DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The amendment filed June 18, 2026 has been received and entered.
3. Claims 1-13 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
4. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claim 4 with claims 1-3 and 10-12 as linking claims, and mullein leaf for the species in the reply filed on June 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
5. Claims 5-9 and 13 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
6. Claims 1-4 and 10-12 are examined on the merits solely in regards to the elected species.
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.
7. Claims 1-3 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to natural products without significantly more.
MPEP § 2106 sets forth the Subject Matter Eligibility Test to determine if a claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter. Step 1 asks if a claim is directed to a statutory category of invention. Applicant’s claims are directed to a product; thus, the answer to Step 1 is Yes.
The analysis then moves to Step 2A, Prong One, which asks if a claim recites to a product of nature. In this case, applicant’s claims recite a combination of cannabigerol, xylitol, and mullein leaf. Cannabigerol and xylitol are naturally occurring compounds and mullein is a naturally occurring plant. Thus, the claims do recite products of nature. MPEP § 2106.04(b) states that “When a claim recites a nature-based product limitation, examiners should use the markedly different characteristics analysis discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(c) to evaluate the nature-based product limitation and determine the answer to Step 2A.”
MPEP § 2106.04(c)(I) states that “if the nature-based product limitation is not naturally occurring, for example due to some human intervention, then the markedly different characteristics analysis must be performed to determine whether the claimed product limitation is a product of nature exception…”. To perform the markedly different characteristic analysis, MPEP § 2106.04(c)(II) states “The markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. Markedly different characteristics can be expressed as the product’s structure, function, and/or other properties…”.
In this case, there is no indication that mixing the specified ingredients together as commensurate in scope with the stated claims changes the structure, function, or other properties of the ingredients in any marked way in comparison with the closest naturally occurring counterpart. The closest naturally occurring counterpart for each ingredient in the composition is the ingredient itself because each is naturally occurring. Each ingredient in the composition appears to maintain its naturally occurring structure and properties and is merely present in the combination. The claims specify that the composition is formulated as powder, rinse, or spray. These forms and not considered to create a structural distinction because powders can be formed by mixing dry ingredients and rinses and sprays can be made by mixing the claimed ingredients with naturally occurring carriers such as water. In addition, there is nothing to show that mixing the ingredients in the particular concentrations produces any sort of marked distinction. Thus, the claimed mixture as a whole does not display markedly different characteristics in comparison with the naturally occurring counterparts. Therefore, the answer to Step 2A, Prong One, is Yes.
Thus, the analysis must move to Step 2A, Prong Two, which asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2) this evaluation is performed by identifying whether there are additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating these additional elements to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. In this case, applicant’s claims are directed to a composition with an intended use of intranasal administration. MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2) specifically states that a claim is only directed to “an intended use of a claimed invention or a field of use limitation, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the ‘treatment or prophylaxis’ consideration.” Therefore, applicant’s intended use is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the answer to Step 2A, Prong Two, is No.
Thus, the analysis must move to Step 2B which asks if claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05 states that this evaluation is performed by “Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” In this case, the additional element in the claims is the combination of the ingredients. However, MPEP § 2106.05(d) states that well-understood, routine, and conventional activities are not sufficient to show that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Mixing specific compounds does not amount to significantly more than a combination of judicial exception because mixing compounds is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Thus, mixing the ingredients together does not amount to significantly more than a combination of judicial exception because mixing compounds is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field.
In addition, applicant’s intended use of intranasal administration is not considered to amount to significantly more. As discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(I)(A), “Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use” is not considered to be enough to qualify as significantly more. An intended use of a claimed composition only generally links the exception to the field of use. Therefore, the additional elements are not considered to amount to significantly more. Thus, the answer to Step 2B is No. Consequently, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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 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 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.
8. Claim(s) 1-4 and 10-12 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson (2021/0393576) in view of Fewell (“Medicinal Uses of Mullein – Grow, Harvest, and Use” (July 2020) accessed at https://thefewellhomestead.com/medicinal-uses-of-mullein-grow-harvest-and-usese/).
Wilson teaches a composition for intranasal administration comprising cannabigerol, xylitol, and polysorbate 80. The reference teaches that the composition can be formulated as a powder, spray or nasal lavage (rinse). The reference does not teach including mullein leaf in the composition. However, the reference does teach that the composition is for treating respiratory viral infection (see paragraphs 1, 11, 12, 23-26, and 32 and claims 5, 20, 24-30 and 32).
Fewell teaches that mullein leaf is useful for treating viral infection and respiratory ailments (see pages 1-2 and 12).
These references show that it was well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to use the claimed ingredients in compositions that treat viral infection. It is well known that it is prima facie obvious to combine two or more ingredients each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition which is useful for the same purpose. The idea for combining them flows logically from their having been used individually in the prior art.
Based on the disclosure by these references that these substances are used in compositions to treat viral infection, an artisan of ordinary skill would have a reasonable expectation that a combination of the substances would also be useful in creating compositions to treat viral infection. Therefore, the artisan would have been motivated to combine the claimed ingredients into a single composition. No patentable invention resides in combining old ingredients of known properties where the results obtained thereby are no more than the additive effect of the ingredients. See MPEP section 2144.06, In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980), Ex parte Quadranti, 25 USPQ2d 1071 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992).
The references do not specifically teach adding the cannabigerol in the amounts claimed by applicant. 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).” Wilson teaches that cannabinoid ingredient can be used in a variety of concentrations (see paragraph 20). Varying the concentration of the cannabigerol in and around the ranges taught by the reference is not considered to be inventive unless the concentration is demonstrated as critical. In this particular case, there is no evidence that the claimed concentration of the cannabigerol produces an unexpected result. Thus, absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameter, this optimization of cannabigerol concentration would have been obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention.
9. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Susan Hoffman whose telephone number is (571)272-0963. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 571-272-0947. 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.
/SUSAN HOFFMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights