DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to applicant’s filing dated May 5, 2026.
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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 4-72 are pending in the instant application. Acknowledgement is made of Applicant's remarks filed May 5, 2026. Claims 2, 73, and 74 were previously canceled.
Applicants elected without traverse Group I, drawn to a composition comprising an orally or subcutaneously administrable mitochondrial booster, androgen hormone, and a prohormone as the elected invention and a composition species comprising pregnenolone with 10-EHDT (10-ethoxy-9-hydroxy-delta-6a-tetrahydrocannabinol) in the reply filed on December 19, 2020. Examination was expanded to encompass a composition species comprising the prohormone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), in the office action dated September 6, 2022. Examination was expanded to encompass a composition comprising AEA/anandamide in view of the cited art in the Office Action dated July 11, 2025. Examination was expanded to encompass a composition species further comprising oxytocin in view of the claim amendment in the Office Action dated February 5, 2026. The requirement is still deemed proper.
Claims 7, 9, 11-16, 18-25, 27-36, 38-41, 43, and 46-72 remain withdrawn.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 17, 26, 37, 42, 44, and 45 are presently under examination as they relate to the elected species: composition comprising pregnenolone with 10-EHDT (10-ethoxy-9-hydroxy-delta-6a-tetrahydrocannabinol) and expanded species, a composition comprising 10-EHDT, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), oxytocin, and anandamide.
Objections and/or Rejections and Response to Arguments
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated (Maintained Objections and/or Rejections) or newly applied (New Objections and/or Rejections, Necessitated by Amendment or New Objections and/or Rejections, NOT Necessitated by Amendment). They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Maintained Objections and/or Rejections
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 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 17, 26, 37, 44, and 45 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. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 17, 26, 37, 44, and 45 are directed to a composition for improving a non-human animal's well-being comprising an orally or subcutaneously administrable substance containing oxytocin, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and an endocannabinoid, further comprising a phytocannabinoid. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The analysis has been conducted in accordance with the most recent 2014 Interim Guidelines for Subject Matter Eligibility, published by USPTO in the Federal Register on 12/16/2014, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf. See information about the Interim Guidelines at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/interim_guidance_subject_matter_eligibility.jsp.
Based upon an analysis with respect to the claims as a whole, claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 17, 26, 37, 44, and 45 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 17, 26, 37, 44, and 45 recite compositions comprising natural products and as such are directed towards a law of nature and a natural phenomenon. The claimed composition does not have markedly different characteristics from what occurs in nature, and are a “product of nature” exception. Further, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions.
The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
The elected subject matter, within the scope of the instant claims is construed as a composition comprising: oxytocin, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and an endocannabinoid, further comprising a phytocannabinoid.
So the answer to Step 1 is: Yes, the claims are drawn to a composition of matter.
Step 2A: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
The claimed subject matter appears to describe a composition comprising a oxytocin, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and an endocannabinoid, further comprising a phytocannabinoid.
Because each compound is naturally occurring, each compound or their combination together in a composition is considered a “product of nature,” which falls within each of the categories: “laws of nature” and “natural phenomena”. Thus, the claims are drawn to judicially recognized exceptions. See p74623, left column, of the Federal Registry notice: …Courts have held that naturally occurring products and some man-made products that are essentially no different from a naturally occurring product are ‘‘products of nature’’ that fall under the laws of nature or natural phenomena exception. (Section I (3); pp. 74622-4, of the Federal Registry notice discusses Natural Products.).
The next question within step 2A is: does the nature based product show “markedly different characteristics” from any naturally occurring counterpart(s) in their natural state, based on structure, function and/or properties?
