1. Relevant Extract of USPTO Examination Report
USPTO Patent Examiner(s) took cognizance of TKDL references. Extract of examination report are reproduced below:
“Claims 1-21, 27 and 37-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rasayoga Segara(v).
Rasayoga Segara teaches formulating a decoction (please note that a decoction can contain alcohol, particularly methanol or ethanol) composition comprising Ficus hispida fruit, combining with water or any other specified liquid and administering orally to treat obesity and diseases with vata predominance (please note that diabetes is a type of disease with vata predominance).
The method of using the referenced composition is not expressly taught as a method of treating atherosclerosis or diabetes or ameliorating the expression or production of at least one biological marker protein or other instantly claimed mechanisms. However, the instantly claimed process is a one-step process of administering an extract of Ficus hispida fruit. Thus, the functional effects are inherent to the method of using the composition taught by Rasayoga Segara.
It would have been obvious to modify the solvent used in the method taught by Rasayoga Segara and administering the composition taught by Rasayoga Segara to a subject with obesity or diabetes because at the time the invention was made, it was known that a decoction of Ficus hispida fruit could be used for treating obesity or diabetes based upon the teachings Rasayoga Segara.
Thus, an artisan of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that administering a composition comprising a decoction of Ficus hispida fruit, wherein the decoction can be obtained with an alcohol, would be even more effective for treating obesity or diabetes. This reasonable expectation of success would motivate the artisan to use an alcohol extract of Ficus hispida fruit for treating obesity or diabetes based upon the teachings of Rasayoga Segara.”
Full examination report can be referred at 20120128808-I.pdf
2. Outcomes of Examination Report.
As the outcome of TKDL references and other documents cited in examination report, the Examiner decided to reject the claims 1-21, 27 and 37-42 on 02.01.2013.