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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 7/17/26 has been entered.
Claims 1, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23-30, 34, and 36-38 are pending. Claims 1, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23-27 and 29 have been withdrawn. Claims 28 and 30 have been amended. Claims 28, 30, 34 and 36-38 are under consideration.
Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied and constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 7/17/26. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 28, 30, 34 and 36-38 are 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.
In claim 28, is unclear how the concentration range is calculated, and therefore the range itself is unclear. The claim recites, “…from about 65 wt% to about 75 wt% based on a total combined weight of the naproxen free acid and the potassium salt of naproxen” (emphasis added). “The naproxen free acid” is recited in the claim only as a reactant. The recited range of 65 wt% to 75 wt% is unclear because it is unclear if the range is calculated based on an initial amount of naproxen free acid when provided as a reactant or if there is excess naproxen free acid which remains in the fill composition. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claims 30, 34 and 36-38 are rejected as depending from and not clarifying claim 28.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 28, 30, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 5,360,615; cited in IDS) in view of Lopez et al. (US 2013/0011470; cited in IDS).
Yu et al. teach a solvent system for enhancing the solubility of an acidic, basic, or amphoteric pharmaceutical agent to produce a highly concentrated solution suitable for softgel filling, wherein the pharmaceutical agent is naproxen (e.g. abstract; Claims 1 and 8; Examples).
Yu et al. teach that the solvent system comprises polyethylene glycol, sodium hydroxide, and water, the polyethylene glycol acts to dissolve the free form of the acidic agent in monomer, dimer, trimer, etc. form; the sodium hydroxide is present in sufficient quantity to only partially form the sodium salt of the acidic pharmaceutical agent; and the small amount of water present acts to form a solvation sphere around the acid salt permitting it to go into solution in the polyethylene glycol (i.e. by mixing naproxen free acid and potassium hydroxide and dissolving in a solvent to react the naproxen free acid with the potassium hydroxide to obtain a reaction product) (e.g. column 7, lines 15-25). Yu et al. further teach that potassium hydroxide is the preferred form of hydroxide ion not only because it enhances the solubility of an acidic pharmaceutical agent to a greater extent than sodium hydroxide but also because it is less likely to result in precipitation over a wide variety of concentration ranges even at low temperatures (4° C.) as may occur during shipping (e.g. column 8, lines 16-39). Yu et al. teach a solubility enhancing amount of hydroxide ion, preferably 0.2-1.0 mole equivalents of hydroxide ion per mole equivalent of acid in an acidic pharmaceutical agent, which overlaps with the claimed range (e.g. column 4, lines 40-43). Yu et al. further teach that the softgel has a minimum size of 7 for naproxen, and up to 20 (e.g. Table I). As 7 is the minimum and up to 20 is disclosed, it would have been obvious to have selected any of 7-20 as the size, including the subrange of 8-14. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Yu et al. teach that by selecting the proper ratio of the free pharmaceutical agent and its salt, the solubility of that agent can be maximized (e.g. column 6, lines 1-7), but are silent as to the concentration of the potassium salt of naproxen based on a total combined weight of the naproxen free acid and the potassium salt of naproxen. This is made up for by the teachings of Lopez et al.
Lopez et al. teach an NSAID formulation for encapsulation into a soft gel capsule with increased stability, concentration and bioavailability of the NSAID, wherein the preferred NSAID includes naproxen (e.g. abstract). The pH values of fill formulations may be adjusted without additional process steps. A process for increasing the achievable concentration of an NASAID pharmaceutical ingredient in a fill composition for dosage units is also provided. The highly concentrated NASAID formulation permits a reduction in the fill volume or dosage unit size or an increase in concentration of the NSAID in each dosage (e.g. abstract). Lopez et al. teach that the amount of naproxen in the formulation ranges from about 2% to about 25% by weight with the corresponding amount of naproxen salt in the formulation ranging from about 25% to about 2% by weight. The total amount of naproxen and naproxen sodium by weight in the formulation may depend on desired capsule size, but preferably range from about 22% to about 30% by weight (e.g. paragraph 0019). This results in a range of salt of naproxen present at a concentration from about 6-93 wt% based on a total combined weight of the naproxen free acid and the potassium salt of naproxen, which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP 2144.05.I).
Regarding Claims 28 and 30, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the instant invention to vary the naproxen salt concentration through routine experimentation to arrive at the concentration of 65-75 wt% in order to optimize the resulting product. Yu et al. teach that by selecting the proper ratio of the free pharmaceutical agent and its salt, the solubility of that agent can be maximized (e.g. column 6, lines 1-7), but are silent as to the concentration of the potassium salt of naproxen based on a total combined weight of the naproxen free acid and the potassium salt of naproxen. It is obvious to optimize within prior art conditions or through routine experimentation. 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. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select the concentration of potassium salt of naproxen based on a total combined weight of the naproxen free acid and the potassium salt of naproxen as disclosed by Lopez et al. for use in the process of Yu et al. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielding nothing more than predictable results. One of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted success as both of Yu and Lopez are directed to highly concentrated compositions of naproxen and its salt. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to seek out additional guidance because Yu et al. disclose that by selecting the proper ratio of the free pharmaceutical agent and its salt, the solubility of that agent can be maximized, but do not provide a concentration range. Lopez et al. disclose a highly concentrated NASAID formulation permits a reduction in the fill volume or dosage unit size or an increase in concentration of the NSAID in each dosage (e.g. abstract).
Regarding Claim 34, Yu et al. exemplify a highly concentrated solution (i.e. dissolved in) comprising polyethylene glycol 600 (e.g. Example IV), which as evidenced by the instant Specification in paragraph 0052, is low molecular weight.
Claims 36-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 5,360,615; cited in IDS) in view of Lopez et al. (US 2013/0011470; cited in IDS) as applied to claims 28, 30, and 34, and further in view of Gullapalli (Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2010; cited in IDS).
Regarding Claims 28, 30, and 34, the teachings of Yu et al. and Lopez et al. are described supra. Yu et al. teach softgel formulations of naproxen and potassium hydroxide, but are silent as to processing details including a rotary die encapsulation machine, drying, and moisture content. These deficiencies are made up for by the teachings of Gullapalli.
Gullapalli teaches softgel capsules and the manufacturing process for the production of softgels (e.g. abstract). Gullapalli teaches that the manufacturing process for the production of softgels is the rotary die process, using an encapsulation machine (e.g. page 4108, column 2; Figure 1), which is followed by a drying step (e.g. page 4111, column 1) and a final moisture content of 10-15% (e.g. page 4112, column 1).
Regarding Claims 36-38, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to look to the processing steps of Gullapalli for use with the compositions and methods of Yu et al. and Lopez et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would have predicted success as both Yu and Gullapalli are directed to softgel compositions, and one would have been motivated to seek out appropriate processing steps, as Yu et al. are silent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/17/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art do not disclose “wherein a molar ratio of the potassium hydroxide to naproxen free acid combined to form the reaction product is less than about 1”.
This is not found persuasive. As described supra, Yu et al. teach a solubility enhancing amount of hydroxide ion, preferably 0.2-1.0 mole equivalents of hydroxide ion per mole equivalent of acid in an acidic pharmaceutical agent, which overlaps with the claimed range (e.g. column 4, lines 40-43).
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE PLOURDE BABSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3055. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-4:30; F 8-12:30.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on 571-272-0827. 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.
/NICOLE P BABSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619
Prosecution Insights