as evidenced by New (page 3, 1st paragraph). Therefore, the composition of Zemel is formulated to prevent nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea associated with the use of GLP-1 releasing agents as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 23, Zemel teaches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition comprises the claimed GLP-1 releasing agent [0471]. The activation of GLP-1 receptors by the GLP-1 releasing agents reduces hunger and increases the feeling of satiety as evidenced by New (page 2, bullet points under paragraph beginning “GLP-1 medications work by mimicking”). Therefore, the composition of Zemel is configured to reduce hunger and increase the feeling of satiety as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 24, Zemel teaches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition comprises the claimed GLP-1 releasing agent [0471]. The activation of GLP-1 receptors by the GLP-1 releasing agents enhances the feeling of satiety as evidenced by New (page 2, bullet points under paragraph beginning “GLP-1 medications work by mimicking”). Therefore, the composition of Zemel is configured to enhances the feeling of satiety as presently claimed.
Regarding claim 25, Zemel teaches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition comprises the claimed GLP-1 releasing agents [0422], [0423], [0453], [0363]. The activation of GLP-1 receptors by the GLP-1 releasing agents delay gastric emptying as evidenced by New (page 2, bullet points under paragraph beginning “GLP-1 medications work by mimicking”). Therefore, the composition of Zemel is configured to delay gastric emptying as presently claimed.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zemel (US 2018/0105498; previously cited) as applied to claim 41 above, as evidenced by Martins (Martins et al., “Hypothalamic anorexigenic signaling pathways (leptin, amylin, and proopiomelanocortin) are semaglutide (GLP-1 analog) targets in obesity control in mice”, 2023, Life Sciences, 313, 121268; previously cited).
Regarding claim 33, Zemel teaches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition comprises semaglutide [0117]. Semaglutide improves leptin sensitivity as evidenced by Martins (page 3, column 2, third paragraph under “4. Discussion”). Therefore, Zemel teaches a composition comprising a compound that decreases leptin resistance as presently claimed.
Claims 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zemel (US 2018/0105498; previously cited) as applied to claim 41 above, as evidenced by Haus (“Semaglutide Weight Loss: Everything You Need to Know”, 2022, Haus of Aesthetics, https://hausofaestheticsslc.com/semaglutide-weight-loss-treatment/#:~:text=Semaglutide%20is%20a%20peptide%20that,less%20hungry%20throughout%20the%20day.; previously cited).
Regarding claim 35, Zemel teaches the invention as described above in claim 41, including the composition comprises semaglutide [0117]. Semaglutide suppresses ghrelin levels as evidenced by Haus (page 2, paragraph under “How Does Semaglutide Work?”). Therefore, Zemel teaches that the composition further comprises a compound that suppresses ghrelin levels.
Response to Arguments
Claim Warning: Applicant canceled claims 33 and 35 to fully address the warnings; therefore, the warnings are withdrawn.
Claim Objections: Applicant amended clams 29, 31, and 35 to fully address the objections. Applicant canceled claim 32. Therefore, the objections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. §101 of claims 12-14, 16-17, 23-25, 29-31, 41, and 42: Applicant amended independent claims 41 and 42 to recite daily dosages for the recited ingredients. Applicant then argued that no naturally-occurring material provides the claimed daily dosages of ingredients and that without the claimed daily dosage of ingredients, the compositions will not provide the intended functions (Applicant’s Remarks, page 17, 1st paragraph under “Claim Rejection under 35 USC § 101” – page 20, 3rd paragraph).
However, the Examiner points out that claims 41 and 42 are directed to products, not methods. Therefore, the recitations of a “daily dose” of each ingredient are not considered to be part of the claim as described in the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejections above. Therefore, the products of claims 41 and 42 (and the dependent claims identified in the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejections) are considered to merely require any amount of the recited ingredient greater than 0 mg. As such, claims 41 and 42 (and the identified dependent claims) remain rejected for being nature-based products.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) of claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-17, 20-22, 26-31, 36, 38, and 40-42 over Zemel: Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been fully considered and are not considered to overcome the cited prior art.
