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 16-36 are presented for examination.
Applicant’s preliminary amendment filed September 2, 2022 has been received and entered.
Applicant’s information disclosure statement filed October 18, 2022 has been received and entered.
Applicants’ election filed July 3, 2025 in response to the restriction requirement of May 9, 2025 has been received and entered. The applicants elected the invention described in claims 16-29 (Group I) with traverse. Applicant’s amended claims 30-36 to depend upon claim 16. Claims 16-36 will be examined.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 27-29 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 16-26 and 30-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/219910 A1, hereby known as Noe.
Noe teaches a dietic composition comprising glucose, a transport mediator, vitamin B, such as vitamin B12, and methionine, arginine and/or S-adenosylmethionine (see the claims).
The instant invention differs from the cited reference in that the cited reference does not teach the molar ratios of between one C3 component and one C4 component combined to the instant composition. However, to determine a molar ratio for each component having the optimum effectiveness together is well within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to determine optimum molar ratios of each agent to get the maximum effectiveness in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The instant invention differs from the cited reference in that the cited reference does not teach the weight percentages of the amino acid component of one C3 component and one C4 component combined to the instant composition. However, to determine the weight percentages for the amino acid component having the optimum effectiveness together is well within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to determine optimum weight percentage of the amino acid component to get the maximum effectiveness in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
The instant invention differs from the cited reference in that the cited reference does not teach the weight percentages of the glucose combined to the instant composition. However, to determine the weight percentages for the glucose having the optimum effectiveness together is well within the level of one having ordinary skill in the art, and the skilled artisan would have been motivated to determine optimum weight percentages of glucose to get the maximum effectiveness in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Claims 16-26 and 30-36 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