DETAILED ACTION Examiner acknowledges receipt of the reply filed 12/08/2025, in response to the restriction requirement mailed 10/07/2025. Claims 14 and 53-64 are pending. Claim 1, 27, 42, 48, and 49 have been cancelled. Claims 56, 59, and 60 are withdrawn from further consideration for the reasons set forth below. Claims 14, 53-55, 57, 58, and 61-64 are being examined on the merits in this office 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. Priority The filing receipt dated 5/22/2024 provides the following priority information. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of group II (claim 14 and 53-64) in the reply filed on 12/08/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 27, 42, 48, and 49, drawn to groups I and III-V respectively , have been canceled. Thus, the group restriction is rendered moot. Examiner acknowledges applicant’s election without traverse of the following species. N-acyl amino acid product: glycine-glycine-leucine C laims 14, 53-55, 57, 58, and 61-64 read on the elected species. Claims 56, 59, and 60 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/08/202 5 . Specification Please note, the specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible error. Applicant's cooperation is required in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. MPEP § 608.01. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title . It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “ The disclosure relates ,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. See, e.g., pp. 17. Claim Objections Claims 14, 61 , and 63 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 14 should be amended to recite “treating steatohepatitis in a subject, comprising administering … to the subject in need thereof ”. Regarding claim 61, the claim should be amended to correlation between the claimed N-acyl amino acid product of claim 14, and the Markush grouping of claim 61. Claim 61 should be amended to recite “ method of claim 14 wherein the at least N-acyl amino acid product is selected from N-arachidonoyl glycine-glycine-leucine”. Examiner notes that this is consistent with the specification, e.g., para [9] disclosing exemplary N-amino acid products include the recited compounds. Claim 63 should be amended to recite “ wherein the treating results in the subject in decreased liver fat, decreased inflammatory status, decreased injured hepatocytes and decreased atherosclerotic plaques in the subject ”. Alternatively, claim 63 can be amended to recite “ wherein the method decreases treating results in the subject in decreased liver fat, decreases decreased inflammatory status, decreases decreased injured hepatocytes and decreases decreased atherosclerotic plaques in the subject ”. Appropriate correction is required. Examiner recommends that withdrawn claims 59 and 60 be amended in a similar manner as that of instant claim 61. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim s 14, 53-55, 57, 58, and 62-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The MPEP states that the purpose of the written description requirement is to ensure that the inventor had possession, as of the filing date of the application, of the specific subject matter later claimed by him. The courts have stated: “To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (" [T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious," and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398. The MPEP lists factors that can be used to determine if sufficient evidence of possession has been furnished in the disclosure of the Application. These include “level of skill and knowledge in the art, partial structure, physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics alone or coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between structure and function, and the method of making the claimed invention. Disclosure of any combination of such identifying characteristics that distinguish the claimed invention from other materials and would lead one of skill in the art to the conclusion that the applicant was in possession of the claimed species is sufficient.” MPEP 2163. Further, for a broad generic claim, the specification must provide adequate written description to identify the genus of the claim. In Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., the court stated: “A written description of an invention involving a chemical genus, like a description of a chemical species, 'requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, [or] chemical name,' of the claimed subject matter sufficient to distinguish it from other materials. Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1171, 25 USPQ2d at 1606; In re Smythe, 480 F.2d 1376, 1383, 178 USPQ 279, 284-85 (CCPA 1973) ("In other cases, particularly but not necessarily, chemical cases, where there is unpredictability in performance of certain species or subcombinations other than those specifically enumerated, one skilled in the art may be found not to have been placed in possession of a genus. . . ."). Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398. The MPEP further states that if a biomolecule is described only by a functional characteristic, without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the sequence, it is “not sufficient characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed sequence.” MPEP 2163. The MPEP does state that for generic claim the genus can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. MPEP 2163. If the genus has a substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within that genus. See MPEP 2163. Although the MPEP does not define what constitute a sufficient number of representative, the Courts have indicated what do not constitute a representative number species to adequately describe a broad generic. In Gosteli, the Court determined that the disclosure of two chemical compounds within a subgenus did not describe that subgenus. In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d at 1012, 10 USPQ2d at 1618. For written description, the analysis considers (a) Actual reduction to practice, (b) Disclosure of drawing or structural chemical formulas, (c) Sufficient relevant identifying characteristic in the way of complete/partial structure or physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with known or disclosed and (d) Representative number of examples. In this case, the claims are drawn to a method of treating steatohepatitis in a subject, comprising administering a pharmaceutically effective amount of at least one N-acyl amino acid product to the subject, wherein the N-acyl amino acid product has a fatty acid component and an amino acid component. The specification does not explicitly define an “ N-acyl amino acid product”. Given the broadest reasonable claim interpretation, an N-acyl amino acid product encompasses any amino acid( s ) (naturally occurring or synthetic, D- or L- isomer), not limited to any particular length, and a fatty acid (of any length and composition) . The fatty acid may or may not be directly linked to the amino acid component, e.g., indirect via a linker. The s pecification discloses amino acid component of an N-acyl amino acid product herein can be glycine or leucine, or a peptide comprising glycine and leucine (para [31]). The fatty acid component of an N-acyl amino acid product herein can be a polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) such as a linoleic acid, a conjugated linoleic acid or an omega 3 fatty acid. Exemplary omega 3 fatty acids include, but are not limited to, docosahexaenoic acid, α-linolenic acid or eicosatetraenoic acid (para [61]). The fatty acid component of an N-acyl amino acid product herein can be a metabolite of an omega 3 fatty acid such as a furan fatty acid or a resolvin. The fatty acid component of an N-acyl amino acid product herein can be a nitro-fatty acid such as 10-nitro-octadec-9-enoic acid, 9-nitro-octadec-9-enoic acid, a nitrated ω-3 fatty acid (including, but not limited to, linolenic acid, alphalinolenic acid, eicosapentanoic acid, docosapentaenoic acid, docosahexanoic acid and stearidonic acid) . ..or a nitrated ω-9 fatty acid (including, but not limited to, oleic acid and erucic acid) (para [62]). Claim 53 is drawn to a method of claim 14 wherein the fatty acid component is a polyunsaturated fatty acid or a nitro fatty acid. Claim 56 recites wherein the amino acid component is glycine, leucine or D- leucine. Claim 57 recites wherein the amino acid component is a peptide. Claim 58 recites wherein the amino acid component is glycine-glycine-leucine or glycine-glycine-D-leucine. The specification states at para. [81]: The term “treating” (or other forms of the word such as “treatment” or “treat”) is used herein to mean that administration of a composition of the present invention mitigates a condition in a subject and/or reduces, inhibits, or eliminates a particular symptom or event associated with a condition. Thus, the term “treatment” includes, preventing a condition from occurring in a subject, particularly when the subject is predisposed to acquiring the condition; reducing or inhibiting the condition; and/or ameliorating or reversing the condition. Insofar as the methods of the present invention are directed to preventing conditions, it is understood that the term “prevent” does not require that the condition be completely avoided. The issue at question is whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would be able to determine what structural feature/amino acid(s) /sequence(s) /length in combination with a fatty acid component, is required for the N-acyl amino acid product to have functional utility in a method of treating steatohepatitis in a subject. (a) Actual reduction to practice/ (b) disclosure of drawing or structural chemical formulas: T he specification discloses N-acyl amino acid products at pp. 6-7. Example 1 discloses that the tripeptide Gly-Gly-Leu protects against NASH by regulating liver metabolism and levels of N-acyl amino acids. The specification states “targeted metabolomics revealed that the levels of N-oleoyl glycine (C18:1-Gly), N-arachidonoyl glycine (C20:4-Gly) and N-oleoyl leucine (C18:1-Leu) were significantly decreased in livers from mice with NASH which was rescued by chronic treatment with glycine or tripeptide glycine-glycine-leucine”. Thus, NO compounds of the instant claimed was administered in Example 1. Example 2 discloses that N-acyl amino acids are biomarkers of NASH. Example 3 discloses that N-acyl amino acids directly activate PPARα in vitro. N-oleoyl glycine (C18:1-Gly), N-arachidonoyl glycine (C20:4-Gly) and N-oleoyl leucine (C18:1-Leu) were assessed. Example 4 discloses acute stimulation with N-arachidonoyl glycine (C20:4-Gly) or N-oleoyl leucine (C18:1-Leu) significantly increased the oxygen consumption rate (OCR) by the cells which was attenuated by blocking FAO using etomoxir, an inhibitor of carnitine palmitoyltransferase-1 (CPT-1). Both N-arachidonoyl glycine (C20:4-Gly) and N-oleoyl leucine (C18:1-Leu) attenuated the rate of TG biosynthesis, however, only N-arachidonoyl glycine (C20:4-Gly) significantly accelerated the rate of TG hydrolysis. Example 5 discloses C18:1-Leu significantly lowers NASH diet-induced hepatic fibrosis, and hepatic steatosis in a mouse model. Example 6 discloses that C18:1-Leu lowers atherosclerotic plaque area and lesional macrophages in a atherosclerosis mouse model. Th ree N-acyl amino acid products were reduced to practice : N-oleoyl glycine (C18:1-Gly), N-arachidonoyl glycine (C20:4-Gly) and N-oleoyl leucine (C18:1-Leu) . Only 2 fatty acids were reduced to practice : oleic acid (C18) and arachidonic acid (C20). Examiner acknowledges that Example 1 discloses tripeptide Gly-Gly-Leu, albeit no N-acyl product was reduced to practice. (c) Sufficient relevant identifying characteristic in the way of complete/partial structure or physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with known or disclosed: and (d) Representative number of examples: A s noted above, the specification does not explicitly define an N-acyl amino acid product. The claims reduced to practice 3 N-acyl amino acid product, comprise 2 amino acids (Gly and Leu), and 2 fatty acids (C18 and C20). Page 6-7 of the specification lists 25 exemplary N-acyl amino acid products, limited to combinations of 5 peptide s Gly, Leu, D-Leu, Gly-Gly-Leu, and Gly-Gly-D-Leu) and 5 fatty acid s ( palmitoyl , s tearoyl, oleoyl, docosahexaenoyl, and arachidonoyl). The specification does not provide any further insight, as to the structural and/or physical properties of amino acids/fatty acid combinations that can be used in the claimed N-acyl amino acid products and method of treating steatohepatitis. (d) representative number of samples: The instant claim scope of the N-acyl amino acids products encompass all amino acids (natural/non-natural, D-or L- isomers, variable length peptides), in combination with a fatty acid of any composition or length. The claimed N-acyl amino acid products further encompass direct and indirect linkage of the fatty acid and the N-terminus of the amino acid. For instance, there could be a linker, e.g., a PEG moiety positioned between the fatty acid and the amino acid. Chen (WO2012109561 - cited in IDS filed 7/09/2025 ) (applicant’s art) teaches a method of treating obesity and metabolic syndrome in subjects comprising administering GGL (also referred to as diapin, see eg., Example 2, abstract, claims 1-2). Chen specifically teaches that diapin stimulated GLP-1 secretion, insulin secretion and lowers blood glucose levels (see eg Figures 7-10). Chen teaches “The amount of the composition administered is therapeutically effective to achieve at least one of the following: reducing blood glucose levels, stimulating insulin secretion, stimulating GLP-1 secretion, reducing insulin resistance, and improving glycemic control” ( eg para. [ 0066 ] ). As stated earlier, the MPEP states that written description for a genus can be achieved by a representative number of species within a broad generic. It must not be forgotten that the MPEP states that if a biomolecule is described only by a functional characteristic and/or a functional/structural characteristic without any disclosed correlation between function and structure of the biomolecule beyond the general teachings presented, it is “not sufficient characteristic for written description purposes, even when accompanied by a method of obtaining the claimed biomolecule.” MPEP 2163. Here, though the claims may recite some functional characteristics, and even some generic structural features and several distinct species