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 with traverse of Group II, claims 13-20 in the reply filed on 7/6/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the search for Group II should reveal publications relating to the Group I and would not impose serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the search for the two groups is different. The composition can be applicable to any usage. Thus, the search would not be centered on the method of Group II. The composition required in the method is different from the composition of group I in that ginger is not a requirement. Thus, the search is different.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to non-elected invention.
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) 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim ( Jp 2016135122) in view of Ahmed et al “ Rare sugars and their health effects in humans: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of the evidence from human trial”.
For claims 13-20, Kim discloses a method for preventing and improving obesity by reducing the sugar absorbed in the body. The composition significantly lower blood sugar. Thus, the composition manages the blood sugar in human subject. The method comprises the step of administering the nutraceutical composition. The composition comprises psicose( allulose), tagatose and licorice extract). ( see pages 3-5)
Kim does not disclose the amount and the time of administration as in claim 1, the frequency as in claims 14-15, the inclusion of vitamin as in claim 16, the form as in claim 17, the subjects as in claims 18-19, the property as in claim 19 and the ratio and parameters as in claim 20.
In the article, Ahmed et al study various sugars to see their effects on controlling blood glucose. Ahmed shows that consumption of 5 g allulose administered as preloads on the postprandial glycemic response gives a reduction in plasma glucose. The article also give previous study showing of 5 and 7.5 g of allulose consumed as preloads prior to 75g of maltodextrin suppressed glucose levels. Ahmed shows that average individual could consume roughly up to .5g/kg body weight of allulose in a single dose without side effects. Ahmed shows different studies of different amounts for different interval of times. Ahmed also shows consumption of tagatose of 5 g shows reduction in post test meal glucose. Studies shows benefits of tagatose as blood glucose control in individual with type 2 diabetes. ( see pages 261-265)
Both Kim and Ahmed et al shows that allulose and tagatose reduce blood glucose and are used in controlling blood glucose in diabetes. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to following the guideline of Ahmed in determining the amounts and dosage of the sugars in the composition and optimizing through experimentation to determine the optimum dosage without producing undesirable side effects. It would have been obvious to vary the amount of licorice depending on the sweetness level desired and also the flavoring desired because licorice can be a flavoring attribute. 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). It would have been within the skill of one in the art to determine the optimum time of administration, the frequency and duration through routine experimentation to obtain sufficient data to determine the effectiveness of the composition in controlling and managing blood sugar level. It would have been obvious to use the composition in diabetes because the composition is used to lower blood sugar. It would have been obvious to supplement the composition with vitamin to enhance the nutritional profile of the composition. Tagatose has much higher sweetness intensity than allulose. Thus, it would have been obvious to use lower ratio of tagatose versus allulose. The specific proportion can readily be determined by one skilled in the art without undue experimentation. Since the composition is used to lower blood sugar, the property in claim 19 is obviously present.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
August 20, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights