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 .
Claims 1, 9, 17-19, 21, 22, 27, 30-32, 34, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 46 and 51-59 are currently pending in this Application.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s Information Disclosure Statement, filed on May 05, 2026 has been considered. Please refer to Applicant’s copies of the 1449 submitted herewith.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and arguments in a response filed on May 05, 2026 have been fully considered and entered into the application.
Applicant has overcome
The 35 U.S.C. 112, 2nd paragraph rejection of claims 1, 9, 17-19, 21, 22, 27 and 30-32 in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Rejoinder
The elected invention of Group I, claims 1, 9, 17-19, 21, 22, 27 and 30-32, drawn to a products of Formula I, was found to be allowable. Claims 34, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 46 and 51-55 previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions Group I and Group II - V, as set forth in the Office action mailed on May 06, 2025, are hereby withdrawn and claims 34, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 46 and 51-55 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a continuation or divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See /In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
Compact Prosecution
In the interest of compact prosecution, the examiner attempted to reach out to applicants to suggest some Examiner’s Amendment to advance the prosecution of the case.
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.
The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. A secondary purpose is to provide a clear measure of what applicants regard as the invention so that it can be determined whether the claimed invention meets all the criteria for patentability and whether the specification meets the criteria of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph with respect to the claimed invention.", (see MPEP § 2173).
Claims 41 and 51-54 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
In the present instance;
Claim 41, use of the term “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is suggested that Applicants delete the term “such as” from the claim.
Claim 51, use of the term “such as” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is suggested that Applicants delete the term “such as” from the claim.
Claim 51, recites the following phrase, “fatty liver disease (a risk factor for insulin resistance)”, and it is unclear whether the limitation(s) within the parenthesis is/are part of the claimed invention. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of this claim is unclear, which rendered this claim indefinite. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 52-54, which are dependent upon present claim 51, do not clarify the indefinite subject matter, and are similarly rejected.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 9, 17-19, 21, 22, 27, 30-32, 34, 36, 38, 41, 43, 44, 46 and 51-59 are currently pending.
Claims 41 and 51-54 are rejected.
Claims 1, 9, 17-19, 21, 22, 27, 30-32, 34, 36, 38, 44, 46 and 55-59 are allowed.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL A SAEED whose telephone number is (571) 272-0705.
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, Adam C Milligan can be reached at (571)270-7674. 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
/Kamal A Saeed/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626
Prosecution Insights