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 .
Priority
This application, filed on 11/24/2020, claims priority from EP10174145.5 filed on 05/24/2018 and PCT/EP2019/063318 filed on 05/23/2019.
However, the effective filing date of the claims filed on 10/23/2025 is 05/23/2019. The effective filing date of a claimed invention is determined on a claim-by-claim basis. MPEP § 2152.01. Instant claims 20 and 22-40 are not entitled to the priority date of EP10174145.5 filed on 05/24/2018, because they are not fully supported therein pursuant to § 112. EP10174145.5 does not, pursuant to § 112, support the claimed invention as the EP10174145.5 directed to using the extract rich anthraquinones for treating nervous system diseases. The EP10174145.5 description does not recite any method of treating Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection. Thus, none of the claims are supported by EP10174145.5 with respect to treating HPV, pursuant to § 112. MPEP § 211.05(A). As such, the priority date of instant claims 20 and 22-40 is the date of the international Application PCT/EP2019/063318 filed on 05/23/2019.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/14/2025 has been entered.
DETAILED ACTION
The Amendments and Applicant’s Arguments submitted on 10/23/2025 have been received and
have been carefully considered.
Claim 20 was amended, and claims 1-19, 21 and 41-42 were previously cancelled.
Claims 20 and 22-40 are pending with claims 22-29, 31, 33-35, 38-40 being previously withdrawn, and Claims 20, 30, 32, and 36-37 are currently under consideration in the instant office action.
Withdraw Claim Rejection - 35 USC § 103
Rejection of claims 20, 30, 32, and 36-37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Y. Raviv et al. (WO 2005/093049 A1, 10/06/2005) in view of S. Wang et al. (US PG-PUB 2011/0224414 A1, 09/15/2011), K. Georgij et al. (RU2505289C2, 01/27/2014), Z. Qinglong (CN 1562313A, 01/12/2005,), Z. Peng et al. (Phytotherapy Research. 2017; 31:1962–1970), Y. Sun et al. (Virol. Sin. 22, 14–20 2007), and Dang Shuangsuo et al. Med Sci Monit 2006; 12(9): BR302-306), is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments submitted on 10/23/2025 that amended claim 20 by directing the method of claim 20 to treating atherosclerosis, and human papilloma virus (HPV) infection.
New Rejection necessitated by the Amendment
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 20, 30, 32, and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Y. Raviv et al. (WO 2005/093049 A1, 10/06/2005, “Raviv” cited in the PTO-892 dated 07/01/2025) in view of D. Naresh et al. (Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, Vol. 17(3), July 2018, pp. 474-479, “Naresh” cited in the PTO-892), Thacker PC, et al. (2015), PLoS ONE 10(3): e0120045, “Thacker” cited in the PTO-892) Malmir, M., et al. Anthraquinones as Potential Antimicrobial Agents. A. Mendez-Vilas, 2017, 55-61, “Malmir” cited in the PTO-892), and R. Gao, et al. (14 May 2019) OncoTargets and Therapy, 3713-3721, “Gao” cited in the PTO-892).
Raviv teaches a method for treating viral infection by inactivation of the viruses including papovavirus, etc., comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of photoactivatable compound, [Pg. 15, ln. 9, claim 15], wherein the photoactivatable compound is selected from porphyrin, chlorin, bacteriochlorin, purpurin, phthalocyanine, naphthalocyanine, merocyanines, carbocyanine, texaphyrin, non-tetrapyrrole, [Pg. 8, ln. 24-26, and claim 13].
Raviv’s photoactivatable compound purpurin is an anthraquinone with the following structure:
PNG
media_image1.png
256
324
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Purpurin reads on claims 1, 30, and 32 formula (IIId) wherein R1, R2 and R4 are OH, and R3, R5, R6, R7 and R8 are H.
The Purpurin reads on claim 36 wherein R1, R2 are OH, and R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 and R8 are H.
The Purpurin reads on claim 37 as Purpurin listed as one of the anthraquinone.
Raviv differs from the instantly rejected claims to the extent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have to pick papillomavirus from the list of viral infections, and the anthraquinone from the list of photoactivatable compounds.
However, Naresh, Thacker, Malmir, Gao provide the motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically pick the anthraquinone i.e., Purpurin, from Raviv’s list for treating Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection.
Naresh teaches a method of treating viral infection by using anthraquinone rich Cassia fistula pod extract through inducing IFIT1 antiviral protein. Naresh teaches that anthraquinone rich extract inducing innate immune system to treat viral infections by significantly induced IFIT1 antiviral protein expression. [Abstract], wherein the viral infection includes Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection, [page 475, col. 1, 1st para.]. Naresh teaches that IFIT1 protein shows a diverse biological effect that inhibits different phases of the viral lifecycle including virus entry, assembly, translation and viral replication including inhibition of replication of HPV by binding to its helicase E1, [page 475, col. 1, 1st para.].
Moreover, Thacker teaches a method of using a combination comprises anthraquinone, emodin in treating the cellular effects of Human Papilloma Virus infection by down regulating the signaling pathway. Thacker teaches that the emodin combination targets the signaling pathways associate with Human Papilloma Virus infection that leads to cervical carcinogenesis, which results in the emodin combination targeted the mechanistic basis of treating cervical cancer. [Abstract]. Thacker teaches that HPV infection leads to the loss of TGF-β responsiveness promoting malignant transformation. Thacker teaches that HPV 16 E7 protein is shown to block the ability of TGF-β to inhibit cell proliferation suggesting an association of HPV-associated malignant transformation to the loss of responsiveness to the TGF-β-mediated growth inhibitory signal. [page 21, 1st para.]. Thacker teaches that the emodin combination down regulating TGF-β signaling pathway in cervical cancer cells. [page 22, last para.].
Furthermore, Malmir teaches the use of anthraquinones and their derivatives as antimicrobial agent, [Abstract], wherein the antimicrobial activity of anthraquinones is well-known in the art [page 55, last para.]. Malmir teaches that anthraquinones used as the main antimicrobial for inhibiting human papillomavirus. [page 56, 1st para.].
Moreover, Gao teaches the use of anthraquinone, aloe-emodin for treating HPV-induced cervical cancer by decreasing the expressions of HPV-related protein E6 and E7. [Abstract]. Gao teaches that HPV16 and HPV18 belong to high-risk HPV virus, wherein HPV16 and HPV18 are the causes of almost all cervical cancers around the world. [page 3714, col. 1, 1st para.]. Gao teaches that anthraquinone, aloe-emodin inhibits the HPV level in concentration-dependent manner in Hela cells. [page 3714, col. 2, 2nd para.].
In view of the foregoing discussion, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specifically pick an anthraquinone, for example purpurin from Raviv listed of photoactivatable compounds for treating HPV infections in view of the combination of Naresh, Thacker, Malmir and Gao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so with reasonable expectation of success because all the cited prior art are directed to using anthraquinone and anthraquinone derivatives for treating HPV, inhibiting HPV, decreasing HPV expression, inhibiting HPV level, or targeting the cellular effects of HPV virus. Therefore, claims 20, 30, 32, and 36-37 are obvious over the combination of Raviv, Naresh, Thacker, Malmir and Gao.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues:
Applicant submits that the combination of references does not disclose, teach, or even suggest treating a "disease [] selected from the group consisting of: atherosclerosis; and human papilloma virus (HPV) infection." For at least these reasons, claims 20, as well as the claims that depend therefrom, are patentable over the combination of references. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner response:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 20, 30, 32, and 36-37 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same combination of references as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Claims 20, 30, 32, and 36-37 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 MANAHIL MIRGHANI ALI ABDALHAMEED whose telephone number is (571)272-1242. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, James H Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached at 571-272-5548. 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.
/M.M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1622
/JAMES H ALSTRUM-ACEVEDO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1622
Prosecution Insights