DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 9/29/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-19 are hereby withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/29/26
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-8 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance, claim 1 recites the broad recitation of each component, and the claim also recites a more preferable range of each component which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claims 2-8 are rejected for the reasons above as they depend from and include the limitations of rejected claim 1.
5. Claim 4 recites the limitation "the tea leaves" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shah et al. (US 2023/0019615 A1) (Hereafter “Shah”).
Regarding claim 1, Shah discloses a composition (see Table 1A-1) capable of being used for the denaturation of respiratory allergens, comprising: tannic acid in an amount of about 0.01% to about 10% by weight (see para [0008]); cyclodextrin in an amount of about 0.01% to about 20% by weight (see para [0021]; herbal essential oil in an amount of about 0.1% to about 10% by weight (see para [0016)]; and water (see para [0130]).
Regarding claims 2-4, Shah discloses wherein the acid is tannic acid (see para [0008] and [0021]). Regarding the limitation directed to the source of the tannins used for the tannic acid, the claims are directed to a composition and therefore the patentability of the tannic acid limitation does not depend on its method of production. The prior art is only required to teach the composition and this is met by the teachings of Shah.
Regarding claims 5-6, Shah discloses that the cyclodextrin can be beta-cyclodextrin (see para [0022]) or methylated cyclodextrins (see para [0147]).
Regarding claims 7-8, Shah discloses that the herbal essential oil can be rosemary oil (see para [0138]).
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
GB 2329586 A – teaches denaturing allergens using a composition comprising tannic acid, cyclodextrin, herbal oil, and water (see abstract)
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN E CONLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8414. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:30am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mike Marcheschi can be reached on 571-272-1374. 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).
/SEAN E CONLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1799