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 17, 26, 37, 44, and 45 recite a composition comprising a natural product. The claimed naturally occurring components exist naturally in a human/animal body. The instant specification teaches F2α is stimulated by oxytocin and drives labor forward; oxytocin also has an effect to increase AEA synthesis thereby heling to maintain balance throughout multiple systems within an animal’s body (page 16, last paragraph); and oxytocin is one of the natural induces of AEA synthetic pathways (page 34, 1st paragraph). The instant specification teaches endocannabinoids act in conjunction with the corticosteroid hormones as part of the corticosteroid pathway, but also exert their influence on several additional immuno-modulatory pathways (page 10, 2nd paragraph); endocannabinoids are a class of modulating biomolecules (page 10, 3rd paragraph); endocannabinoids were recognized as the native biomolecules that employ receptors discovered when investigating biologic responses to compounds originating in plants and AEA and 2AG were recognized as predominant endocannabinoids binding these receptors (page 10, last paragraph). Moreover, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is a naturally occurring steroid hormone produced by the adrenal glands; prasterone, also known as dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is a major C19 steroid produced by the adrenal cortex; and it is also produced in small quantities in the testis and the ovary, as evidenced by NIH National Library of Medicine (PubChem CID 5881, https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Dehydroepiandrosterone, September 16, 2004, obtained from the internet on February 4, 2026, cited in a previous Office Action). Thus, Applicant’s claimed composition is essentially directed to a composition comprising naturally occurring compounds which exist in nature in a human/animal body. Moreover, the composition of dependent claims 6, 10, and 17 further comprise a phytochemical. The instant specification teaches phytochemicals are substances found in plants or the plants themselves (page 22, 2nd paragraph) and include the elected, 10-EHDT (page 23, 4th paragraph). Thus, Applicant’s claimed composition is essentially directed to a mere aggregation of some the compounds that occur together naturally in the animal/human body and some that occur in plants.
“The markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. When there is no naturally occurring counterpart to the nature based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. In the case of a nature-based combination, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components that form the combination, i.e., the characteristics of the claimed nature-based combination are compared to the characteristics of the components in their natural state”.
Establishment of a marked difference cannot be based on some inherent or innate characteristic of the naturally occurring counterpart. See p. 74623, footnote 28:
“To show a marked difference, a characteristic must be changed as compared to nature, and cannot be an inherent or innate characteristic of the naturally occurring counterpart. Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948) (‘‘[The inventor did] not create a state of inhibition or of non-inhibition in the bacteria. Their qualities are the work of nature. Those qualities are of course not patentable.’’); In re Marden, 47 F.2d 958 (CCPA 1931) (eligibility of a claim to ductile vanadium held ineligible, because the ‘‘ductility or malleability of vanadium is . . . one of its inherent characteristics and not a characteristic given to it by virtue of a new combination with other materials or which characteristic is brought about by some chemical reaction or agency which changes its inherent characteristics’’). Further, a difference in a characteristic that came about or was produced independently of any effort or influence by applicant cannot show a marked difference. Roslin, 750 F.3d at 1338 (Because ‘‘any phenotypic differences came about or were produced ‘quite independently of any effort of the patentee’ ’’ and were ‘‘uninfluenced by Roslin’s efforts’’, they ‘‘do not confer eligibility on their claimed subject matter’’ (quoting Funk Bros.)).
In the instant case, there seems to be no indication in the specification that the combination of all of the above natural products has any characteristics (structural, functional or other properties) that are different from the naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. Thus the composition does not have markedly different characteristics from what occurs in nature, and is a “product of nature exception”.
So the answer to Step 2A is: Yes, the claims are drawn to a natural composition.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exemption?
The claims have no additional elements (other than “purified from at least one natural source”). Because the claim does not include any additional features that could add “significant more” to the exception the answer to Step B is: No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount significantly more than the judicial exception.
In sum, applicant’s claims are not directed to a composition that is markedly different in structure from a naturally-occurring product. Therefore, the claims are not directed to patent-eligible subject matter.
The claims do not qualify as eligible subject matter, and are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
The claimed combination cannot properly be considered "naturally occurring". Claim 1 does not claim a product of nature. The consideration that the combination is found as a "product of nature" is unsupported by fact. If combinations of products of nature were considered to fall under 35 U.S.C. §101 as a product of nature, indeed no composition of matter would be patentable. Every composition of matter contains atoms in combination, each of which is a product of nature. Yet, 35 U.S.C. §101 is explicit in including "composition of matter" as patentable even though all compositions of matter are compositions of materials each of which is naturally occurring. Clearly the statute must properly be considered to recognize combinations that do not naturally occur in combination as patentable compositions of matter.
