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 .
Claims 1 and 14 have undergone amendments. Claims 19-22 are newly added. Thus, Claims 1-6, 8, 11-14, 16-18, and 19-22, submitted on 9 February 2026, represent all claims currently under consideration.
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
One Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), submitted 9 February 2026, is acknowledged and has been considered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claims 1-6, 8, and 11 over Parekh is maintained. Applicant has amended Claim 1 to require that the YAP inhibitor is the sole active agent administered to the wound. Parekh administers both a YAP inhibitor photosensitizer and light, which activates the photosensitizer, to the wound. Until the light is administered in the method of Parekh, the claimed method has been practiced. Additionally, the compounds which are utilized in this method (porphyrins) are photoactive and thus are activated by light. Verteporfin is activated by 689-693 nm wavelength light, which falls within the visible spectrum. Moreover, exposure of this compound to light in the presence of oxygen will result in activation of the compound. Thus, administering this compound to a patient, even without the specific inclusion of a photoactivation step, will necessarily result in the exposure of the administered compound to light (during the administration to the patient, for example). Thus, this claimed method necessarily embraces a photoactivation step.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claims 14 and 16-18 over Tamarkin is withdrawn. The method of Claim 14 requires the formation of a wound in a dermal location of a subject; Tamarkin does not disclose a method that includes a step of forming a wound in a dermal location of a subject.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claims 1-6 and 8 over Bowler is maintained. Applicant has amended Claim 1 to require that the YAP inhibitor is the sole active agent administered to the wound, while Bowler administers both the YAP inhibitor and photoactivating light to the wound. However, until the light is administered in the method of Bowler, the claimed method has been practiced. Additionally, the compounds which are utilized in this method (porphyrins) are photoactive and thus are activated by light. Verteporfin is activated by 689-693 nm wavelength light, which falls within the visible spectrum. Moreover, exposure of this compound to light in the presence of oxygen will result in activation of the compound. Thus, administering this compound to a patient, even without the specific inclusion of a photoactivation step, will necessarily result in the exposure of the administered compound to light (during the administration to the patient, for example). Thus, this claimed method necessarily embraces a photoactivation step.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claims 14 and 16-18 over Williams is withdrawn. Claim 14 requires the formation of a wound in a dermal location of a subject; Williams does not disclose this method.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claims 1-6 and 8 over Trauner is maintained. Applicant has amended Claim 1 to require that the YAP inhibitor is the sole active agent administered to the wound, while the methods of Trauner require the addition of light along with the photosensitizing YAP inhibitor to the wound. However, until the light is administered in the method of Trauner, the claimed method has been practiced. Additionally, the compounds which are utilized in this method (porphyrins) are photoactive and thus are activated by light. Verteporfin is activated by 689-693 nm wavelength light, which falls within the visible spectrum. Moreover, exposure of this compound to light in the presence of oxygen will result in activation of the compound. Thus, administering this compound to a patient, even without the specific inclusion of a photoactivation step, will necessarily result in the exposure of the administered compound to light (during the administration to the patient, for example). Thus, this claimed method necessarily embraces a photoactivation step.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claims 1-6 and 8 over Hasan is maintained. Applicant has amended Claim 1 to require that the YAP inhibitor is the sole active agent administered to the wound, while the methods of Hasan require the addition of light along with the photosensitizing YAP inhibitor to the wound. However, until the light is administered in the method of Hasan, the claimed method has been practiced. Additionally, the compounds which are utilized in this method (porphyrins) are photoactive and thus are activated by light. Verteporfin is activated by 689-693 nm wavelength light, which falls within the visible spectrum. Moreover, exposure of this compound to light in the presence of oxygen will result in activation of the compound. Thus, administering this compound to a patient, even without the specific inclusion of a photoactivation step, will necessarily result in the exposure of the administered compound to light (during the administration to the patient, for example). Thus, this claimed method necessarily embraces a photoactivation step.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) rejection of Claims 14 and 16-18 over Simkin is withdrawn. Claim 14 requires the formation of a wound, and Simkin does not disclose the formation of a wound in their method of hair growth.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claims 1-6, 8 and 11 over Trauner is maintained. Applicant has amended Claim 1 to require that the YAP inhibitor is the sole active agent administered to the wound, while Trauner requires light, in addition to the YAP inhibitor, to be applied to the wound. However, until the light is administered in the method of Trauner, the claimed method has been practiced. Additionally, the compounds which are utilized in this method (porphyrins) are photoactive and thus are activated by light. Verteporfin is activated by 689-693 nm wavelength light, which falls within the visible spectrum. Moreover, exposure of this compound to light in the presence of oxygen will result in activation of the compound. Thus, administering this compound to a patient, even without the specific inclusion of a photoactivation step, will necessarily result in the exposure of the administered compound to light (during the administration to the patient, for example). Thus, this claimed method necessarily embraces a photoactivation step.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claims 1-6, 8, and 11 over Hasan is maintained. Applicant has amended Claim 1 to require that the YAP inhibitor is the sole active agent administered to the wound, while Hasan requires light, in addition to the YAP inhibitor, to be applied to the wound. However, until the light is administered in the method of Hasan, the claimed method has been practiced. Additionally, the compounds which are utilized in this method (porphyrins) are photoactive and thus are activated by light. Verteporfin is activated by 689-693 nm wavelength light, which falls within the visible spectrum. Moreover, exposure of this compound to light in the presence of oxygen will result in activation of the compound. Thus, administering this compound to a patient, even without the specific inclusion of a photoactivation step, will necessarily result in the exposure of the administered compound to light (during the administration to the patient, for example). Thus, this claimed method necessarily embraces a photoactivation step.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of Claims 1-6, 8, 11-14, and 16-18 over Simkin in view of Barman and Hasan is maintained. Applicant has amended Claims 1 and 14 to require that the YAP inhibitor is the sole active agent administered to the wound. The methods of Simkin necessarily require light along with the photosensitizer. However, until the light is administered in these methods, the claimed method has been practiced. Additionally, the compounds which are utilized in this method (porphyrins) are photoactive and thus are activated by light. Verteporfin is activated by 689-693 nm wavelength light, which falls within the visible spectrum. Moreover, exposure of this compound to light in the presence of oxygen will result in activation of the compound. Thus, administering this compound to a patient, even without the specific inclusion of a photoactivation step, will necessarily result in the exposure of the administered compound to light (during the administration to the patient, for example). Thus, this claimed method.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102- REJECTIONS MAINTAINED AND NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Parekh (Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, 24:375-381, 1999).
Parekh studied wound healing and how photodynamic therapy can be used to improve the healing of wounds. Full thickness incisional wounds were placed on 24 hairless Sprague Dawley rats. Rats were injected with the photodynamic therapy drug BPD-MA (benzoporphyrin derivative monoacid, also known as verteporfin), 3 and 24 hours prior to irradiation. Animals were irradiated with different dosages of light and wounds were examined each day for 14 days. The authors found no significant effect in the healing of wounds (Abstract).
This method does not explicitly state that YAP is inhibited; however, when verteporfin is utilized in this method, YAP will inherently become inhibited. The functional limitations on each of the claims are met through the use of verteporfin as described in the method of Parekh as the inhibition of YAP will result in the reduction of the transition. As described previously, until the light is administered in the method of Parekh, the claimed method has been practiced. Additionally, the compounds which are utilized in this method (porphyrins) are photoactive and thus are activated by light. Verteporfin is activated by 689-693 nm wavelength light, which falls within the visible spectrum. Moreover, exposure of this compound to light in the presence of oxygen will result in activation of the compound. Thus, administering this compound to a patient, even without the specific inclusion of a photoactivation step, will necessarily result in the exposure of the administered compound to light (during the administration to the patient, for example). Thus, this claimed method necessarily embraces a photoactivation step.
Regarding the claims which utilize “consisting essentially of” and ”consisting” in their methods, as described previously, the methods which are disclosed are identical to what is claimed until the light is administered, and as such, the claimed method has been practiced.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bowler (WO 2010/070292; Publication Date: 24 June 2010).
Bowler discloses a composition for use on skin and wounds comprising a photo-catalyst which is capable of preferentially staining biofilms, the composition being for use in the diagnosis and treatment of biofilms in wounds (Abstract). This invention relates to a composition which can be applied to skin, wounds, cuts, abrasions or burns for the diagnosis and treatment of bacteria associated with infections. The invention relates to a composition capable of providing effective antimicrobial activity while at the same time avoiding wound and skin irritation and retardation of wound healing (Page 1, Lines 4-9). The compositions according to a first aspect of the invention comprise one or more photo-catalysts capable of preferentially staining biofilms. Suitable photo-catalysts may be benzoporphyrin derivatives (Page 4, Lines 12-22).
The cited art reads on the examined claims as the claims are directed to a “method comprising”. The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (See MPEP § 2111.03 I).
This method does not explicitly state that YAP is inhibited; however, when verteporfin is utilized in this method, YAP will inherently become inhibited. The functional limitations on each of the claims are met through the use of verteporfin as described in the method of Bowler as the inhibition of YAP will result in the reduction of the transition. As described previously, until the light is administered in the method of Bowler, the claimed method has been practiced. Additionally, the compounds which are utilized in this method (porphyrins) are photoactive and thus are activated by light. Verteporfin is activated by 689-693 nm wavelength light, which falls within the visible spectrum. Moreover, exposure of this compound to light in the presence of oxygen will result in activation of the compound. Thus, administering this compound to a patient, even without the specific inclusion of a photoactivation step, will necessarily result in the exposure of the administered compound to light (during the administration to the patient, for example). Thus, this claimed method necessarily embraces a photoactivation step.
Regarding the claims which utilize “consisting essentially of” and ”consisting” in their methods, as described previously, the methods which are disclosed are identical to what is claimed until the light is administered, and as such, the claimed method has been practiced.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Trauner (U.S. Patent No. 5,913,884; Patent Date: 22 June 1999).
Trauner (See IDS, 13 April 2022) teaches a method for modulating wound healing in a mammal by administering a photosensitizer to a mammal that has an unhealed or partially-healed wound, waiting for the photosensitizer to reach an effective tissue concentration at the wound site, photoactivating the photosensitizer by delivering specifically to the wound site light of an effective wavelength and intensity for an effective length of time. The modulation can include inhibiting fibrosis by administering a high dose of photodynamic therapy (Abstract). Fibrosis can be advantageously inhibited according to the present invention (Column 4, Lines 18-20). The modulation of wound healing is achieved according to this invention by modulating macrophage, myofibroblast, and/or endothelial cell function at the wound site (Column 3, Lines 60-64). Table 1 lists photosensitizers of the invention, and include benzoporphyrin derivatives (Column 5), and specifies that these derivatives can include benzoporphyrin monoacid derivatives, which includes verteporfin. Administration of the photosensitizer can be local or systemic and can be by any suitable route including subcutaneous. The preferred route of administration will depend on the size and nature of the wound, and on the location of the wound (Column 6, Lines 47-54).
The cited art reads on the examined claims as the claims are directed to a “method comprising”. The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (See MPEP § 2111.03 I).
This method does not explicitly state that YAP is inhibited; however, when verteporfin is utilized in this method, YAP will inherently become inhibited. The functional limitations on each of the claims are met through the use of verteporfin as described in the method of Trauner as the inhibition of YAP will result in the reduction of the transition. As described previously, until the light is administered in the method of Trauner, the claimed method has been practiced. Additionally, the compounds which are utilized in this method (porphyrins) are photoactive and thus are activated by light. Verteporfin is activated by 689-693 nm wavelength light, which falls within the visible spectrum. Moreover, exposure of this compound to light in the presence of oxygen will result in activation of the compound. Thus, administering this compound to a patient, even without the specific inclusion of a photoactivation step, will necessarily result in the exposure of the administered compound to light (during the administration to the patient, for example). Thus, this claimed method necessarily embraces a photoactivation step.
Regarding the claims which utilize “consisting essentially of” and ”consisting” in their methods, as described previously, the methods which are disclosed are identical to what is claimed until the light is administered, and as such, the claimed method has been practiced.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasan (U.S. Patent No. 6,107,466; Patent Date: 22 August 2000).
Hasan (See IDS, 13 April 2022) teaches a method for accelerating wound healing in a mammal by administering a photosensitizer to the mammal, waiting for the photosensitizer to reach an effective tissue concentration at the wound site, and photoactivating the photosensitizer at the wound site (Abstract). The cells producing the growth factor in response to the photodynamic therapy can be fibroblast cells, myofibroblast cells, macrophage cells, endothelial cells, epithelial cells, or other cell types at the wound site (Column 2, Lines 31-34). Various types of molecules can be used as photosensitizers including benzoporphyrin derivatives (Column 2, Lines 38-45). Specific examples of photosensitizers are benzoporphyrin derivatives (Column 4, Lines 54-61). Benzoporphyrin derivatives include benzoporphyrin monoacid derivatives. Verteporfin is benzoporphyrin derivative mono-acid. Where the size, nature, and location of the wound renders local administration of the photosensitizer feasible, local administration is preferred over systemic administration. Advantages of local administration include reducing side effects. In addition, local administration generally yields an effective concentration of photosensitizer at the wound site more rapidly, and permits greater control over photosensitizer concentration at the wound site (Column 6, Lines 13-21).
The cited art reads on the examined claims as the claims are directed to a “method comprising”. The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (See MPEP § 2111.03 I).
This method does not explicitly state that YAP is inhibited; however, when verteporfin is utilized in this method, YAP will inherently become inhibited. The functional limitations on each of the claims are met through the use of verteporfin as described in the method of Hasan as the inhibition of YAP will result in the reduction of the transition. As described previously, until the light is administered in the method of Hasan, the claimed method has been practiced. Additionally, the compounds which are utilized in this method (porphyrins) are photoactive and thus are activated by light. Verteporfin is activated by 689-693 nm wavelength light, which falls within the visible spectrum. Moreover, exposure of this compound to light in the presence of oxygen will result in activation of the compound. Thus, administering this compound to a patient, even without the specific inclusion of a photoactivation step, will necessarily result in the exposure of the administered compound to light (during the administration to the patient, for example). Thus, this claimed method necessarily embraces a photoactivation step.
Regarding the claims which utilize “consisting essentially of” and ”consisting” in their methods, as described previously, the methods which are disclosed are identical to what is claimed until the light is administered, and as such, the claimed method has been practiced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103- REJECTIONS MAINTAINED AND NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trauner (U.S. Patent No. 5,913,884; Patent Date: 22 June 1999).
Trauner, as described above, teaches the use of benzoporphyrin derivatives for the healing of wounds.
Trauner does not explicitly state the use of verteporfin; however, verteporfin is a benzoporphyrin monoacid derivative which is also an agent known for use in photodynamic therapy. This method does not explicitly state that YAP is inhibited; however, when verteporfin is utilized in this method, YAP will inherently become inhibited. The functional limitations on each of the claims are met through the use of verteporfin as described in the method of Trauner as the inhibition of YAP will result in the reduction of the transition.
The cited art reads on the examined claims as the claims are directed to a “method comprising”. The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (See MPEP § 2111.03 I).
Regarding the claims which utilize “consisting essentially of” and ”consisting” in their methods, as described previously, the methods which are disclosed are identical to what is claimed until the light is administered, and as such, the claimed method has been practiced.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasan (U.S. Patent No. 6,107,466; Patent Date: 22 August 2000).
Hasan, as previously described, teaches the use of benzoporphyrin derivatives for wound healing.
Hasan does not explicitly state the use of verteporfin; however, verteporfin is a benzoporphyrin monoacid derivative which is also an agent known for use in photodynamic therapy. This method does not explicitly state that YAP is inhibited; however, when verteporfin is utilized in this method, YAP will inherently become inhibited. The functional limitations on each of the claims are met through the use of verteporfin as described in the method of Hasan as the inhibition of YAP will result in the reduction of the transition of ENFS to Engrailed-1 lineage positive fibroblasts within the wound.
Regarding the claims which utilize “consisting essentially of” and ”consisting” in their methods, as described previously, the methods which are disclosed are identical to what is claimed until the light is administered, and as such, the claimed method has been practiced.
The cited art reads on the examined claims as the claims are directed to a “method comprising”. The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (See MPEP § 2111.03 I).
Claims 1-6, 8, 11-14, and 16-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simkin (U.S. Patent No. 7,264,692; Patent Date: 4 September 2007) in view of Barman (WO 2012/078649; Publication Date: 14 June 2012) and Hasan (U.S. Patent No. 6,107,466; Patent Date: 22 August 2000).
Simkin (See IDS, 13 April 2022) teaches the use of photodynamic therapy to stimulate and/or restore hair growth in areas of hair loss, permitting a means to treat conditions relating to hair loss such as androgenic alopecia, alopecia areata, and drug-induced alopecia (Abstract). The invention provides methods and compositions for treating lack of hair growth or a reduction or loss of existing hair by stimulating and/or restoring hair growth with photodynamic therapy. The treatment methods comprise administering an effective and/or sufficient amount of photosensitizer resulting in an effective or desired degree of biodistribution and irradiating at least a portion of the external surface of the animal with light including one or more wavelengths capable of activating said photosensitizer for a time period sufficient to activate photosensitizer (Column 3, Lines 25-40). In addition to treatment of hair loss, this method may be used for the stimulation of hair growth in areas not recognized as experiencing hair loss (Column 4, Lines 20-23). Two preferred members of the green porphyrin family for use in this invention are verteporfin and QLT 0074 (Column 5, Lines 20-23). Benzoporphyrin derivatives of this invention include diester di acid, mono-acid ring A or mono-acid ring B. Preferred photosensitizers are the benzoporphyrin derivative mono-acid (BPD-MA) (Column 13), which is verteporfin. In another aspect, the invention is directed to formulations or compositions comprising photosensitizers for treating lack of hair growth or a reduction or loss of existing hair with the methods of the invention (Column 4, Lines 46-49). The green porphyrins may be administered by means including, but not limited to, topical preparations, intravenous injection or infusion, oral intake, or local administration in the form of intradermal injection or implant (Column 19, Lines 2-6). It is preferred that the area to be treated have minimal hair coverage when the activation energy is applied. Therefore, if there is significant hair coverage of the area to be treated, it is preferred that the hair is cut short of shaved prior to energy application (Column 21, Lines 52-56). Example 1 (Column 22, Line 45) demonstrates this technique using verteporfin to regrow hair in C57BL/6 mice.
Simkin does not teach forming a wound in a dermal location of a subject prior to administration of the YAP inhibitor.
Barman teaches methods of treating baldness, alopecia, promoting hair growth, and/or promoting follicle development and/or activation or simulation of an area of the skin of a subject by subjecting the area of the skin to integumental perturbation. Integumental perturbation can be combined with other treatments for promoting hair growth. The invention provides pharmaceutical compositions for use in combination with integumental perturbation for promoting hair growth (Abstract). Integumental perturbation refers to any treatment of the skin and/or other tissues of the integumentary system that results in debriding, peeling or wounding or other perturbation of the skin (Paragraph 0041). In one aspect, an integumental perturbation methods is used in combination with other agents or treatments. For example, an integumental perturbation method of the invention can be administered before, concurrently, after, or alternating with one or more hair growth-promoting agents (Paragraph 0060). A method provided herein for using integumental perturbation in combination with a hair-growth promoting agent to promote the growth of hair results in an increase in the amount or thickness of hair on an area of skin of a subject (Paragraph 0063). In certain aspects, the invention provides a method for promoting hair growth on the scalp of a male or a female subject (Paragraph 0064). In some embodiments, the post-perturbation treatment is administered to enhance scarless wound healing and/or prolong the period during which hair growth in the wounded area of skin is promoted. In some such embodiments, a post-perturbation period treatment promotes wound healing with no or minimal scarring (Paragraph 00196). A subcutaneously administered hair growth promoting agent may be preferred in order to achieve a controlled release of hair growth promoting agent from the blood to the skin (Paragraph 00248). The hair growth promoting agents can be formulated in forms suitable for subcutaneous administration (Paragraph 00278).
Barman does not teach that verteporfin or benzoporphyrin derivatives can heal wounds.
Hasan, as described previously, discloses the use of benzoporphyrin derivatives including monoacid derivatives for the healing of wounds. Verteporfin is a benzoporphyrin derivative which is also a monoacid derivative.
Simkin, Barman, and Hasan are considered analogous to the claimed invention as all are involved in therapies and treatments for conditions which effect the skin. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to substitute the use of verteporfin for the regrowth of hair, as taught by Simkin, into the integumental disruption followed by application of pharmacological treatment for hair regrowth as taught by Barman, to arrive at the claimed invention. The substitution of verteporfin for hair regrowth as taught by Simkin in to the method of Barman is prima facie obvious simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 I (B)); Simkin demonstrates that verteporfin alone can be used to induce hair regrowth, while Barman demonstrates integumental disruption with the addition of a pharmacotherapy results in hair regrowth. The artisan would recognize that verteporfin, which can both regrow hair as shown by Simkin, and enhance wound healing as shown by Hasan, can be applied to the technique of Barman, predictably resulting in a treatment for hair regrowth. The disclosed methods do not explicitly state that YAP is inhibited; however, when verteporfin is utilized in this method, YAP will inherently become inhibited. The functional limitations on each of the claims are met through the use of verteporfin as described in the method of Simkin, Hasan, and Barman as the inhibition of YAP will result in the reduction of the transition of ENFS to Engrailed-1 lineage positive fibroblasts within the wound.
The cited art reads on the examined claims as the claims are directed to a “method comprising”. The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (See MPEP § 2111.03 I).
Regarding the claims which utilize “consisting essentially of” and ”consisting” in their methods, as described previously, the methods which are disclosed are identical to what is claimed until the light is administered, and as such, the claimed method has been practiced.
Conclusion
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected.
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 PHILLIP MATTHEW RZECZYCKI whose telephone number is (703)756-5326. The examiner can normally be reached Monday Thru Friday 730AM-5PM EST.
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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at 571-272-0913. 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.
/P.M.R./ Examiner, Art Unit 1625 /Andrew D Kosar/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights