DETAILED ACTION
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 amendment and response filed on 10/21/2025 have been received and entered into the case. Claims 2, 3 and 7 have been canceled, Claims 14-19 have been added. Claims 1, 4-6 and 8-19 are pending, Claims 5-6, 8-11 and 14-19 have been withdrawn (a single invention is examined in a patent application, claims 1 and 5 require different ingredients for treating Huntington’s disease, therefore claims 1 and 5 are different inventions), and Claims 1, 4 and 12-13 have been considered on the merits, insofar as they read on the elected species of sequence 2 of plasminogen, improvement or relief of movement disorders, anti-dopaminergic drugs, and an intravenous method. All arguments have been fully considered.
Withdrawn Rejections
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections of Claims 1, 4-5 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Griffin et al (US 7,074,402 B2; 7/11/2006.) as evidenced by Farmer et al (Practical Neurology. 2017;46-48.) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections of Claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al (US 7,074,402 B2; 7/11/2006.) as evidenced by Farmer et al (Practical Neurology. 2017;46-48.) and in view of Kaur et al (Ann Neurosci. 2016;23:176-185.) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Rejections of Claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al (US 7,074,402 B2; 7/11/2006.) as evidenced by Farmer et al (Practical Neurology. 2017;46-48.) and in view of Susilo et al (WO2003066842A2; 8/14/2003.) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
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 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 of this title, 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, 4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (CN108210916A; 6/29/2018.) in view of Altıner et al (Mol Syndromol. 2020;11:56-58.) and Miranda et al (Nutrition. 2019;59:145-149.).
The instant claims recite a method for treating Huntington’s disease, comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of plasminogen to a subject with Huntington’s disease, wherein the plasminogen is the only active ingredient for said treatment.
Li teaches a method for preventing and treating osteoporosis and related disorders, comprising administering to a subject a therapeutically effective amount of plasminogen (the plasminogen is the only active ingredient for said treatment) (claim 1), wherein the plasminogen prevents fractures (improvement or relief of movement disorders) (Claim 7), the plasminogen contains an amino acid sequence shown as sequence 2 (Claim 19), and the plasminogen is administered by an intravenous method (p.6 para 1).
Li does not teach the method is for treating Huntington’s disease (claim 1).
However, Li does teach the method is for preventing and treating osteoporosis and related disorders (Claim 1). Altıner teaches osteoporosis is a non-neuronal manifestation of Huntington’s disease (p.1 Established Facts). In addition, Miranda teaches osteoporosis is present in the late phase of Huntington’s disease (p.146 col left – para 1).
Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate plasminogen to a subject with Huntington’s disease, since Altıner discloses that osteoporosis is a non-neuronal manifestation of Huntington’s disease and that osteoporosis is present in the late phase of Huntington’s disease, and Li discloses that plasminogen prevents and treats osteoporosis. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited references to incorporate plasminogen to a subject with Huntington’s disease with a reasonable expectation for successfully treating Huntington’s disease.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that cited references do not teach the amended claim 1. However, these arguments are moot since those rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
No claims 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 mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN Y FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3541. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7am-4pm.
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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571)272-1234. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Lynn Y Fan/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759