Examiner's response:
The above argument has been carefully considered and has not been found persuasive.
As set forth above, the claims are directed to a composition comprising a natural product, wherein each of the naturally occurring components exist naturally in a human/animal body. Moreover, the composition of dependent claims 6, 10, and 17 further comprise a phytochemical. The instant specification teaches phytochemicals are substances found in plants or the plants themselves (page 22, 2nd paragraph) and include the elected, 10-EHDT (page 23, 4th paragraph). Thus, Applicant’s claimed composition is essentially directed to a mere aggregation of some the compounds that occur together naturally in the animal/human body and some that occur in plants. To show a marked difference, a characteristic must be changed as compared to nature, and cannot be an inherent or innate characteristic of the naturally occurring counterpart. Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948), In the instant case, the claimed composition does not have markedly different characteristics from what occurs in nature, and are a “product of nature” exception. Further, the claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions. Applicant’s argument has not pointed to any markedly different characteristics of the combination of natural products or that any of the components function differently in the claimed combination than they would in nature. Thus, the arguments are not sufficient to overcome the instant rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 26, 44, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevec et al (WO 2009/043458 A2, cited in a previous Office Action) in view of Patel et al (US 2006/0217355 A1, cited in a previous Office Action) and Eaton et al (WO 2014/057067, cited in a previous Office Action).
The instant claims are generally drawn to a composition of oxytocin, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), and an endocannabinoid; wherein the composition further comprises 10-EHDT (10-Ethoxy-9-hydroxy-delta-6a-tetrahydrocannabinol (related to claims 3-6, 8, 10, 17, and 26), wherein the composition is formatted as a gel (related to claims 37 and 42), wherein said at least one physiologic function is selected from the group consisting of: adipose metabolism, cardiac performance, glucose utilization, circulation, general nervous system activation or activity, hormonal secretion, electrolyte balance, function of a particular tissue or organ system, membrane transport across the membrane of one or more cell types, muscle activity, maintained muscle mass, O2 consumption, skin health and visual abilities (related to claim 44), and wherein the optimization of said at least one physiologic function has a result that improves at least one life factor selected from the group consisting of: general sense of well-being, clinical depression, fatigue sensation, athletic activity, positive interaction with another organism, motivation, liveliness and healing rate (related to claim 45).
Regarding claims 1 and 8, Bevec teaches pharmaceutical composition containing the peptide Cys-Tyr-Ile-Gln-Asn-Cys-Pro-Leu-Gly-NH2 together with at least one pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, cryoprotectant, lyoprotectant, excipient and/or diluent (claim 6); wherein the composition is used for the treatment of cancer (claim 2); wherein the composition is suitable for oral administration (claim 8). Bevec teaches the peptide compound Cys-Tyr-Ile-Gln-Asn-Cys-Pro-Leu-Gly-NH2 is oxytocin (page 1, lines 6-7). Bevec teaches treating includes improving a subject’s physical or mental well-being (page 26, lines 1-6) and the terms “subject” or “patient” are used herein mean any mammal including non-human primates, rabbits, rats, and mice, and other animals (page 81, lines 1-5). Thus, Bevec teaches a composition for improving a non-human animal’s well-being in a subject suffering from cancer comprising administering oxytocin. Bevec also teaches oxytocin is useful for treating inflammation and inflammatory diseases (claim 2). Bevec does not teach the composition further comprises DHEA and an endocannabinoid.
However, Patel teaches a combination comprising a DHEA congener and a second anti-inflammatory agent is useful for treating cancer or inflammation associated with cancer (claim 1); and DHEA congener includes DHEA [0021]; and subject refers to a mammal [0020].
Moreover, Eaton teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising one or more endocannabinoids (claim 1) is useful for the treatment of a tumor in a mammal (claim 10), wherein the one or more endocannabinoid is N-acylethanolamide (20:4) which is equivalent to anandamide.
