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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
PNG
media_image1.png
12
356
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are currently pending in the application.
Receipt is acknowledged of amendment / response filed on October 13, 2025 and that has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
Receipt is acknowledged of Information Disclosure Statement (IDS), filed on 08/10/2023, which has been entered in the file.
Response to Election/Restriction
In response to the restriction requirement, Applicants have elected Group I, which includes claims 1-8, drawn to a purified compound comprising :
PNG
media_image2.png
84
690
media_image2.png
Greyscale
and the elected species as set forth and found to a compound of formula I such as,
PNG
media_image3.png
216
326
media_image3.png
Greyscale
, without traverse, is acknowledged.
Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 C.F.R. 1.142 (b) as being drawn to a non-elected subject matter. Therefore, the requirement for restriction is still deemed proper and made it final.
Applicants preserve their right to file a divisional on the non-elected subject matter.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The expression “A purified compound” (claim 1, line 1, page 52, and all other occurrences of claims 1-8) is broad because it is not clear what kind of ‘compound’ (such as, organic or inorganic compound, heterocyclic or non-heterocyclic compound etc.) the Applicant is intending to encompass with this broad expression, since any ‘compound’ may fall within the broad definition of compound class. The above expression, which is not described in such a way as to satisfy the statutory requirements within the purview of 35 U.S.C. 112 first paragraph, because the specification does not provide essential description to carry out the invention and thus lacks enablement as well.
The claim recites “a specialized proresolving mediator (SPM) or SPM derivative” (claim 1, line 2, page 52), 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Is there any structure function correlation, or a representative number of derivatives? Also, what are the structures of SPM derivative? The omission of failing to describe the claimed invention renders the claims incomplete. These claims are written in functional language and therefore, broader than the enabling disclosure. Therefore, it is suggested that the expression “A purified compound” either be limited to the specific ‘compound’ that actually contemplated in the specification (such as, incorporating the limitations of claim 5 into claim 1) and/or to amend the claims within the context and scope of the claims in order to overcome the rejection.
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.
Claims 1 and 6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The recitation of “compound comprising / comprises” (recited in claims 1 and 6, line 1, and all other occurrences, if any) renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear from the claims what the Applicant is intending to encompass with the expression “compound comprising / comprises”. The word “comprising /comprises” is an open-ended word, that when used with a product (which is a compound) within a claim, makes the claim open-ended and indefinite and therefore, it is not possible to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed subject matter. The omission of failing to describe the claimed invention renders the claims incomplete. It is suggested to delete the expression “comprising /comprises” and /or amend the claims within the context and scope of the claims in order to overcome the rejection.
Objections
The superfluous word “general” (recited in claim 5, line 1, page 52, and all other occurrences of claims 1-8, if any) should be deleted.
In claim 5, formula I and Ia, chemical bonds are not sharp enough (very light single and /or double bonds structure). A new and/or clear formula I and Ia are required.
Claims 5, 7 and 8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim 1, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Golam Shameem, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571) 272-0706. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 7:30 AM - 6:00 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Clinton Brooks, Ph.D. can be reached at (571) 270-7682.
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://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the Group receptionist, whose telephone number is (571) 272-1600.
/GOLAM M SHAMEEM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1621