DETAILED ACTION
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 the specie of taxifolin, in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RU 2521517 (‘517), from IDS filed 5/2/2024, and Nishimura et al., The Journal of Physiological Sciences (2019) 69:39–45 in view of US 4,946,701 (‘701).
‘517 teaches a water beverage with taxifolin (dihydroquercitin) in an amount of 200g/1000daL (20mg per 100ml) (see the abstract).
Nishimura et al. teaches a beverage composition containing catechin in the concentration of 121mg/100ml and other ions (see page 40, Table 1).
The primary references do not expressly teach the pH of the composition. The primary references do not expressly teach the type of water used The primary references do not expressly teach the type of container used. The primary references do not expressly teach the incorporation of Vitamin C.
‘701 teaches a beverage enhanced by flavonoid such as catechin and epicatechin (see the abstract). ‘701 teaches the pH of the composition as 2.5-5.0 (see col. 6, line 20). ‘701 teaches the pH being adjusted by the addition of acids including ascorbic acid (see col. 6, lines 31-35). ‘701 teaches the beverage can be contained in containers such as bottle or can (col. 3, last paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to adjust the pH of the beverage using ascorbic acid. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to use bottle or can to contain the beverage composition. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to employ the herein claimed type of water in the beverage composition.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to adjust the pH of the beverage. As flavonoid containing beverage (such as catechin-containing beverage) can use various acids to adjust the pH of the beverage, employing any acids including ascorbic acid in the flavonoid (such as taxifolin or catechin) containing beverage would be reasonably expected to adjust the pH of the composition.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use bottle or can to contain the beverage composition. Employing well-known containers such as bottle or can, which is known to be suitable for carrying catechin enhanced composition is reasonably expected to be successful.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the herein claimed type of water in the beverage composition. The primary references teach the use of distilled water to produce the beverage composition. However, using any type of drinking water including mineral or spring water would be reasonably expected to be successful in formulating the beverage composition, absent showing the criticality of using spring water or mineral water.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN MING R HUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Kortney Klinkel can be reached at 571-270-5239. 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.
/SAN MING R HUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627
Prosecution Insights