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of the references so as to produce a composition comprising oxytocin as taught by Bevec to further comprise DHEA and an endocannabinoid, anandamide, taught by Patel and Eaton. One would have been motivated to do so because of each of the compounds have been individually taught in the prior art to be suitable for the treatment of cancer in a mammal. Moreover, the instant situation is amenable to the type of analysis set forth in In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) wherein the court held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two agents each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from having been individually taught in the prior art. Applying the same logic to the instant claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been imbued with at least a reasonable expectation of success that by oxytocin, DHEA, and anandamide, one would have achieved a composition useful for treating and improving the well-being of a mammal.
With respect to the properties drawn to “for improving a non-human animal's well-being” (instant claim 1), “wherein said activity is effected through a G-protein coupled receptor” (instant claim 4), wherein said activity is effected through a receptor listed in instant claim 5, “wherein said at least one physiologic function is selected from the group consisting of: adipose metabolism, cardiac performance, glucose utilization, circulation, general nervous system activation or activity, hormonal secretion, salt (electrolyte) balance, function of a particular tissue or organ system, membrane transport across the membrane of one or more cell types, muscle activity, maintained muscle mass, O2 consumption, skin health and visual abilities” (instant claim 44), and “wherein the optimization of said at least one physiologic function has a result that improves at least one life factor selected from the group consisting of: general sense of well-being, clinical depression, fatigue sensation, athletic activity, positive interaction with another organism, motivation, liveliness and healing rate” (instant claim 45), these are considered to be intended use and/or inherent properties of the composition.
A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In the instant case, the cited art suggests a composition comprising oxytocin, DHEA, and anandamide, which meets the structural limitations of the instant claims. Thus, the disclosed composition must inherently possess the functional properties of the claimed composition.
Taken together, all this would result in the composition of claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 44, and 45 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 6, 10, and 26, Eaton teaches a composition comprising one or more endocannabinoids and cannabinoids, wherein the endocannabinoids include N-acylethanolamides and the one or more cannabinoids include cannabinols (claim 1); wherein the one or more endocannabinoids includes N-acylethanolamide (20:4)/anandamide (claim 9) is useful in the treatment of a tumor in a mammal (claim 10). Eaton teaches the term “cannabinoid” is to refer to phytocannabinoids, e.g. tricyclic terpenoid compounds produced by Cannabis sativa (page 7, lines 21-23)
Thus, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of the references so as to produce a composition comprising oxytocin as taught by Bevec to further comprise DHEA and an endocannabinoid, anandamide and a phytocannabinoid, taught by Patel and Eaton. One would have been motivated to do so because of each of the compounds have been individually taught in the prior art to be suitable for the treatment of cancer in a mammal. Moreover, the instant situation is amenable to the type of analysis set forth in In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) wherein the court held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two agents each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from having been individually taught in the prior art. Applying the same logic to the instant claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been imbued with at least a reasonable expectation of success that by oxytocin, DHEA, anandamide and a cannabinoid, one would have achieved a composition useful for treating cancer and improving the well-being of a mammal suffering from cancer.
Taken together, all this would result in the composition of claims 6, 10, and 26 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 17, 37, and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bevec et al (WO 2009/043458 A2, cited in a previous Office Action) in view of Patel et al (US 2006/0217355 A1, cited in a previous Office Action) and Eaton et al (WO 2014/057067, cited in a previous Office Action) as applied to claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 26, 44, and 45 above, and further in view of Wurzer (US 2014/0271940, cited in a previous Office Action).
Regarding claim 17, as set forth above, Bevec, Patel, and Eaton suggest a composition comprising oxytocin, DHEA, anandamide, and a phytochemical is useful for treating cancer.
The cited art does not explicitly teach they phytocannabinoid is the elected phytocannabinoid, 10-EHDT (10-ethoxy-9-hydroxy-delta-6a-tetrahydrocannabinol).
However, Wurzer teaches a concentrate comprising at least 1% w/w of at least one cannabinoid compound including (-)-(9R, 10R)-trans-10-O-Ethyl-cannabitriol (claim 1) which has the structure (page 10):
PNG
media_image1.png
361
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Thus, Wurzer teaches a composition comprising 10-EHDT. Wurzer further teaches the use of the concentrate to reduce pain associated with cancer [0045]. Wurzer also teaches the concentrates are useful for reducing inflammation. Thus, Wurzer suggests the disclosed compounds are anti-inflammatory agents.
