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 .
Status of the Application
Receipt of the Request for Continued Examination (RCE under 37 CFR 1.114), the Response and Amendment filed 12/23/2025 is acknowledged.
The present amendments of the claims necessitated modifying the claim rejections to rely on different prior art references than those relied on previously. The previous 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections in view of Acar et al., Prakash et al., and Gaugler et al., variously, are withdrawn, but the claims remain rejected in view of newly-cited prior art. Examiner does not concede that the previous rejections were necessarily overcome by the present amendments to the claims.
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendment stands as follows:
Pending claims: 1-5
Withdrawn claims: 6-12
Previously cancelled claims: None
Newly cancelled claims: None
Amended claims: 1-5
New claims: None
Claims currently under consideration: 1-5
Currently rejected claims: 1-5
Allowed claims: None
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/23/2025 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnett et al. (U.S. 2013/0157356 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barnett et al. discloses a liquid composition ([0066]) comprising a mixture of Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (DMEM) ([0258]) and glucagon-like peptide 2 (GLP-2) ([0291]), which is a vertebrate G protein-coupled receptor ligand. The statement that the liquid composition is an “artificial blood-free diet composition for rearing mosquitoes” is a statement of intended use that does not structurally limit the claimed composition. MPEP 2111.02 II (“If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.”). The limitation that “the composition enables mosquito ovarian development, egg maturation, and fertility in the absence of blood” is considered an inherent attribute of the claimed mixture of components. MPEP 2112.01 II (“if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present”). The limitation that the ligands “circulate in the blood plasma and regulate reproduction and/or nutrient metabolism” is also considered to be an inherent attribute of the claimed GLP-2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett et al. (U.S. 2013/0157356 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Barnett et al. discloses the composition of claim 1.
Barnett et al. does not specifically disclose the vertebrate GPCR-ligand as being present in the composition at a concentration in the range of 0.1-100 µM.
However, Barnett et al. discloses that the amount of added supplement may be readily determined by one having ordinary skill in the art and that typical supplement concentrations may range from about 0.1% to about 50% w/w ([0153]-[0154]). As such, any concentration of supplement at least in the range of 0-50% w/w would be obvious to a skilled practitioner. Such a range is considered to encompass the claimed range of 0.1-100 µM of the vertebrate GPCR-ligands in the final concentration of the composition, thus rendering the range obvious.
As for claim 3, Barnett et al. discloses the selected vertebrate GPCR-ligand comprises GLP-2 ([0291]). Although Barnett et al. does not specifically disclose the component as being from a human source, Barnett et al. does describe other components obtained from a human source ([0083]), such that obtaining GLP-2 from a human source would be obvious.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnett et al. (U.S. 2013/0157356 A1) in view of Nishino et al. (U.S. 2014/0106348 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Barnett et al. discloses the composition of claim 1, including the addition of GLP-2. Claim 4 implicitly requires claim 1 to be the Rich Liquid Diet, wherein the composition rejected previously in relation to claim 1 additionally is required to comprise a phagostimulant, a protein source, and cholesterol. Barnett et al. discloses the composition as additionally comprising a phagostimulant (ATP) ([0185]) and a protein source that may be BSA ([0145], [0164], [0006]).
Barnett et al. does not disclose the composition as comprising cholesterol. Barnett et al. also does not disclose the claimed concentrations of any of the BSA, ATP, cholesterol, or the GLP-2.
Regarding the inclusion of cholesterol, though, Nishino et al. discloses a similar cell culture medium ([0046]) that may comprise DMEM ([0132]), wherein cholesterol may be added to the medium ([0137]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to add cholesterol to the composition of Barnett et al. Since Barnett et al. teaches generally that various supplements may be added to a culture medium depending on the type of cell before providing several broad categories of supplements ([0066]), a skilled practitioner would be motivated to consult Nishino et al. for additional instruction regarding suitable supplements for cell culture media. Since Nishino teaches that cholesterol may be added to such media ([0137]) and further indicate that determining suitable additives is well within the ordinary skill in the art ([0136]), the addition of cholesterol to the composition of Barnett et al. would be obvious.
As for the concentrations, of components, Barnett et al. discloses that the amount of added supplement may be readily determined by one having ordinary skill in the art and that typical supplement concentrations may range from about 0.1% to about 50% w/w ([0153]-[0154]). As such, any concentration of supplements at least in the range of 0-50% w/w would be obvious to a skilled practitioner. Such a range is considered to encompass the claimed ranges of 100-300 g/L BSA, 0.5-0.6 g/L ATP, 0.06-0.24 g/L cholesterol, and 5-10 µM GLP-2 in the final concentration of the composition, thus rendering such ranges obvious. Further, MPEP 2144.05 II A states: “Generally, differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical.” Since the present claim does not encompass the actual application Applicant intends for its use, the composition per se cannot be said to be based on any criticality of the claimed concentrations ranges of the claimed compositions. The claimed concentration ranges are thus considered obvious according to this rationale as well.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-3 over Acar et al. and Prakash et al.; and claims 4 and 5 over Acar et al., Prakash et al., and Gaugler et al.: Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
To the extent some arguments may be relevant to the present rejections, such arguments are nonetheless unpersuasive.
Applicant argued that the compositions of the previously-cited art references did not disclose the functionality of the claimed composition as related to mosquito rearing (Applicant’s Remarks, p. 7, ¶2).
However, MPEP 2144 IV states: “It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant.” Since the present claims are directed only to compositions, the functionality of the claimed compositions in the context of mosquito rearing is not pertinent to the analysis.
Applicant also argued that ATP was not characterized as a phagostimulant in the prior art reference (Applicant’s Remarks, p. 9, ¶2).
Here, again, the instruction of MPEP 2144 IV is applicable, in that it is not necessary for the prior art to suggest achieving the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. The inclusion of ATP for any reason would be adequate to deem the claimed inclusion of ATP obvious.
Conclusion
Claims 1-5 are rejected.
No claims are allowed at this time.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG whose telephone number is (571)270-5272. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30AM-5:00PM.
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, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. 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.
/JEFFREY P MORNHINWEG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
Prosecution Insights