are given (e.g. recited amino acids (e.g., claims 56 and 58-61) and fatty acids (claims 59-61) that fall within the instant claim scope, the claims lack written description because there is no disclosure of a correlation between function and structure of the claimed N-acyl amino acid products and utility in treating steatohepatitis. Accordingly, there are many distinct N-acyl amino acid products comprising combinations of amino acids [no limit to the amino acid composition, length, or orientation (D/L) ] and fatty acid [variable composition and length] that fall within the instant claim scope to give rise to the claimed N-acyl amino acid products . However, there is insufficient guidance/support as to identification of N-acyl amino acid products that further have functional utility in a method of treating steatohepatitis. The description requirement of the patent statute requires a description of an invention, not an indication of a result that one might achieve if one made that invention. See In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1521, 222 USPQ 369, 372-73 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (affirming rejection because the specification does "little more than outlin[e] goals appellants hope the claimed invention achieves and the problems the invention will hopefully ameliorate"). The skilled artisan cannot extrapolate to the numerous N-acyl amino acid products with variable compositions comprising an amino acid and a fatty acid component and/or combinations thereof that fall within the claim scope based on 3 examples that were reduced to practice in the examples. Examiner acknowledges 25 exemplary N-acyl amino acid products, but only 3 were reduced to practice in the examples. As noted above , Applicant’s prior art (Chen) taught the tripeptide GGL, without an N-acyl moiety. Accordingly, it is deemed that the specification fails to provide adequate written description for the genus of the claims and does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the entire scope of the claimed invention. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 14, 53-55, 57, 58, and 62-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rom et al (U.S. 2021/0315963; PGPUB of copending Appl. No 17/266897 (“the ‘897 application”- ODP rejection); parent of Appl No 18/163773- cited in ODP rejection). The earliest effective filing date of the ‘897 application is 8/10/2018, the filing date of priority application Prov Appl No 62/717546 . Rom et al teach a method for treating at least one of hyperlipidemia, fatty liver, steatohepatitis, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, obesity, hyperglycemia, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and atherosclerosis in a mammalian subject comprising administering to a subject in need thereof, a therapeutically effective amount of glycine, a glycine-containing tripeptide molecule, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof. The glycine-containing tripeptide molecule wherein the glycine-containing tripeptide molecule is Gly-Gly-Leu, Gly-Gly-dLeu, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof (claims 37 and 43). Rom et al disclose a method of treating a subject, comprising administering to a subject in need thereof, glycine, the glycine-containing tripeptide molecule Gly-Gly-Leu, Gly-Gly-dLeu, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, wherein the subject has a liver disease, wherein the liver disease is nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), or alcoholic hepatic steatosis (claims 47-49). Rom et al teach that an amino group of the glycine-containing tripeptide is acylated (e.g., eicosanoylated [eicosapentanoic acid, omega 3 fatty acid, PUFA] para [0071]). Accordingly, the limitations of claims 14, 53-55, 57, and 58 are satisfied. Regarding claim 62, Rom et al teach that the liver disease is nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), or alcoholic hepatic steatosis (e.g., paras [0004]-[0011], [0122], [0132], [0148]-[0150], claims 1, 47-50). Regarding claim 63, Rom et al teach the peptides decrease hepatocyte injury (e.g., paras [0091], [0099], [0124], [0141]-[0142], [0148]-[0150], [0326], [0330]-[0331]). Regarding claim 64, Rom et al teach that treating mitigates cirrhosis or hepatocellular carcinoma (e.g., paras [0099], [0148], [0330]). The applied reference has a common applicant and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. 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. 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. Claim(s) 14, 53-55, 57, 58, and 61-64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rom et al (U.S. 2021/0315963; PGPUB of copending Appl. No 17/266897 (“the ‘897 application”- ODP rejection); parent of Appl No 18/163773- cited in ODP rejection), as applied to claims 14, 53-55, 57, 58, and 62-64 above, and further in view of Zhang et al ( Current Medicinal Chemistry 19: 1602-1618 (2012)) and Resh ( Prog Lipid Res. 63 :120–131 (2016)). The applied reference has a common applicant and inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). The earliest effective filing date of the ‘897 application is 8/10/2018 , the filing date of priority application Prov Appl No 62/717546 . Rom et al teach a method for treating at least one of hyperlipidemia, fatty liver, steatohepatitis, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, obesity, hyperglycemia, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular disease, and atherosclerosis in a mammalian subject comprising administering to a subject in need thereof, a therapeutically effective amount of glycine, a glycine-containing tripeptide molecule, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof. The glycine-containing tripeptide molecule wherein the glycine-containing tripeptide molecule is Gly-Gly-Leu, Gly-Gly-dLeu, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof (claims 37 and 43). Rom et al disclose a method of treating a subject, comprising administering to a subject in need thereof, glycine, the glycine-containing tripeptide molecule Gly-Gly-Leu, Gly-Gly-dLeu, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, wherein the subject has a liver disease, wherein the liver disease is nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) or nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), or alcoholic hepatic steatosis (claims 47-49). Rom et al teach that an amino group of the glycine-containing tripeptide is acylated (e.g., eicosanoylated [eicosapentanoic acid , omega 3 fatty acid , PUFA ] para [0071]). Although Rom et al teach administering a therapeutically effective amount of GGL [tripeptide] to a subject to treat steatohepatitis, as well as amino acylation of the tripeptide [e.g., eicosanoyl], Rom et al do not disclose N-acylation comprising oleic acid or arachidonic acid . Zhang et al teach that lipidation is a post-translational modification of proteins that is also found its use in designing peptide drugs. The presence of a lipid group in peptides modulates their hydrophobicity, secondary structures and self-assembling propensities while retaining their abilities to bind to target receptors. Lipidation improves peptides’ metabolic stability, membrane permeability, bioavailability, and changes peptides’ pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties (abstract; pp. 1602-1609). Zhang et al disclose lipidation strategies in peptide drug design, the effects of the chain length and anchor position of fatty acids in peptide lipidation, the physicochemical and biological properties or peptides, and the synthesis strategies for peptide lipidation. Id . Resh is a review article discussing fatty acylation of proteins. Table 1 discloses lipids used in a peptide/protein fatty acylation. Lipids include but are not limited to myristate, palmitate, stearate, and arachidonic acid (Table 1). It would been obvious to one of ordinary skill the art to seek other lipid moieties for fatty acylation to expand on the availability of N-acylated GGL peptides. The skilled artisan would have recognized from Rom et al that the glycine-containing peptides could be acylated at the amino group of the tripeptide . The skilled artisan would have known from Zhang that incorporation of a fatty acid at the N-terminus may improve metabolic stability, membrane permeability, and bioavailability. Table 1 of Resh teaches a list of fatty acids that were known in the art. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in substituting the eicosanoyl of Rom for myristoyl, palmitoyl, stearoyl, or arachidonoyl because the compounds were all known fatty acids. The prior art taught that fatty acids could be incorporated into a peptide, e.g. GGL, in an N-acylation/lipidation strategy to improve pharmacological and pharmaceutical properties (Zhang at p 1613). Therefore, these compounds are functional equivalents in the art, and substituting one for the other would have been obvious at the time of the invention. “When a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007) at 1395-1396, quoting Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976) and In re Fout , 675 F.2d 297, 301 (CCPA 1982) (“Express suggestion to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such substitution obvious”). Accordingly, a peptide of N-arachidonoyl-Gly-Gly-Leu is rendered obvious in view the teachings of the cited references ( instant claim 61). Claims 14, 53-55, 57, 58, and 62-64 are rendered obvious in view of the teachings of the cited references. This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C.102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B); or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. See generally MPEP § 717.02. Claim(s) 14, 53-55, 57, 58, and 