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 22, 2026 has been received and entered.
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-9, in the reply filed on June 22, 2026 is acknowledged.
4. Claim 10 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
5. Claims 1-9 are examined on the merits.
Claim Objections
6. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is a period between “settle” and “The” in line 6 of the claim. Periods must only be present at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, 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.
7. Claims 1-9 are indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by an “antioxidant repair” extract.
8. Claim 1 at step (2) is indefinite because it is unclear what screen sizes can be used in order to produce a “coarse” filtration. Step (3) is indefinite because it states that it is drawn to a “secondary impurity removal”; however, the it is unclear which step is considered to be the “first” impurity removal. In addition, it is unclear what substances are considered to be “impurities.”
9. Claim 4 is indefinite because the phrase “for many times” is a passive, narrative phrase that is inconsistent with US claim construction.
10. Claim 6 is indefinite because it states that “the permeate is combined”; however, the claim does not state what the permeate is combined with.
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.
11. Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuai (CN 107722131 – English translation) in view of Mao (CN 10587700 – English translation).
Shuai teaches a method for extracting antioxidant polysaccharides from Ganoderma lucidum. The reference teaches mixing the powdered G. lucidum with 10 to 30 times weight of water, heating, and stirring to perform hot water dynamic extraction. This step is performed for 1 to 2 hours. Next the extract is let stand to settle and the supernatant is separated by coarse filtration. The first two steps can be repeated and the filtrations combined. The filtrate is then filtered using a ceramic microfiltration membrane with a size of 200-800 nm. Additional water is added for dilution, and the filtration can be repeated. The extract is concentrated and dried using vacuum drying to obtain the G. lucidum polysaccharide extract (see paragraphs 9, 11, 18-28). The reference does not teach using G. lucidum fruiting body as the source material for the extract or performing a centrifugation step between the coarse filtration and the microfiltration steps.
Mao teaches that polysaccharides can be extracted from G. lucidum fruiting body. The reference teaches that the extraction is performed by water extraction of the fruiting body at a temperature from 90 to 95 degrees C followed by centrifugation (see page 3). Thus, the use of the fruiting body and a centrifugation step as a purification step were known in the art at the time of the invention. Thus, the artisan of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that Shuai could be modified to include the use of the fruiting body as the polysaccharide source and to include a centrifugation step as these were known in the art as demonstrated by Mao. The modification of Shuai to include known extraction steps and parameters is not considered to be inventive rather an obvious modification based on what was known prior to the effective filing date. The artisan would expect that the additional purification step by centrifugation would produce an improved polysaccharide product.
The references do not specifically teach all of the extraction parameters 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).” Varying extraction parameters such as time, temperature, mesh sizes, etc. within an extraction procedure is not considered to be inventive unless these parameters are demonstrated as critical. In this particular case, there is no evidence that the claimed parameters produces an unexpected result. Thus, absent some demonstration of unexpected results from the claimed parameters, this optimization of extraction conditions would have been obvious before the effective filing date of applicant’s claimed invention.
12. 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