Since Bevec, Patel, and Eaton suggest a composition comprising oxytocin, DHEA, anandamide, and a phytocannabinoid, and since Wurzer teaches 10-EHDT is a phytocannabinoid useful for treating pain associated with cancer, at the time of the invention it would have been prima facie obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to substitute one functional equivalence (any phytocannabinoid) for another (10-EHDT) with an expectation of success, since the prior art establishes that both function in similar manner. The skilled artisan would have been further motivated to utilize 10-EHDT for the added benefit of treating pain associated with cancer.
Taken together, all this would result in the composition of claim 17 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 37 and 42, Bevec teaches the pharmaceutical compositions according to the present invention will typically be administered together with suitable carrier materials selected with respect to the intended form of administration and suitable formulations include gels (page 68, lines 6-11). Patel teaches as will also be appreciated by those of skill in the art, the form of the pharmaceutical composition of the DHEA congener and the second active agent can depend on the intended mode of administration, which in turn will depend on the location and nature of the disorder to be treated; accordingly, delivery to the gastrointestinal tract, e.g., for treatment of cancers associated with the gastrointestinal tract, can be in the form of gels [0108]. Wurzer teaches in some embodiments, the present invention provides a cannabinoid delivery system comprising one or more cannabinoid compounds embedded in a polymer-based thin film, wherein the polymer-based thin film is configured to dissolve upon contacting oral mucosa including gelatin [0023]; and the present invention also encompasses other formulations of the concentrates; the concentrates may further be formulated with acceptable excipients and/or carriers for oral consumption; the carrier may be a gel [0096]. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to formulate the composition comprising oxytocin, DHEA, anandamide, and a phytochemical, 10-EDHT, in a gel formulation in view of the prior art, since the prior art teaches gel formulations are suitable for compositions comprising oxytocin, DHEA, and cannabinoids.
Taken together, all this would result in the compositions of claims 37 and 42 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
Human health is a field with many, many artisans. If the instant claims were so obvious, Applicant respectfully submits that in this art where individual substances in the claims have been known for at least a decade yet this combination is not specifically suggested, the absence of consideration of the elements of the instant claims provides strong evidence that these claims cannot properly be considered obvious over the applied art.
Examiner's response:
The above argument has been carefully considered and has not been found persuasive.
MPEP 2145 states:
"The mere age of the references is not persuasive of the unobviousness of the combination of their teachings, absent evidence that, notwithstanding knowledge of the references, the art tried and failed to solve the problem." In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977) (100 year old patent was properly relied upon in a rejection based on a combination of references.). See also Ex parte Meyer, 6 USPQ2d 1966 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1988) (length of time between the issuance of prior art patents relied upon (1920 and 1976) was not persuasive of nonobviousness). Similarly, the argument that the individual substances in the claims have been known decades is not sufficient to render the combination of these components nonobvious.
As set forth above, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of the references so as to produce a composition comprising oxytocin as taught by Bevec to further comprise DHEA and an endocannabinoid, anandamide and a phytocannabinoid, taught by Patel and Eaton. One would have been motivated to do so because of each of the compounds have been individually taught in the prior art to be suitable for the treatment of cancer in a mammal. Moreover, the instant situation is amenable to the type of analysis set forth in In re Kerkhoven, 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980) wherein the court held that it is prima facie obvious to combine two agents each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the very same purpose. The idea of combining them flows logically from having been individually taught in the prior art. Applying the same logic to the instant claims, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been imbued with at least a reasonable expectation of success that by oxytocin, DHEA, and anandamide, one would have achieved a composition useful for treating and improving the well-being of a mammal.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 4-6, 8, 10, 17, 26, 37, 42, 44, and 45 are rejected.
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAYNA B RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7088. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5:00pm, 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, Amy L Clark can be reached at 571-272-1310. 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.
/Rayna Rodriguez/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628
Prosecution Insights