61-64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (WO2012109561 - cited in IDS filed 7/09/2025 ) in view of Patel (Curr Diabetes Rev 2014;10(4):238-50) , Bhatt ( HepatoBiliary Surg Nutr 4(2) :101-108 (2015) ) , Zhang et al ( Current Medicinal Chemistry 19: 1602-1618 (2012)) and Resh ( Prog Lipid Res. 63 :120–131 (2016)). Chen teaches a method of treating obesity and metabolic syndrome in subjects comprising administering GGL (also referred to as diapin, see eg., Example 2, abstract, claims 1-2). Chen teaches using animal models of obesity and diabetes (ob/ob and db/db). Chen specifically teaches that diapin stimulated GLP-1 secretion, insulin secretion and lowers blood glucose levels (see eg Figures 7-10). Chen teaches “The amount of the composition administered is therapeutically effective to achieve at least one of the following: reducing blood glucose levels, stimulating insulin secretion, stimulating GLP-1 secretion, reducing insulin resistance, and improving glycemic control” ( eg para. [ 0066 ] ). Chen does not reduce to practice treating a subject with fatty liver disease or steatohepatitis . Patel teaches that GLP-1 secretion promotes insulin production, glucose utilization and decreases t riglycerides (see abstract). Furthermore, reduction in insulin resistance, glucose levels and improved glucose utilization will lower serum triglycerides. Bhatt teaches that insulin resistance appears to be a critical contributing factor to NAFLD ( e.g., p . 103). Bhatt teaches “ Elevated circulating free fatty acid levels, in part related to diminished suppression of adipose tissue lipolysis by insulin, result in increased delivery of free fatty acids to the liver. The synthesis of excess triglyceride in the liver is driven by this supply of fatty acids and the accumulation of excess liver fat is further exacerbated by impaired hepatic fatty acid oxidation secondary to insulin resistance. When glucose levels are elevated in the context of prediabetes or overt diabetes, this provides further substrate for triglyceride synthesis. Additionally, impaired very low density lipoprotein (VLDL) secretion, which commonly occurs with insulin resistance, further contributes to hepatic fat accumulation. Insulin resistance is not only a factor in obesity and diabetes, but also may be an underlying mechanism for NAFLD even in non-obese individuals without diabetes, as noted in a euglycemic insulin clamp study” (see page 103, left column). Bhatt teaches that glucose control in diabetic patients resulted in improvement in hepatic fibrosis in patients with NAFLD (see page 105, right column, second paragraph). Bhatt teaches a study showed improved steatosis and NASH histology following GLP-1 agonist treatment of overweight obese subjects with diabetes (see page 105, left column, last paragraph). Although Chen teaches the tripeptide GGL, the reference does not expressly teach an N-acylated GGL [claimed N-acyl amino acid product]. Zhang et al teach that lipidation is a post-translational modification of proteins that is also found its use in designing peptide drugs. The presence of a lipid group in peptides modulates their hydrophobicity, secondary structures and self-assembling propensities while retaining their abilities to bind to target receptors. Lipidation improves peptides’ metabolic stability, membrane permeability, bioavailability, and changes peptides’ pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties (abstract; pp. 1602-1609). Zhang et al disclose lipidation strategies in peptide drug design, the effects of the chain length and anchor position of fatty acids in peptide lipidation, the physicochemical and biological properties or peptides, and the synthesis strategies for peptide lipidation. Id . Resh is a review article discussing fatty acylation of proteins. Table 1 discloses lipids used in a peptide/protein fatty acylation. Lipids include but are not limited to myristate, palmitate, stearate, and arachidonic acid (Table 1). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to treat patients with steatohepatitis and obesity/diabetes with the compositions of Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so given that lowering glucose levels, improving glucose utilization and increasing GLP-1 secretion would be beneficial in treating patients with steatohepatitis , diabetes and/or obesity. There is a reasonable expectation of success given Chen teaches treatment of diabetes/obesity with diapin (the peptide of the instant claims) and the peptide was capable of lowering blood sugar, improving glucose utilization, reducing insulin resistance and stimulating GLP-1 secretion all of which would be beneficial in treatment patients with diabetes/obesity and steatohepatitis . Patel and Bhatt further taught the same subject population and shared/common conditions/symptoms associated with steatohepatitis , diabetes and/or obesity . The skilled artisan would further have understood that Zhang taught methods of improving pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of the peptides of Chen, e,g . lipidation comprising an N-acyl group. As taught by Zhang, incorporation of a fatty acid at the N-terminus could improve metabolic stability, membrane permeability, and bioavailability. Table 1 of Resh provided a list of fatty acids that were known in the prior art. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in preparing an N-acylated GGL peptide because Zhang and Resh taught methods as well as specific fatty acids that could be used in a lipidation method. Accordingly, administering an effective amount of an N-acylated GGL peptide [reads on N-acyl amino acid product] to a subject with steatohepatitis, in order to treat the steatohepatitis is rendered obvious (instant claim s 14 , 57, and 58 ). Regarding claims 53-55, Zhang et al and Resh taught polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), as well as omega 3 fatty acids, and metabolites thereof , e.g., myristate, palmitoleate, stearate, and oleate, and the polyunsaturated fatty acids arachidonate and eicosapentanoate (e.g., Resh at Table 1, pp 8-11, Zhang at Table 1, pp. 1603-1606 , 1609 -1614). Regarding claim 61, a peptide of N-arachidonoyl-Gly-Gly-Leu is rendered obvious in view the teachings of the cited references. Chen teaches the tripeptide GGL; Zhang et al and Resh teach lipidation (e.g., N-acyl with a fatty acid), and Resh further teaches specific fatty acids, including arachidonoyl. Regarding claim 62, Bhatt teaches that steatohepatitis includes non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH) (e.g., p. 101-102). Regarding claim 63, Bhatt teaches that steatohepatitis is associated with infla mmation and cell injury , as well as fatty liver, elevated triglycerides and cholesterol (p. 101 -103). Patel discloses an association with atherosclerosis (abstract). Thus, the skilled artisan would have recognized that treating steatohepatitis with the claimed N-acyl amino acid product there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in also reducing the physical symptoms associated with steatohepatitis, eg, liver fat, inflammation and injured hepatocytes, and atherosclerotic plaques. Regarding claim 64, Bhatt teaches that patients with NASH are much more likely to progress to clinically significant cirrhosis, portal hypertension, and liver failure. When cirrhosis develops in the context of NAFLD, there also is a several-fold increased risk of hepatocellular carcinoma (p. 101). Thus, the skilled artisan would have recognized that treatment with the claimed N-acyl amino acid product would help treat/delay/mitigate development of cirrhosis and/or hepatocellular carcinoma. Accordingly, claims 14, 53-55, 57, 58, and 61-64 are rendered obvious in view of the teachings of the cited references. Double Patenting 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. Claim s 14, 53-55, 57, 58, and 61-64 are p rovisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 37, 38, 41, 42, and 50-53 of copending Application No. 17266897 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘897 application”), in view of Zhang et al ( Current Medicinal Chemistry 19: 1602-1618 (2012)) and Resh ( Prog Lipid Res. 63 :120–131 (2016)). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. The instant application claims are drawn to a method of treating steatohepatitis in a subject, comprising administering a pharmaceutically effective amount of at least one N-acyl amino acid product to the subject, wherein the N-acyl amino acid product has a fatty acid component and an amino acid component (claim 14). The instant application further claims wherein the fatty acid component is an omega 3 fatty acid (claim 53); metabolite of an omega 3 fatty acid (claim 54); the amino acid component is a peptide (claim 57); amino acid component is GGL or GGdL; specific N-acyl amino acid products, e.g., N-oleoyl GGL (claim 61); the steatohepatitis is nonalcoholic or alcoholic, or alcoholic liver disease (claim 62); decreases liver fat, decreases inflammatory status, decreases injured hepatocytes, and decreases atherosclerotic plaques (claim 63); and trading mitigates one or more of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (claim 64). Claim 37 of the ‘897 application is drawn to a method for treating liver disease in a mammalian subject in need thereof comprising administering to the subject at least one tripeptide selected from Gly-Gly-Leu or Gly-Gly-dLeu, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof, wherein the mammalian subject does not have diabetes, and wherein the mammalian subject has liver disease and wherein the liver disease is fatty liver, steatohepatitis, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), or non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH). Claim 38 of