Applicant canceled claims 32 and 34. Applicant argued that Zemel does not teach using a GLP-1 releasing agent and a DPP-4 inhibitor alone and at the dose ranges now recited by the present claims. Applicant argued that although some of the claimed GLP-1 releasing agents and DPP-4 inhibitors are noted as possibly being herbs and/or supplements in [0423] of Zemel, Zemel does not mention a specific dose of such herbs and/or supplements and does not mention that such ingredients can be substituted as GLP-1 releasing agents or DPP-4 inhibitors. Applicant argued that the laundry list in [0423] of Zemel teaches very little and that Zemel at most might suggest to a skilled practitioner to try the claimed natural forms of GLP-1 releasing agent and DPP-4 inhibitor, but Zemel does not anticipate the claimed invention (Applicant’s Remarks, page 20, 1st paragraph under “Claim Rejection under 35 USC § 102” – page 22, 1st paragraph).
However, the Examiner points out that the present claims do not exclude any ingredient from the composition as the claims use an open-ended transitional term (i.e., claim 40 recites “wherein the dosage form comprises a composition”; claim 41 recites “the composition comprising”; claim 42 recites “the composition comprising”). Therefore, the claims do not require a GLP-1 releasing agent and a DPP-4 inhibitor alone. Furthermore, Zemel discloses a composition comprising resveratrol [0471] and thus, teaches that the composition comprises a GLP-1 releasing agent and a DPP-4 inhibitor as recited in present claims 40, 41, and 42.
In regard to Applicant’s assertion that Zemel does not mention that its herb and/or supplements can be substituted as GLP-1 releasing agents or DPP-4 inhibitors, since Zemel teaches the same resveratrol as claimed and instantly disclosed, the resveratrol of Zemel would have the claimed GLP-1 releasing ability and the claimed DPP-4 inhibiting ability as presently claimed. Regarding product claims, when the ingredient recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties are presumed to be present in the ingredient of the prior art. “The discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art' s function, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F .3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943. 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function, or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). MPEP §2112.I.
In regard to Applicant’s assertion that Zemel does not mention a specific dose of each of the herbs and/or supplements, per the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection stated above, it is unclear as to whether the “daily dose” amount recited in present claims 41 and 42 is the amount of ingredient in the composition; or if the phrase “daily dose” is the amount of the ingredient that a consumer is administered each day as these claims are product claims, not method claims. As such, these claims are indefinite and are being interpreted as meaning that the composition comprises the recited ingredient in any amount greater than 0 mg. Regarding the specific daily dose recited in present claim 40, Zemel teaches that the dosage form contains resveratrol and that the resveratrol is administered in daily doses of about 100 mg, 125 mg, 150 mg, 175, mg, 200 mg, 250 mg, 300 mg, 350 mg, or 400 mg [0471], which fall within the claimed concentration ranges.
Applicant then argued that Zemel does not mention GIP releasing agents at all and thus cannot anticipate claim 42 which further requires a GIP releasing agent in the composition. Applicant stated that claims 2-5, 7-7, and 39 are patentable by reason of dependency from claim 41 (Applicant’s Remarks, page 22, 2nd-4th paragraphs).
However, Zemel teaches that the composition may further comprise chlorogenic acid [0356], [0361] and thus teaches that the composition further comprises a GIP releasing agent as recited in present claim 42. Since Zemel teaches the same chlorogenic acid as claimed and instantly disclosed, the chlorogenic acid of Zemel would have the claimed GIP agonist ability as presently claimed. MPEP §2112.I.
Since Zemel has been shown to anticipate the claims and Applicant’s arguments have been shown to be unpersuasive, the rejections of the claims stand as written herein. The rejections of claims 32 and 34 are withdrawn due to the cancellation of these claims.
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 Kelly Kershaw whose telephone number is (571)272-2847. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 am - 4:00 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, Nikki Dees can be reached at (571) 270-3435. 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.
/KELLY P KERSHAW/Examiner, Art Unit 1791