Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/760,093

COMPOUNDS, COMPOSITIONS, AND METHODS TO TREAT METABOLIC DISEASE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Aug 03, 2022
Examiner
WEDDINGTON, KEVIN E
Art Unit
1629
Tech Center
1600 — Biotechnology & Organic Chemistry
Assignee
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE
OA Round
2 (Non-Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
2-3
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
85%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allow Rate
1086 granted / 1442 resolved
+15.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
33 currently pending
Career history
1475
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.3%
-39.7% vs TC avg
§103
25.4%
-14.6% vs TC avg
§102
17.7%
-22.3% vs TC avg
§112
27.1%
-12.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1442 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 1-4, 7, 9 and 19-23 are presented for examination. Applicants’ amendments and response filed December 17, 2025 have been received and entered. Accordingly, the rejection made under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boudreau et al., Diabetes, Vol. 66, No. Supplement 1, page A670, abstract no. 2575-PUB (2017) as set forth in the previous Office action dated September 17, 2025 at pages 2-3 as applied to claims 1-9 is hereby WITHDRAWN due to applicants’ amendment to claim 1 and the prior art does not disclose the preferred active agent, Scoprenyl (SP). Accordingly, the rejection made under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 102069712 B1, hereby known as TS Trillion Co. Ltd. of PTO-1449 (2019) as set forth in the previous Office action dated September 17, 2025 at pages 3-4 as applied to claims 1-9 is hereby WITHDRAWN due to applicants’ amendment to claim 1 and the prior art does not disclose the preferred active agent, Scoprenyl (SP). Claims 19-23 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to the non-elected invention (37 CFR 1.142(b)). Applicants request the rejoinder of non-elected claims 19-23. Applicants’ request is GRANTED, therefore, claims 19-23 will be rejoined. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 7 and 9 are allowable. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a Written Description rejection. A lack of adequate written description issue arises if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not permit one skilled in the art to immediately envisage the product claimed from the disclosed process. See, e.g., Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a "laundry list" disclosure of every possible moiety does not constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not "reasonably lead" those skilled in the art to any particular species); In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995, 154 USPQ 118, 123 (CCPA 1967). An applicant may also show that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics which provide evidence that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention, i.e., complete or partial structure, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics. In particular, the specification as original filed fails to provide sufficient written bases of any of the agents demonstrating wherein possession of use of the broad term: a metabolic disease. The mere fact that Applicant may have discovered one type of metabolic disease is treated or prevented in a subject in need thereof with the administration of the botanical composition of claim 1 is not sufficient to claim the entire genus, such as Gaucher’s disease, Hemochromatosis, and Phenylketonuria. The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406. A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure "indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us]." Claim 19 is not allowed. 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 2-4 and 19-23 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. Claims 2, 19, 22 and 23 are rendered indefinite and vague by the phrase “botanical extract”. Claim 1 recites “a botanical composition”. Claims 3, 4 and 21 are rendered indefinite to the extent that they incorporate the above terminology. Claims 19, 22 and 23 are rendered indefinite and vague by the phrase “any one of claim 1”. The phrase is confusing. Applicants may amend the claims to recite, --the botanical composition of claim 1--. Claims 20 and 21 are rendered indefinite to the extent that they incorporate the above terminology. Clams 2-4 and 19-23 are not allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E WEDDINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-0587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1:30-10:00. 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, Jeff Lundgren can be reached at 571-272-5541. 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. KEVIN E. WEDDINGTON Primary Examiner Art Unit 1629 /KEVIN E WEDDINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1629
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 03, 2022
Application Filed
Sep 15, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Dec 17, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 27, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600696
NOVEL AROMATIC COMPOUNDS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599587
CHLORINATED TETRALIN COMPOUNDS AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPOSITIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594284
COMBINATION OF MICRONUTRIENTS TO STIMULATE THE ENDOGENOUS PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN SULFIDE (H2S)
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12589085
USE OF DIAMINOGUANIDINE DERIVATIVE AND FEED COMPOSITION THEREOF IN PREPARATION OF VETERINARY DRUG
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12589086
COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR THE TREATMENT OF PRIMARY BILIARY CHOLANGITIS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

2-3
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
85%
With Interview (+9.7%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1442 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month