1. Relevant Extract of USPTO Examination Report

USPTO Patent Examiner(s) took cognizance of TKDL references. Extract of examination report are reproduced below: “Claims 3-5, 7-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 (a) as being unpatentable over McGenity et al. (US 6,652,892) in view Dard-e-dandaan (1909) in further view of Murad (1911).

           Dard-e-dandaan discloses an oral composition for treating gingivitis and toothaches. The compositions include Myrtus Communis (common myrtle).

It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the animal food of McGenity et al. comprising myrtle to treat gingivitis motivated by the desire to use a food with components disclosed by the art that are used to treat gingivitis as disclosed by Dard-e-dandaan and to treat a condition that causes bad breath.
           McGenity et al. in view of Dard-e-dandaan differs from the instant claims insofar as it does not disclose the myrtle is myrtle leaf.
           However, murad discloses myrtle leaf power is used to strengthen teeth. Murad differs form the instant claims insofar as it does not disclose the compositions are used to treat gingivitis in a cat or dog.
           It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used myrtle leaf powder with the extract or in place of the myrtle extract in the compositions of McGenity et al. in view of Dard-e-dandaan in a method of treating gingivitis motivated by the desire to use a form of myrtle suitable for use in oral compositions and that also treats strengthens the teeth as disclosed by Murad.

           Claims 3-5, 7-10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rossel (WO 2006/029893, already of record) in view of Murad (1911) as evidenced by Dard-e-dandaan (1909).

           Rossel differs from the instant claims insofar as it does not disclose the myrtle is myrtle leaf.
           Murad discloses oral compositions comprising Myrtus Communis (Myrtle) leaf in powdered form, which meets the limitation of administering an effective amount of myrtle leaf. The leaf is an active fraction of myrtle (as evidenced by Dard-e-daan, which discloses the leaf extract is used for treating gingivitis and toothache). The compositions are used for teeth strengthening.

           Murad differs form the instant claims insofar as it does not disclose administering the powders to a dog or cat or that the compositions treat gingivitis.
           It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used powdered leaf in the compositions of Rossel motivated by the desire to use an active part of the plant that comprises actives for treating gingivitis and also strengthens the teeth.
           In regard to claims 8 and 9, the myrtle in the compositions of Rossel in view of Murad (1911) as evidenced by Dard-e-dandaan is administered to pets and inhibits plaque, and therefore one would reasonable conclude that the compositions would also inhibit or reduce inflammation proteases and /or pathogenic bacteria, such as black pigmenting anaerobes and Peptostreptococcus in dental plaque.

Claims 3-5, 7-10 and 19 are rejected.

No claims allowed.”

Full examination report can be referred at US20100061944.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 on 14-Mar-13. Examination of the application is under progress and reply from the Applicant is still awaited.