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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed September 14, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 7 have been amended, claims 4-6, 11-19, 22-25, 27-32, 34-38, 40, 42-44, 46-53, 58-64, and 75-94 have been cancelled, and claims 65-74 are withdrawn as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome the objections to the drawings and specification, as well as the 112(b) rejections and 103 rejections over Casa and Zotchev previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed March 13, 2026. Applicants cancellation of claims 6, 11 have rendered the corresponding rejections/objections moot. As such, these rejections and objections are hereby withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed September 14, 2026 were fully considered but they were not persuasive. Modified/New rejections and new rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment are addressed below.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 20-21, 26, 33, 39, 41, 45, 54-57 and 65-74 are pending in this application.
Election
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-3, 6-11, 20-21, 26, 33, 39 41, 45, and 54-57) without traverse in the reply filed February 23, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 65-74 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 20-21, 26, 33, 39 41, 45, and 54-57 are encompassed by the election and examined herein.
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/054914 filed February 26, 2021 and claims the benefit of provisional application 62/981,762 filed February 26, 2020.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 1-3, 7-10, 20-21, 26, 33, 39 41, 45, and 54-57 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.
Regarding claims 1-3, 7-10, 20-21, 26, 33, 39 41, 45, and 54-57: Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pharmaceutically acceptable excipient". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-3, 7-10, 20-21, 26, 33, 39 41, 45, and 54-57 which depend from claim 1 are similarly rejected.
Regarding claims 3 and 10: Claim 3, which depends from claim 1 and recites, “the pharmaceutical composition of claim 1, further comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable polymeric excipient”. Claim 10, which depends from claim 3 and ultimately from claim 1 and recites “wherein the pharmaceutically acceptable polymeric excipient is poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)”.
However, it is unclear whether the further inclusion of a polymeric excipient is in addition to the polymeric excipient recited by instant claim 1, includes the polymeric excipient as recited by instant claim 1 and thus fails to further limit the claim, or is meant to replace the polymeric excipient as recited by instant claim 1. Additionally with claim 10 it is unclear what polymeric excipient is to be limited (i.e. the initial or the latter). According to the instant specification, the examples provided demonstrate that either PACA or PLGA are used in the formulations, but there is no example in which both are used in the formulations (See instant specification, pgs. 50-53, table 29). Based on the previous claim set the Examiner believes claim 3 may be an artifact which failed to account for the inclusion of specific polymeric excipients into claim 1.
New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 3 and 10: Claim 3 which depends from claim 1, recites “further comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient”. However, claim 1 already implies a pharmaceutically acceptable polymeric excipient, thus claim 3 fails to limit claim 1. Claim 10, which depends from claim 3 and ultimately from claim 1 recites, wherein the pharmaceutically acceptable polymeric excipient is poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid)”. However, claim 1 already limits the excipient to poly(alkyl cyanoacrylate) or polyphosphazene. Thus claim 10 expands, rather than limits claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Modified/New Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-8, 20, 33, 39, 41, 45, and 54-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 9,878,041, IDS filed February 23, 2026) in view of Zotchev (US 8,415,312, cited in previous action).
Regarding claims 1-3, 7-8, 20, 33, 39, 45, and 54-57: Lee teaches a tissue adhesive including cyanoacrylate bulk monomer and cyanoacrylate nanoparticles containing a therapeutic (abstract). Lee teaches methods of preventing infection of a wound (abstract). Lee teaches the preparation of drug-loaded poly(butyl cyanoacrylate) (PBCA) particles (col. 15, lines 19-20). Lee teaches the preparation of nanoparticles comprises neutralization after polymerization (i.e. pH 7.0), freeze-dried in a lyophilizer (i.e. lyophilized) and resuspended in distilled water (col. 15, lines 54-59). Lee teaches the composition can comprise amphotericin B as the therapeutic (col. 6, lines 5-15, table 1). Lee teaches the compositions can be formulated for injection with sterile aqueous solutions or dispersions (col. 7, lines 59-64). The carrier can be a solvent such as water, ethanol or mixtures thereof (cols. 6-7, bridging para.). Lee teaches the compositions can include surfactants or nonaqueous vehicles such as cotton seed oil (col. 8, lines 3-6). Lee teaches various additives, such as those that enhance stability (i.e. a stabilizer) can be added (col. 8, lines 10-11). Lee teaches when administering compounds of the invention with the nanoparticles the formulations can include solvents such as ethanol (i.e. polar organic solvent). Lee teaches combinations of cyanoacrylate excipients (col. 8, lines 60-67).
Lee does not teach wherein the active ingredient is that which is recited by instant claims 1-2, ,
PNG
media_image1.png
184
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
However, Zotchev teaches nystatin derivatives which are anti-fungal agents of the following formula
PNG
media_image2.png
174
343
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(abstract). Zotchev teaches the following specific compound 1
PNG
media_image3.png
184
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(drawings sheet 21, figure 16, compound 1, cols. 23-24, table 1, compound 1). Zotchev teaches compound 1, a nystatin derivative has comparable anti-fungal activity to amphotericin B (col. 48, lines 25-58).
Taken together, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Lee, such that amphotericin B is replaced with compound 1 as taught by Zotchev. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success given that both compounds are established equivalent anti-fungal agents, and it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 (II)).
Regarding claim 41: As discussed above, Lee and Zotchev render obvious the composition of claim 39.
Lee does not teach wherein the formulation comprises a pharmaceutically acceptable stabilizer that is vanillin.
However, Zotchev further teaches vanillin can be included in the pharmaceutical composition as a flavoring agent (col. 22, lines 51-56).
Taken together, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate vanillin into the oral composition of Lee as suggested by Zotchev. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the flavor of the composition, thereby increasing patient satisfaction. Although Zotchev does not teach vanillin as a stabilizer, wherein it would have been obvious to incorporate vanillin, this property necessarily flows as result of making the composition, as products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties (See MPEP 2112.02 (II)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 9,878,041, IDS filed February 23, 2026) and Zotchev (US 8,415,312, cited in previous action) as applied to claims 1-3, 7-8, 20, 33, 39, 41, 45, and 54-57 above, in view of Wu (CN 106821962, IDS filed February 23, 2026, the English language translation relied upon by the Examiner has been provided in a previous action).
As discussed above, Lee and Zotchev teaches formulations comprising a combination of polymeric excipients.
They do not teach wherein the polymeric excipient is poly(lacto-co-glycolic acid).
However, Wu teaches amphotericin B liquid crystal nanoparticles for the improvement of oral bioavailability and stability of amphotericin B during oral administration (English translation, abstract). Wu teaches amphotericin B Is a known broad spectrum antifungal antibiotic (English translation, pg. 3, para. 5). Wu teaches the composition comprises micellar material that can be polylactic acid-glycolic acid copolymer (PLGA), and a stabilizer poloxamer 407 (English translation, pg. 4, para. 4). According to the instant specification poloxamer is a surfactant (pg. 16, lines 15-27). Wu teaches the preparation comprises diluting a phosphate buffer solution of pH 6-6.4, freeze drying (i.e. lyophilize), resuspending in water (i.e. pH ~ 7, English translation, pg. 4, para. 17). Wu teaches PLGA has better effects and achieves higher encapsulation efficiency (English translation, pg. 8, last para.).
Taken together it would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate PLGA as a polymeric excipient into the formulation as taught by Wu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as Lee establishes combination formulation comprising multiple polymeric excipients and PLGA are known polymeric excipients for preparing nanoparticles. Wherein both cyanoacrylate and PLGA polymeric excipients are known in the art for this class of compounds it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 (II)).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 9,878,041, IDS filed February 23, 2026) and Zotchev (US 8,415,312, cited in previous action) as applied to claims 1-3, 7-8, 20, 33, 39, 41, 45, and 54-57 above, in view of Park (J. Applied Polymer Science, 2003, cited in previous action).
Regarding claim 9: As discussed above, the prior art render obvious the composition of claim 8 comprising drug-loaded poly(butyl cyanoacrylate) (PBCA) particles. Lee teaches alkyl cyanoacrylate monomers have been used as tissue adhesives for several decades (col. 1, lines 34-35). Lee teaches the choice of cyanoacrylate alkyl chain length and its effect on degradation rate can also be used to control dosing (col. 5, lines 56-48). Lee teaches methyl and ethyl alkyl chain cyanoacrylates were used as tissue adhesives but had rapid in vivo degradation, resulting in significant tissue toxicity compared to longer-chain cyanoacrylates such as butyl and octyl cyanoacrylate (col. 1, lines 39-45). Lee teaches both octyl cyanoacrylate and methoxy isopropyl cyanoacrylate formulations (col. 4, lines 47-57).
They do not teach wherein the polymeric excipient is poly(ethylhexyl cyanoacrylate as recited by instant claim 9.
However, Park examined the toxicity and degradation of some alkyl polycyanoacrylates including ethyl, 2-octyl, n-octyl, ethylhexyl, and ethyl cyanoacrylollactate (abstract, pg. 3273, col. 1, para. 2, col. 2, figure 1). Park prepared polymers of poly(ethylhexyl cyanoacrylate) (P(EHCA), pg. 3273, col. 1, para. 3). Park teaches that ethylhexyl cyanoacrylate polymers are useful for application to tissue adhesives and have improved biocompatibility over lower alkyl side groups, such as ethyl (pg. 3278, col. 2, para. 1).
Taken together it would have been prima facie obvious to modify the composition rendered obvious over Lee and Zotchev by utilizing poly(ethylhexyl cyanoacrylate) (P(EHCA) as the poly(alkyl cyanoacrylate) instead of octyl cyanoacrylate as suggested by Park. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success given that both cyanoacrylates are established equivalent polymers useful as tissue adhesives and have improved biocompatibility, and it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 (II)).
Claims 21 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 9,878,041, IDS filed February 23, 2026) and Zotchev (US 8,415,312, cited in previous action) as applied to claims 1-3, 7-8, 20, 33, 39, 41, 45, and 54-57 above, in view of Yamamoto (J. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Medicine, and Pathology, 2017, cited in previous action) and Morch (WO 2018/060437, IDS filed February 23, 2026).
Regarding claims 21 and 26: As discussed above, Lee and Zotchev render obvious a composition of claim 7 comprising the active ingredient recited by instant claims 1-2 in poly(alkyl cyanoacrylate) nanoparticles, wherein the active ingredient is an alternative to amphotericin B. Lee teaches
They do not teach wherein the composition further comprises microbubbles that comprise a perfluorocarbon.
However, Yamamoto teaches microbubble formulations comprising amphotericin B and perfluoropropane gas for the inhibition of candida albicans (abstract). Morch teaches a multifunctional drug delivery system that comprises gas-filled microbubbles associated with nanoparticles in therapy (pg. 3, lines 31-33). Morch teaches the nanoparticles may be surface-associated to the micro bubble and covering at least a part of the micro bubble surface, optionally the at least one of the nanoparticles are polymeric, such as poly(alkyl cyanoacrylate) (PACA) nanoparticle (pg. 8, lines 4-7). Morch teaches the therapeutic agent is loaded within the nanoparticles and may contain co-stabilizers (pg. 8, para. 7-11). The surface-associated polymeric nanoparticles stabilizes the microbubble and will influence the possible circulation time of the microbubbles in the blood (pg. 8, lines 18-20). Morch teaches such nanoparticle-stabilized microbubbles are shown to have long shelf life (pg. 16, lines 15-16). Morch teaches the microbubble may be filled with a gas selected from perfluorocarbon, air, N2, O2, or CO2 (pg. 8, lines 33-34).