the ‘897 application recites the treatment is for fatty liver or the prevention, delay, or reduction of a condition caused by the fatty liver, selected from angina, myocardial infraction, stroke, arteriosclerosis, and pancreatitis. The claims recite that the treatment decreases hepatic TG cholesterol levels (claims 41-42). Claims 50 and 51 of the ‘897 application recite that the method comprises stabilization/production of the NAFLD activity score (NAS) in a subject; slowing the progression of, stabilizing, or reducing the steatosis component of NAS, slowing the progression of, stabilizing, or reducing the lobular inflammation component of NAS, slowing the progression of, stabilizing, or reducing the hepatocyte ballooning component of NAS, or any combination thereof. Claim 53 of the ‘897 application recites the method further comprises administering ace second therapeutic agent recite from a Markush grouping. Although the claims of the co-pending ‘897 application recite administering Gly-Gly-Leu or Gly-Gly-dLeu to treat steatohepatitis, the claims do not expressly recite a N-fatty acid component. Zhang et al ( Current Medicinal Chemistry 19: 1602-1618 (2012)) teach that lipidation is a post-translational modification of proteins that is also found its use in designing peptide drugs. The presence of a lipid group in peptides modulates their hydrophobicity, secondary structures and self-assembling propensities while retaining their abilities to bind to target receptors. Lipidation improves peptides’ metabolic stability, membrane permeability, bioavailability, and changes peptides’ pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties (abstract; pp. 1602-1609). Zhang et al disclose lipidation strategies in peptide drug design, the effects of the chain length and anchor position of fatty acids in peptide lipidation, the physicochemical and biological properties or peptides, and the synthesis strategies for peptide lipidation. Id . Resh is a review article discussing fatty acylation of proteins. Table 1 discloses lipids used in a peptide/protein fatty acylation. Lipids include but are not limited to myristate, palmitate, stearate, and arachidonic acid (Table 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to improve pharmacological and pharmaceutical properties of the Gly-Gly-Leu or Gly-Gly-dLeu peptides of the ‘897 application, using the lipidation strategies taught by Zhang et al. The skilled artisan would have recognized that Resh taught fatty acids that could be used in the acylation methods of Zhang et al. Accordingly, instant claims 14, 57, 58 , and 61 are rendered obvious ., e.g., N-arachidonoyl-Gly-Gly-Leu . Regarding clai ms 53-55 , Zhang et al and Resh taught polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), as well as omega 3 fatty acids, and metabolites thereof. Regarding claim 62, claim 37 of the ‘897 application recites that the liver disease is nonalcoholic steatohepatitis. Regarding claims 63 and 64, claims 38, 41, 42, 50, and 51, recite treatment of the fatty liver, decreases in cholesterol and triglyceride levels, and stabilizing/reducing steatosis and intralobular inflammation. Accordingly, claims 14, 53-55, 57, 58, and 61-64 are rendered obvious. Claims 14, 53-55, 57, 58, 61, and 63 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 28, 30, and 38-41 of copending Application No. 18163773 (hereinafter referred to as “the ‘773 application”), in view of in view of Zhang et al ( Current Medicinal Chemistry 19: 1602-1618 (2012)) and Resh ( Prog Lipid Res. 63 :120–131 (2016)). The ‘773 is a CON of Application No. 17266897 (the ‘897 application). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. The instant application claims are drawn to a method of treating steatohepatitis in a subject, comprising administering a pharmaceutically effective amount of at least one N-acyl amino acid product to the subject, wherein the N-acyl amino acid product has a fatty acid component and an amino acid component (claim 14). The instant application further claims wherein the fatty acid component is an omega 3 fatty acid (claim 53); metabolite of an omega 3 fatty acid (claim 54); the amino acid component is a peptide (claim 57); amino acid component is GGL or GGdL; specific N-acyl amino acid products, e.g., N-oleoyl GGL (claim 61); the steatohepatitis is nonalcoholic or alcoholic, or alcoholic liver disease (claim 62); decreases liver fat, decreases inflammatory status, decreases injured hepatocytes, and decreases atherosclerotic plaques (claim 63); and trading mitigates one or more of cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma (claim 64). Claim 38 of the ‘773 application is drawn to a method of treating atherosclerosis, the method comprising administering to a subject in need thereof, and therapeutically effective amount of a glycine-containing tripeptide molecule Gly-Gly-Leu or Gly-Gly-dLe