*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 .
Applicant's response dated March 17, 2026, is acknowledged.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/013315 filed on 01/13/2021, and claims benefit
in provisional application 62/961,602 filed on 01/15/2020.
Claim Status
Claims 1, 5-9, 18-20, 24-27, 29-31, and 35-38 are pending. Claims 18-20, 24-27, 29-31,
and 35-38 are withdrawn. Claims 2-4, 10-17, 21-23, 28, 32-34, and 39 were canceled. Claims 1, 5, and 6 were amended. Claims 1 and 5-9 are examined.
Withdrawn Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 112
Rejection of claim 6 is withdrawn because the claim was amended by deleting “cold”.
Maintained Claim Rejections - 35 USC§ 103
Modified as Necessitated by Amendment
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.
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 1 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zheng (US
10,028,503 B2 Date of Patent July 24, 2018 - of record in IDS dated 07/18/2022).
The claims encompass a composition for platelet storage comprising platelets and a
compound of formula as depicted in claims, wherein the compound is present in an amount of
about 1 uM to about 50 uM.
The teachings of Zheng are related to compositions for slowing, preventing, or reversing
platelet damage, wherein the compositions comprise one or more RHOA inhibitors and a
pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (Abstract). Patented claim 1 teaches a composition for cold
platelet storage comprising platelets; a RHOA inhibitor selected from
PNG
media_image1.png
160
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,
PNG
media_image2.png
168
505
media_image2.png
Greyscale
or pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, or combinations thereof; and a physiologically
acceptable carrier, wherein said R-G04, S-G04, or a combination thereof, is present in an amount
of at least about 10 uM. Patented claims 21-23 further limit the concentration to 10-500 uM, 25-
300 uM, and 50-200 uM, respectively.
Regarding instant claim 1, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a
composition for platelet storage comprising platelets and a compound of formula
PNG
media_image3.png
126
383
media_image3.png
Greyscale
in a concentration of at least about 10 uM, 10-
500 uM, 25-300 uM, or 50-200 uM, with a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang
teaches a composition for platelet storage comprising an RHOA inhibitor selected from
PNG
media_image4.png
172
503
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein the S-G04 is present in
an amount of at least about 10 uM, and 10-500 uM. S-G04 is identical to the instantly claimed compound. The claimed concentration range of about 1 uM to about 9 uM is obvious because it is close enough to at least about 10 uM and 10-500 uM that the skilled artisan would have expected the upper end of the range “about 9 uM” to have the same properties as the lower end of the range of “about 10 uM” and “10 uM”.
It would have been obvious to have formed the composition to contain only the S-G04
compound, which is the S form of the compound, without the R-S04 because it is apparent from
patented claim 1 that Zheng intended to encompass embodiments where the composition
contains the S form, the R form, or a combination of the two forms. Additionally, Zheng teaches
that individual stereoisomers of the compounds can be substantially free of other isomers, or can
be admixed, for example, as racemates or with all other or other selected, stereoisomers. The
chiral centers of the preferred embodiments can have the S or R configuration as defined by the
IUPAC 1974 Recommendations (column 13 lines 38-45). In view of this teaching, it would have
been obvious to form the composition to contain only the S isomer. The limitation that requires the compound to have at least 95% purity is obvious over the embodiment of the composition that contains only the S isomer. The claim is drawn to a composition comprising the compound, and the claim does not exclude anything that could be considered an impurity. The at least 95% purity of a compound is interpreted as describing the purity of the compound prior to using the compound to form the composition. Since the claim recites the transitional phrase “comprising” and does not exclude any compounds that are considered impurities, the prior art composition meets the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 5, it would have been obvious to have formed a platelet storage
composition comprising platelets and a compound of formula
PNG
media_image5.png
129
392
media_image5.png
Greyscale
, wherein the S form of the compound is present in an enantiomeric excess of at least approximately 94%, with a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang teaches a platelet storage composition comprising platelets and an RHOA inhibitor of formula
PNG
media_image6.png
175
504
media_image6.png
Greyscale
.
