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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The Amendments filed on 4/24/2026 has been received and entered.
Claims 1-11 are pending. Claims 2, 5-7, and 10-11 are examined on the merits. Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-9 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the Group I (Claims 1-8 and 10-11), the species copal, shellac, and rosin, in the reply filed on 4/24/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 8-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Claim 8 is not included since the Claim language elected is closed, which excludes other ingredients from the claimed composition. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/24/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2025, 5/10/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
In Claim 6, the term “mass” is indefinite because the mass of an object would not change with its amount. Mass is an inherent part of the object. Do you mean “weight”?
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 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 2 is directed to a composition comprising natural products. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Step 2A, Prong One, asks if a claim recites to a product of nature. In this case, applicant’s claims copal, shellac, and rosin, which are from resins from the copal tree, lac bug excretion, pine tree resin, respectively. 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, in claim 2, the ingredients mixed together would still be a product of nature because as long as there are nature-based molecules found in the composition, the composition contains a mixture of products that are found in nature (the individual natural molecules) and thus must be evaluated as per the described analysis. Mixing together various natural molecules doesn’t change those molecules per se; they are simply mixed together and thus would have the same characteristics as the same molecules prior to being mixed together.
In this case, Claim 6, the 0.02-2.0 parts by mass copal, 0.2-2.0 parts shellac, and 1.0 part of rosin amounts are claimed. The amounts do not show markedly different characteristics. Even if there are structural changes, the changes are not noticeable when the amounts of extracts or peptides use are in nominal or miniscule amounts, which would not amount to much structural changes.
In this case, Claim 7 is a solution. Solution is a form that is found in nature.
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.
The homogenized composition of the different plants and bug excretion together are non-natural. However, a composition can be used in many different ways and thus not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the answer to Step 2A, Prong Two, is No.
The analysis must then 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.” The mixing of copal, shellac, and rosin are well understood, routine, and conventional method of making a product for making a medcine (see rejection below). Thus, the answer to Step 2B is No. Therefore, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2, 5-7, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Urai et al. (WO 2021125315 A1).
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Urai et al. teaches an anti-inflammatory liquid composition of rosin, shellac, and copal is at 45% by weight or more (Claims, paragraph 6). The weights at equal parts for each ingredient would be 1.0 parts. A liquid is a solution; thus, the limitation of Claim 7 is met. A film is improved with shellac addition (page 10, paragraph 1-2); therefore, the limitation of Claims 10-11 are met. The compositions would be anti-viral since the same ingredients would have the same biological activities when used. Therefore, the claims are anticipated by the reference.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2, 5-7, and 10-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 and 9 of copending Application No. 17/783547. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the same composition is claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Application No. 17/783547 teaches:
1. An anti-inflammatory liquid composition for covering oral mucosa comprising: a rosin; a shellac; and a solvent; wherein a content of the rosin is 1 wt % or more and 15 wt % or less relative to a total amount of the composition, and a content of the shellac is 35 wt % or more and 45 wt % or less relative to the total amount of the composition, and a total content of the rosin, the shellac, and a copal is 45 wt % or more and 55 wt % or less relative to the total amount of the composition.
2. The anti-inflammatory liquid composition for covering oral mucosa according to claim 1, further comprising a copal.
3. The anti-inflammatory liquid composition for covering oral mucosa according to claim 2, wherein a content of the copal is more than 0 wt % and 10 wt % or less relative to a total amount of the composition.
4. The anti-inflammatory liquid composition for covering oral mucosa according to claim 1, wherein the solvent contains ethanol.
9. A pharmaceutical composition for preventing and/or treating stomatitis, comprising the anti-inflammatory liquid composition for covering oral mucosa according to claim 1.
However, the amounts are not the same.
MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Ranges
II. OPTIMIZATION OF RANGES
A. Optimization Within Prior Art Conditions or Through Routine ExperimentationGenerally, 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) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facieobvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); see also Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”); In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403, 160 USPQ 809 (CCPA 1969) (Claimed elastomeric polyurethanes which fell within the broad scope of the references were held to be unpatentable thereover because, among other reasons, there was no evidence of the criticality of the claimed ranges of molecular weight or molarproportions.). For more recent cases applying this principle, see Merck & Co. Inc. v. Biocraft Laboratories Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 10 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 975 (1989); In re Kulling, 897 F.2d 1147, 14 USPQ2d 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1990); and In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Thus, through routine experimentation, “[t]he normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides themotivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.” In other words, the claimed amounts were well within the purview of the ordinary artisan at the time the invention was made in an effort to optimize the desired results.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERYNE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9947. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5:30 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, Anand U Desai can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Catheryne Chen Examiner Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights