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 .
Receipt is acknowledged of IDS filed on 11/29/2022 and 02/06/2025.
Claims 3-17 are pending.
Claims 1-2 are cancelled.
Claims 4-11, 13-15, and 17 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I and Species D in the reply filed on 07/09/2025 is acknowledged.
In regards to the election of species and restriction requirement, applicant argues that the species and restriction requirements are improper as failing to distinctly point out the distinctive characteristics of each group or species differs, claiming that all species and groups require the same technical feature. It is noted that the instant case is a 371 of a PCT and thus subject to restriction/election of species under PCT rule 13.1, as the examiner provided prior art and broke unity showing the technical feature of the instant claims is ‘common' and not special.
As applicant stated in the response filed on 07/09/2025, Annex B Unity of Invention, (b) technical feature, Rule 13.2 states: The expression "special technical features" is defined in Rule 13.2 as meaning those technical features that define a contribution which each of the inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
Furthermore, as stated in the restriction/election requirement, the groups and species lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the same technical feature, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art. Therefore, the groups and species lack unity of invention. The election and restriction requirement is deemed proper and made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 3, 12 and 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by THORNTON (US 2014/0094482 A1).
THORNTON teaches a method of administering a compound that binds to Filamin A, FLNA, and inhibits the hyperphosphorylation of the tau protein (abstract). Tauopathies, such as progressive supranuclear palsy, are caused by hyperphosphorylation of the tau protein, which is when tau proteins that contain more than the normophosphorylated number of phosphate groups (Page 1, paragraph 0008-0009). This reads on a medicine for progressive supranuclear palsy comprising a compound for inhibiting expression of a filamin-A gene to a subject.
Additional Disclosures: The high affinity compound-FLNA binding alters the conformation of FLNA and prevents it from interacting with other signaling molecules, such as alpha-7 nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (α7nAChR), thereby inhibiting the hyperphosphorylation of the tau protein (Page 3, paragraph 0038). Antisense-α7nAChR oligonucleotides can reduce α7nAChR levels (Page 3, paragraph 0036). Note: The Applicant’s specification states, “The antisense nucleic acid can be of any sequence that shows activity of inhibiting the expression of the filamin-A gene.” (Page 23, paragraph 0029).
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMANTHA L. MEJIAS whose telephone number is (703)756-5666. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, MICHAEL HARTLEY can be reached at (571) 272-0616. 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.
/S.L.M./ Examiner, Art Unit 1618 /JAKE M VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1618