It would have been obvious to have formed the composition to contain only the S-G04
compound, which is the S form of the compound, without the R-S04 because it is apparent from
patented claim 1 that Zheng intended to encompass embodiments where the composition
contains the S form, the R form, or a combination of the two forms. Additionally, Zheng teaches
that individual stereoisomers of the compounds can be substantially free of other isomers, or can
be admixed, for example, as racemates or with all other or other selected, stereoisomers. The
chiral centers of the preferred embodiments can have the S or R configuration as defined by the
IUPAC 1974 Recommendations (column 13 lines 38-45). In view of this teaching, it would have
been obvious to form the composition to contain only the S isomer. The claimed ranges of at least approximately 94% enantiomeric excess of the S form and has at least 95% purity are obvious because Zheng teaches an embodiment where the S isomer is the only isomer in the composition. The claim is drawn to a composition comprising the compound, and the claim does not exclude anything that could be considered an impurity. The at least 95% purity of a compound is interpreted as describing the purity of the compound prior to using the compound to form the composition. Since the claim recites the transitional phrase “comprising” and does not exclude any compounds that are considered impurities, the prior art composition meets the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 6, it would have been prim a facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed a composition
for platelet storage comprising platelets and a compound of formula
PNG
media_image7.png
131
381
media_image7.png
Greyscale
in a concentration of at least about 10 uM or 10-500 uM, with a reasonable expectation of success because Zhang teaches a composition for platelet storage comprising an RHOA inhibitor selected from
PNG
media_image8.png
174
506
media_image8.png
Greyscale
, wherein the S-G04 is present in
an amount of at least about 10 uM and 10-500 uM. S-G04 is identical to the instantly claimed compound. The "wherein" clause requires the compound to be present in an amount sufficient to achieve claimed properties. Zheng teaches that the compound is present in the range of at least about 10 uM and 10-500 uM. These ranges overlap with ranges disclosed in the instant specification in paragraph 0038. It would have been reasonable to expect the S-G04 compound in Zheng's composition to achieve the claimed properties when tested under the same conditions as instantly claimed composition because Zheng's composition contains the same components as claimed where S-G04 is present in a range of amounts that overlaps with amounts disclosed by applicant's specification. The concentration ranges in patented claims are sufficient to achieve the claimed properties, absent evidence to the contrary.
It would have been obvious to have formed the composition to contain only the S-G04
compound, which is the S form of the compound, without the R-S04 because it is apparent from
patented claim 1 that Zheng intended to encompass embodiments where the composition
contains the S form, the R form, or a combination of the two forms. Additionally, Zheng teaches
that individual stereoisomers of the compounds can be substantially free of other isomers, or can
be admixed, for example, as racemates or with all other or other selected, stereoisomers. The
chiral centers of the preferred embodiments can have the S or R configuration as defined by the
IUPAC 1974 Recommendations (column 13 lines 38-45). In view of this teaching, it would have
been obvious to form the composition to contain only the S isomer. The limitation that requires the compound to have at least 95% purity is obvious over the embodiment of the composition that contains only the S isomer. The claim is drawn to a composition comprising the compound, and the claim does not exclude anything that could be considered an impurity. The at least 95% purity of a compound is interpreted as describing the purity of the compound prior to using the compound to form the composition. Since the claim recites the transitional phrase “comprising” and does not exclude any compounds that are considered impurities, the prior art composition meets the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 7, it would have been obvious to have formed the composition to
contain S-G04 isomer as the only isomer in the composition because Zheng teaches an
embodiment where S-G04 is the only isomer in the composition, which renders the claimed
range of approximately 97% of enantiomeric excess of the S isomer obvious because
approximately 97% is close enough to 100% that the skilled artisan would have expected them to
have the same properties. Paragraph 0022 of the instant specification defines "approximately" or
"about" to mean within an acceptable error range of the particular value as determined by one of
ordinary skill in the art. Alternatively, "about" can mean a range of up to 20%, up to 10%, up to
5%, and up to 1 % of a given value. It would have been reasonable to interpret these teachings to
apply to "approximately" as well because the specification refers to "approximately" and "about"
as equivalents. Thus, approximately 97% is a range of values that extents to a value greater than
97%.
Alternatively, patented claim 1 teaches combinations of S-G04 and R-G04, therefore it
would have been obvious to have varied the concentrations of each of the two isomers from the
smallest measurable amount to the largest measurable amount of each as long as there is some
amount of each isomer in the composition, with a reasonable expectation of success because
Zheng does not limit the amount of each isomer in the racemic mixture. The claimed range of
"approximately 97%" would have been obvious over this embodiment because the claimed range
overlaps with Zheng's range. Zheng teaches that individual stereoisomers of the compounds can
be substantially free of other isomers, or can be admixed, for example, as racemates or with all
other or other selected, stereoisomers. The chiral centers of the preferred embodiments can have
the S or R configuration as defined by the IUPAC 1974 Recommendations (column 13 lines 38-
45). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to form the composition to contain only
the S isomer and alternatively to form a composition having a racemic mixture of the two
isomers. The claimed range of approximately 97% enantiomeric excess of the S form is obvious
because Zheng teaches an embodiment where the S isomer is the only isomer in the composition,
which is close enough in number to approximately 97%; and Zheng teaches a racemic mixture
where the amount of the S isomer would have overlapped with approximately 97%.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, it would have been obvious to have formed the composition
with a physiologically acceptable carrier such as a buff er, with a reasonable expectation of
success because Zheng teaches that the composition contains a physiologically acceptable carrier
such as a buffer (column 14 lines 25-33).
Combining prior art elements according to known methods to obtain predictable results
supports obviousness. The instant application was reviewed and there is no evidence that the
claimed ranges are critical.
Maintained Double Patenting Rejections
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-26 of U.S. Patent No. 10,028,503 B2. Although the claims at issue
are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claims are
drawn to compositions for platelet storage, comprising platelets; an RHOA inhibitor selected
from
PNG
media_image9.png
195
470
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
175
510
media_image10.png
Greyscale
or pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, or combinations thereof; and a physiologically
acceptable carrier, wherein said R-G04, S-G04, or a combination thereof, is present in an amount
of at least about 10 uM, where patented claims 21-23 further limit the concentration to 10-500
uM, 25-300 uM, and 50-200 uM, respectively.
Instant claim 1 is obvious over patented claim 1 because the claimed compound is
identical to S-G04 and the claimed concentration range of the compound is close enough to the patented range that the skilled artisan would have expected them to have the same properties.
Instant claim 5 is obvious over patented claim 1 because the claimed structure is identical
to S-G04 and patented claim 1 teaches an embodiment where the RHOA S-G04 is the only
isomer. This is apparent because patented claim 1 teaches that the RHOA is selected from SG04,
R-G04, or a combination thereof. Therefore, patented claim 1 encompasses embodiments
where only one of the isomers is present in the composition. The claimed range of at least
approximately 94% is obvious because it contains an embodiment where the S isomer is the only
isomer in the composition.
Instant claim 6 is obvious over patented claims 1 and 21-23 because patented claims
teach the same compound as claimed and ranges of concentrations of the compound that overlap
with the ranges disclosed in the instant specification paragraph 0038. It would have been
reasonable to expect the S-G04 compound in patented composition to achieve the claimed
properties when tested under the same conditions as instantly claimed composition because
patented composition contains the same components as claimed where S-G04 is present in a
range of amounts that overlaps with amounts disclosed by applicant's specification. The
concentration ranges in patented claims are sufficient to achieve the claimed properties, absent
evidence to the contrary.
Instant claim 7 is obvious over patented claim 1 because the patented claim encompasses
embodiments where S-G04 is the only isomer present, which renders the claimed range of
approximately 97% of enantiomeric excess of the S isomer obvious because approximately 97%
is close enough to 100% that the skilled artisan would have expected them to have the same
properties. Paragraph 0022 of the instant specification defines "approximately" or "about" to
mean within an acceptable error range of the particular value as determined by one of ordinary
skill in the art. Alternatively, "about" can mean a range of up to 20%, up to 10%, up to 5%, and
up to 1 % of a given value. It would have been reasonable to interpret these teachings to apply to
"approximately" as well because the specification refers to "approximately" and "about" as
equivalents. Thus, approximately 97% is a range of values that extents to a value greater than
97%. Furthermore, patented claim 1 teaches combinations of S-G04 and R-G04, therefore it
would have been obvious to have varied the concentrations of each of the two isomers from the
smallest measurable amount to the largest measurable amount of each as long as there is some
amount of each isomer in the composition. The claimed range of "approximately 97%" would
have been obvious over this embodiment because the claimed range overlaps with the patented
range.
Instant claim 8 is obvious over patented claim 1 because patented claim 1 teaches a
pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
Instant claim 9 is obvious over patented claim 2 which teaches buffer.
The limitation that requires 95% purity of the compound is obvious over patented claims because patented claims encompass embodiments where S-G04 is the only isomer present. The claim is drawn to a composition comprising the compound, and the claim does not exclude anything that could be considered an impurity. The at least 95% purity of a compound is interpreted as describing the purity of the compound prior to using the compound to form the composition. Since the claim recites the transitional phrase “comprising” and does not exclude any compounds that are considered impurities, the prior art composition meets the claimed limitation.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No.10,405,538 B2 (of record in IDS dated
07/18/2022). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
each other because patented claims are drawn to a method for preserving platelet function and/or
activity in a platelet subjected to cold storage comprising said platelet with a composition
comprising a RHOA inhibitor selected from
PNG
media_image11.png
213
474
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
236
482
media_image12.png
Greyscale
(claim 1); wherein said
RHOA inhibitor is present in a concentration in said composition in an amount of at least about
10 uM (claim 4) and from about 10 uM to about 500 uM (claim 5); and wherein said
composition comprises a buff er (claims 6 and 7).
Instant claim 1 is obvious over the composition that is formed by patented method where
platelets are contacted with a composition comprising S-G04 in a concentration of at least about
10 uM or a concentration of 10-500 uM. Thus, the patented method forms a composition
comprising platelets, S-G04, and a buffer. The claimed compound is the same as S-G04. The
composition formed by patented method would have contained S-G04 in a concentration that
less than at least about 10 uM or that is less than 10-500 uM because the addition of platelets
would have diluted the amount of S-G04 in the composition. The claimed concentration range of
the compound is obvious because it overlaps with the ranges of less than "at least about 10 uM"
or less than 10-500 uM.
Instant claim 5 is obvious over patented claims because the claimed structure is identical
to S-G04 and patented claim 1 teaches an embodiment where the RHOA S-G04 is the only
isomer. This is apparent because patented claim 1 teaches that the RHOA is selected from SG04,
R-G04, or a combination thereof. Therefore, patented claim 1 encompasses embodiments
where only one of the isomers is present in the composition. The claimed range of at least
approximately 94% is obvious because it contains an embodiment where the S isomer is the only
isomer in the composition.
Instant claim 6 is obvious over patented claims because patented claims teach the same
compound as claimed and ranges of concentrations of the compound that overlap with the ranges
disclosed in the instant specification paragraph 0038. It would have been reasonable to expect
the S-G04 compound in patented composition to achieve the claimed properties when tested
under the same conditions as instantly claimed composition because patented composition
contains the same components as claimed where S-G04 is present in a range of amounts that
overlaps with amounts disclosed by applicant's specification. The concentration ranges in
patented claims are sufficient to achieve the claimed properties, absent evidence to the contrary.
Instant claim 7 is obvious over patented claims because the patented claim encompasses
embodiments where S-G04 is the only isomer present, which renders the claimed range of
approximately 97% of enantiomeric excess of the S isomer obvious because approximately 97%
is close enough to 100% that the skilled artisan would have expected them to have the same
properties. Paragraph 0022 of the instant specification defines "approximately" or "about" to
mean within an acceptable error range of the particular value as determined by one of ordinary
skill in the art. Alternatively, "about" can mean a range of up to 20%, up to 10%, up to 5%, and
up to 1 % of a given value. It would have been reasonable to interpret these teachings to apply to
"approximately" as well because the specification refers to "approximately" and "about" as
equivalents. Thus, approximately 97% is a range of values that extents to a value greater than
97%. Furthermore, patented claims teach combinations of S-G04 and R-G04, therefore it would
have been obvious to have varied the concentrations of each of the two isomers from the smallest
measurable amount to the largest measurable amount of each as long as there is some amount of
each isomer in the composition. The claimed range of "approximately 97%" would have been
obvious over this embodiment because the claimed range overlaps with the patented range.
Instant claim 8 is obvious over patented claims 6 and 7 because patented claims teach a
buffer.
Instant claim 9 is obvious over patented claims 6 and 7 which teaches a buffer.
The limitation that requires 95% purity of the compound is obvious over patented claims because patented claims encompass embodiments where S-G04 is the only isomer present. The claim is drawn to a composition comprising the compound, and the claim does not exclude anything that could be considered an impurity. The at least 95% purity of a compound is interpreted as describing the purity of the compound prior to using the compound to form the composition. Since the claim recites the transitional phrase “comprising” and does not exclude any compounds that are considered impurities, the prior art composition meets the claimed limitation.
Claims 1 and 5-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 8-23 of U.S. Patent No. I 1,172,673 B2 (of record in IDS dated
07/18/2022). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
each other because patented claims are drawn to a method for improving platelet survival upon
transfusion comprising infusing treated platelets into a subject, wherein prior to said infusing, the
platelets have been treated by contacting platelets with a RHOA inhibitor selected from
PNG
media_image13.png
234
486
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
164
480
media_image14.png
Greyscale
(claim 8); wherein the inhibitor is
present in a concentration of from about 1 uM to about 500 uM ( claim 9); wherein prior to
infusing, the platelets have further been contacted with a physiologically acceptable carrier
(claim 12); and wherein the carrier is selected from a buffer (claim 13).
Instant claim 1 is obvious over the composition that is formed by patented method where
platelets are contacted with a composition comprising S-G04 in a concentration of 1-500 uM.
Thus, the patented method forms a composition comprising platelets, S-G04, and a buffer. The
claimed compound is the same as S-G04. The composition formed by patented method would
have contained S-G04 in a concentration that less than 1-500 uM because the addition of
platelets and the buffer would have diluted the amount of S-G04 in the composition. The claimed
concentration range of the compound is obvious because it overlaps with the range that is less
than 1-500 uM.
Instant claim 5 is obvious over patented claims because the claimed structure is identical
to S-G04 and patented claim 1 teaches an embodiment where the RHOA S-G04 is the only
isomer. This is apparent because patented claim 1 teaches that the RHOA is selected from SG04,
R-G04, or a combination thereof. Therefore, patented claim 1 encompasses embodiments
where only one of the isomers is present in the composition. The claimed range of at least
approximately 94% is obvious because it contains an embodiment where the S isomer is the only
isomer in the composition.
Instant claim 6 is obvious over patented claims because patented claims teach the same
compound as claimed and ranges of concentrations of the compound that overlap with the ranges
disclosed in the instant specification paragraph 0038. It would have been reasonable to expect
the S-G04 compound in patented composition to achieve the claimed properties when tested
under the same conditions as instantly claimed composition because patented composition
contains the same components as claimed where S-G04 is present in a range of amounts that
overlaps with amounts disclosed by applicant's specification. The concentration ranges in
patented claims are sufficient to achieve the claimed properties, absent evidence to the contrary.
Instant claim 7 is obvious over patented claims because the patented claim encompasses
embodiments where S-G04 is the only isomer present, which renders the claimed range of
approximately 97% of enantiomeric excess of the S isomer obvious because approximately 97%
is close enough to 100% that the skilled artisan would have expected them to have the same
properties. Paragraph 0022 of the instant specification defines "approximately" or "about" to
mean within an acceptable error range of the particular value as determined by one of ordinary
skill in the art. Alternatively, "about" can mean a range of up to 20%, up to 10%, up to 5%, and
up to 1 % of a given value. It would have been reasonable to interpret these teachings to apply to
"approximately" as well because the specification refers to "approximately" and "about" as
equivalents. Thus, approximately 97% is a range of values that extents to a value greater than
97%. Furthermore, patented claims teach combinations of S-G04 and R-G04, therefore it would
have been obvious to have varied the concentrations of each of the two isomers from the smallest
measurable amount to the largest measurable amount of each as long as there is some amount of
each isomer in the composition. The claimed range of "approximately 97%" would have been
obvious over this embodiment because the claimed range overlaps with the patented range.
Instant claim 8 is obvious over patented claims 6 and 7 because patented claims teach a
buffer.
Instant claim 9 is obvious over patented claims 6 and 7 which teaches a buffer.
The limitation that requires 95% purity of the compound is obvious over patented claims because patented claims encompass embodiments where S-G04 is the only isomer present. The claim is drawn to a composition comprising the compound, and the claim does not exclude anything that could be considered an impurity. The at least 95% purity of a compound is interpreted as describing the purity of the compound prior to using the compound to form the composition. Since the claim recites the transitional phrase “comprising” and does not exclude any compounds that are considered impurities, the prior art composition meets the claimed limitation.
The instant application was reviewed and there is no evidence that the claimed ranges are
critical.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments submitted in the remarks dated March 17, 2026 were fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Argument related to unexpected results is not persuasive because applicant has not met the requirements set forth in MPEP 716.02 for overcoming an obviousness rejection with unexpected results. The S isomer is a different compound from the R isomer and any differences between the claimed invention and the prior art may be expected to result in some differences in properties. The issue is whether the properties differ to such an extent that the difference is really unexpected. Data in Figures 3A, 3B, and 4A was considered however it is not sufficient to overcome the rejections because data for the R and the S isomer in graphs in Figures 3A and 4A is not clear and it cannot be determined if there is an overlap in values. The error bars for isomer R and S in Figure 3B appear to overlap. Thus, the difference between the R and the S isomer is of statistical significance. The data does not demonstrate that the claimed concentration range is critical.
Applicant’s argument related to method of making the claimed compound is not persuasive because the instant claims are drawn to a product and not a method of making.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 Alma - Pipic whose telephone number is (571)270-7459. The
examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5:00pm. 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 on 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.
/ALMA PIPIC/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617