Taken together, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to further modify the composition by incorporating microbubbles comprising perfluoropropane as suggested by Yamamoto and Morch. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success as nanoparticle-microbubble combinations are a known technique in the art of drug delivery and are both techniques are individually known to be beneficial to the delivery of amphotericin B, of which the claimed active ingredient is an equivalent of. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the benefit of combining the techniques for improved stabilization of the drug delivery system.
Claims 1-3, 10, 20, 39, 41, and 54-56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (CN 106821962, IDS filed February 23, 2026, the English language translation relied upon by the Examiner has been provided in a previous action) in view of Zotchev (US 8,415,312, cited in previous action).
Regarding claims 1-3, 10, 20, 39, and 54-56: As best understood in view of the 112(b) rejections above, where it is unclear whether PLGA was meant to be the main polymeric excipient, the following rejection is maintained. Wu teaches amphotericin B liquid crystal nanoparticles for the improvement of oral bioavailability and stability of amphotericin B during oral administration (English translation, abstract). Wu teaches amphotericin B Is a known broad spectrum antifungal antibiotic (English translation, pg. 3, para. 5). Wu teaches the composition comprises micellar material that can be polylactic acid-glycolic acid copolymer (PLGA), and a stabilizer poloxamer 407 (English translation, pg. 4, para. 4). According to the instant specification poloxamer is a surfactant (pg. 16, lines 15-27). Wu teaches the preparation comprises diluting a phosphate buffer solution of pH 6-6.4, freeze drying (i.e. lyophilize), resuspending in water (i.e. pH ~ 7, English translation, pg. 4, para. 17). Wu teaches PLGA has better effects and achieves higher encapsulation efficiency (English translation, pg. 8, last para.).
Wu does not teach wherein the active ingredient is that which is recited by instant claims 1-2,
PNG
media_image1.png
184
390
media_image1.png
Greyscale
.
However, Zotchev teaches nystatin derivatives which are anti-fungal agents of the following formula
PNG
media_image2.png
174
343
media_image2.png
Greyscale
(abstract). Zotchev teaches the following specific compound 1
PNG
media_image3.png
184
394
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(drawings sheet 21, figure 16, compound 1, cols. 23-24, table 1, compound 1). Zotchev teaches compound 1, a nystatin derivative has comparable anti-fungal activity to amphotericin B (col. 48, lines 25-58).
Taken together, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the composition of Wu, such that amphotericin B is replaced with compound 1 as taught by Zotchev. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success given that both compounds are established equivalent anti-fungal agents, and it is prima facie obvious to substitute equivalents known for the same purpose (See MPEP 2144.06 (II)).
Regarding claim 41: As discussed above, Wu and Zotchev render obvious the composition of claim 39. Wu is directed towards an oral formulation.
Wu does not teach wherein the formulation comprises a pharmaceutically acceptable stabilizer that is vanillin.
However, Zotchev further teaches vanillin can be included in the pharmaceutical composition as a flavoring agent (col. 22, lines 51-56).
Taken together, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate vanillin into the oral composition of Wu as suggested by Zotchev. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the motivation to do so with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve the flavor of the composition, thereby increasing patient satisfaction. Although Zotchev does not teach vanillin as a stabilizer, wherein it would have been obvious to incorporate vanillin, this property necessarily flows as result of making the composition, as products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties (See MPEP 2112.02 (II)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed September 14, 2026 with respect to the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 10 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues the newly amended claims now specify the polymeric excipient of claim 6 and thus claim 1 is not rendered obvious by the cited combination of Lee and Zotchev (para. 4).
However, Lee and Zotchev originally also rendered obvious claim 6, thus claim 1 is still rendered obvious over Lee and Zotchev because Lee teaches poly(alkyl cyanoacrylate) polymeric excipients for antifungal compounds.
On page 11 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues Zotchev does not teach nanoparticle delivery systems as being useful for the compounds of Zotchev (para. 1). Applicant argues Zotchev provides no guidance regarding the suitability regarding the stability of its compounds for incorporation into the specific nanoparticle formulations now required by claim 1. Applicant argues Lee does not suggest the presently claimed compound into its nanoparticle system (para. 2). Applicant argues that the fact that two compounds may exhibit antifungal activity alone does not by itself establish they would behave similarly in a nanoparticle formulation (para. 3). Applicant argues Zotchev does not teach or guide one to expect the compound would exhibit appropriate encapsulation, loading efficiency, stability, release characteristics, or formulation (para. 3). Thus Applicant argues there would be no expectation in success in utilizing the compound of Zotchev (i.e. claimed compound) with the formulation of Lee.
However, use of a known technique to improve similar products in the same way is prima facie obvious (See MPEP 2143 (I)). There is no teaching in the art to suggest that amphotericin B and the compound of Zotchev, which is a derivative of amphotericin B, would behave in a completely dissimilar fashion in terms of pharmaceutical formulation. Especially since the chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. The art does not teach away from using the compounds of Zotchev in such pharmaceutical formulations. Wherein the art teaches these formulations for amphotericin B, a person of ordinary skill would expect the formulations to be successful for a derivative of that compound, such as the compound claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
On page 12 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues the disclosure of Park is related to the properties of cyanoacrylate polymers used as tissue adhesives and concludes that ethylhexyl cyanoacrylate may be useful as tissue adhesive applications because of their degradation and biocompatibility characteristics (para. 1). Applicant argues Park does not suggest its use in the specific nanoparticle formulations claimed or with the specifically claimed antifungal compound (paras. 2-3). Applicant argues no disclosure suggested that polyethylhexyl cyanoacrylate would be suitable for encapsulating the claimed compound or would be expected to function in the specific nanoparticle formulation (para. 4). Applicant argues the cited references do not teach the requisite motivation for why poly(ethylhexylcyanoacrylate) for incorporation into the specific therapeutic formulation now claimed (para. 5).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case Lee teaches the choice of cyanoacrylate alkyl chain length and its effect on degradation rate can also be used to control dosing (col. 5, lines 46-47). Lee is directed towards tissue adhesives using cyanoacrylate polymers (abstract). Wherein Park teaches ethylhexyl cyanoacrylate would be favorable for this application because of degradation characteristics, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the requisite motivation to utilize the disclosed cyanoacrylate with a reasonable expectation of success in order to improve degradation properties to control dosing.
On page 13 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues the additional references Yammaoto and Morch merely identify further delivery system features but do not address the missing teaching that the specific compound could be incorporated into the polymeric nanoparticle formulations (paras. 2-4). Applicant argues the cited references do not teach that the specific compound would be comparable to amphotericin B within the nanoparticle systems (para. 4-5). On page 13 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues Wu and Zotchev do not teach or suggest incorporating Zotchevs compounds into the nanoparticle formulations of Wu (bottom half of page).
However, use of a known technique to improve similar products in the same way is prima facie obvious (See MPEP 2143 (I)). There is no teaching in the art to suggest that amphotericin B and the compound of Zotchev, which is a derivative of amphotericin B, would behave in a completely dissimilar fashion in terms of pharmaceutical formulation. Especially since the chemical compounds have very close structural similarities and similar utilities. The art does not teach away from using the compounds of Zotchev in such pharmaceutical formulations. Wherein the art teaches these formulations for amphotericin B, a person of ordinary skill would expect the formulations to be successful for a derivative of that compound, such as the compound claimed, absent evidence to the contrary.
On page 14 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues the amendment overcomes the 103 over Casa and Zotchev.
This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s reply is considered to be a bona fide attempt at a response and is being accepted as a complete response. The 35 USC § 112(b), 112(d), and 103 rejections are maintained for reason of record and foregoing discussion.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed in this action.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 SAMUEL L GALSTER whose telephone number is (571)270-0933. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Scarlett Y Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/ANDREA OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights