DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
1. Claims 2, 6 and 9 have been amended and claims 4 and 8 canceled as requested in the amendment filed on April 12, 2022. Following the amendment, claims 2, 6, 9 and 11-18 are pending in the instant application.
2. Claims 11-18 stand withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in Paper filed on April 28, 2021.
3. Claims 2, 6 and 9 are under examination in the instant office action.
4. Any objection or rejection of record, which is not expressly repeated in this action has been overcome by Applicant’s response and withdrawn.
5. Applicant’s arguments filed on April 12, 2022 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
6. Claims 2, 6 and 9 stand 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 for reasons of record at section 4 of Paper mailed on October 12, 2022.
Applicant submits at p. 5 of the Response that amendment to the claims obviates the rejection. While this has been fully considered, the argument is not persuasive because claim 2, as currently presented, encompasses a method for inhibiting neuronal activity in a subject without any point of reference to evaluate the degree on inhibition or any meaningful interpretation regarding the end result of the claimed invention. This affects all depending claims.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claims 2, 6 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement for reasons of record at section 3 of Paper mailed on October 12, 2022. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues at p. 4 of the Response that amendment to the claims obviates the instant rejection. Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive for reasons that follow.
The instant claims encompass a method for inhibiting neuronal activity in a subject in general and to inhibit an NMP associated disorder and specifically epilepsy, seizures due to brain tumors and other muscle spasm disorder by administering to the subject an effective amount of biotin-epoxomicin. However, the instant specification is devoid of any evidence that Applicant was in possession of even a single operable embodiment of the claimed method.
As stated in M.P.E.P. § 2163(II)(A)(3), a specification may describe an actual reduction to practice by showing that the inventor constructed an embodiment or performed a process that met all the limitations of the claim and determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose. Cooper v. Goldfarb, 154 F.3d 1321, 1327, 47 USPQ2d 1896, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1998). See also UMC Elecs. Co. v. United States, 816 F.2d 647, 652, 2 USPQ2d 1465, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“[T]here cannot be a reduction to practice of the invention ... without a physical embodiment which includes all limitations of the claim.”); Estee Lauder Inc. v. L’Oreal, S.A., 129 F.3d 588, 593, 44 USPQ2d 1610, 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“[A] reduction to practice does not occur until the inventor has determined that the invention will work for its intended purpose.”); Mahurkar v. C.R. Bard, Inc., 79 F.3d 1572, 1578, 38 USPQ2d 1288, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (determining that the invention will work for its intended purpose may require testing depending on the character of the invention and the problem it solves).
Whereas a reduction to practice of an uncomplicated invention such as a simple mechanical or electrical device can be achieved by merely providing a diagram of the device wherein one skilled in the relevant art can predict the likely operability of the device by reviewing the diagram, the operability of the claimed invention cannot be predicted by merely reviewing diagrams or illustrations. To demonstrate the reduction to practice of a method of treating a specific pathological condition requires either a working embodiment, a demonstration of operability of the clinical method when applied to an art accepted animal model of the condition to be treated wherein that animal model has been shown to be reliably predictive of efficacy in the treatment of the condition, or a demonstration that the parameter employed therein reasonably correlates with the presence of the condition being treated. In the instant case, Applicant has provided none of these. Consequently, Applicant has failed to demonstrate possession of the claimed method as of the earliest effective filing date of the instant application.
Moreover, claim 2, broadly drawn to inhibiting neuronal activity in general raises issues under 35 U.S.C 101, utility, since the claim encompasses embodiments that are not related to any clinical effect.
For reasons of record fully explained earlier and reasons above, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
8. No claim is allowed.
9. 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 extension fee 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 OLGA N CHERNYSHEV whose telephone number is (571)272-0870. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM to 5:30PM, Monday to Friday.
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, Jeffrey Stucker can be reached on (571)272-0911. 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.
/OLGA N CHERNYSHEV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1649
May 31, 2022
Prosecution Insights