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 . 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.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/058321 filed on 11/05/2021, which claims domestic benefit to US provisional application no. 63/110,736 filed on 11/06/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/11/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
The preliminary claim amendments filed on 11/15/2023 is acknowledged. Claims 3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-17, and 20-23 are amended. Claims 7-8 and 11 are cancelled.
Accordingly, claims 1-6, 9-10, and 12-23 are pending and being examined on the merits herein.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The regression equation on page 12 line 32 recites “(y=3.5422x+4.786, R2 = 0.99) (X = Number of viral particles, y = ctValue”, however the next sentence recites that the number of particles are calculated using X=(40.786−CtRd/Rp-genes@different times points)/3.5422. Therefore, “y=3.5422x+4.786” on page 12 line 32 should be corrected to “y=−3.5422x+40.786” to align with the subsequent equation for calculating the number of particles.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 5-6, 9-10, and 12 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the administration of the effective amount of pectin polysaccharides increases the copy number of a SARS-CoV-2 gene”
Applicant states that the cycle threshold (ct number) is the number of PCR cycles required for the fluorescent signal caused by the production of a particular rRT-PCR product to exceed a predetermined threshold (see page 3 lines 29-31). Applicant states that the ct number of SARS-CoV_2 gene increases when pectin polysaccharides are administered (see page 1 lines 20-26). Applicant further states in the disclosure that “The Ct value measured for a given gene in a biological sample is related to the copy number of the gene” (see lines 22-23 page 6) and “The infectivity of a subject infected with SARS-COV-2 is related to the quantity of SARS-COV-2 virons present in the subject … The copy number of SARS-COV-2 E gene, N gene, and/or Rd/RP gene in a sample … obtained from a subject infected with SARS-COV-2 is related to the number of SARS-COV-2 virons present in the subject. A subject with a higher number of SARS-COV-2 virons in their body is likelier to transmit a SARS-COV-2 infection than a subject with a lower number of SARS-COV-2 virons in their body. Thus, the infectivity of a subject infected with SARS-COV-2 can be measured via the Ct value of the SARS-COV-2 E gene, N gene, and/or RdRp gene measured in a sample obtained from the subject” (see lines 27-37 page 6).
Applicant further demonstrates in Example 1 that % viral reduction was calculated based on a inverse correlation between viral particles and Ct value of N-gene specific to SARS-CoV-2 virus (see lines 10-18 on page 13). Thus, the reduction of viral particles is an increase in the ct value. Furthermore, as evidenced by Bitesizebio (in PTO-892), a higher ct value indicates lower target sequence amounts (see first paragraph in Bitesizebio).
Here, Applicant has demonstrated an increase in the ct value of SARS-CoV-2 genes after pectin administration rather an increase in the copy number of SARS-CoV-2 gene as recited in the instant claims 5, and the state of the art indicates that a higher ct value correlates to a decreased copy number of a gene. Therefore, Applicant has not provided a disclosure in such a way as to reasonably convey to a skilled artisan at the time of filing that Applicant had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 6 and 9-10 depend from claim 5 and also contain the described written description issue.
Furthermore, claim 3 recites “decreases the copy number of SARS-CoV-2 RNA polynucleotides”, and claim 12 recites “increase in the Immunoglubulin G antibody titer”. Applicant only provides one species of a pectin polysaccharide, ProLectin-I, being administered as disclosed in Examples 1 and 2 of the instant specification. Instant claims 3, 5, and 12 encompasses the genus of pectin polysaccharides that are claimed by the function they perform rather than what they are (structure). Therefore, the instant specification does not provide a representative number of species of a structure-function relationship which would allow a skilled artisan to predict which pectin polysaccharides would increase the copy number of a SARS-CoV-2 gene.
The state of the art discloses that the structure and function of pectin polysaccharides is not predictable. For example, Maxwell et al. (in PTO-892) discloses that great progress has been made in elucidating structure/function relationships of pectin at a molecular level, leading to design of pectins with specific functionalities (see page 64 bottom left column to top right column). However, Maxwell et al. discloses that it is still hard to relate a distinct molecular structure to specific health-related activities due to the assorted extraction methods, sources of plants, varying fragmentation techniques, as well as the structural complexity of pectin itself (see right column page 64). Maxwell et al. discloses the effects of different types and structures of pectin on LNCaP prostate cancer cells (see right column page 66). Maxwell et al. discloses that citrus pectin, sycamore RGI, and Pectasol (enzymatic modified citrus pectin) did not induce apoptosis, whereas fractionated pectin powder (FPP) did induce apoptosis (see right column page 66).
Here, it is not evident by the disclosure or the prior art, that the Applicant was in possession of a representative number of pectin polysaccharides that would result in the limitations recited in instant claims 3, 6 and 12 because Applicant there is no disclosed or art recognized correlation between structure and function which allow for the predictable identification of pectin polysaccharides that would decrease the copy number of SARS-CoV-2 RNA polynucleotides as recited in claim 3, increase the copy number of SARS-CoV-2 genes as recited in claim 5, and increase the Immunoglobulin G antibody titer as recited in claim 12. Therefore, instant claims 3, 5, and 12 do not meet the written description requirement under 35 USC 112(a).
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 12-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eliaz et al. (US20220072031A1 in PTO-892, filed 10/05/2020 as well as effective filing date of 09/10/2020).
Eliaz et al. discloses the treatment of COVID-19 patients by administering to patients either infected by SARS-CoV-2 or presymptomatic for COVID-19 but at risk of severe morbidity and mortality due to potential COVID-19 infection (see Abstract). Such patients are given modified pectin, preferably modified citrus pectin, in an amount that may range from 2.5 or 5 on up to 10-25 grams per day, divided into two or three doses per day (see Abstract). Eliaz et al. discloses that their pectins are enzymatically or chemically modified by reducing its molecular weight to 40,000 daltons or less (see paragraph 0006). Eliaz et al discloses that the administration may be oral, by inhalation, intrabuccal or IV (intravenous) (see Abstract). Eliaz et al. discloses that dosages of the modified pectin for COVID-19 patients can be advantageously distributed in two or three dosages per day, for example, 7-8 grams per day three times a day (see paragraph 0014). Eliaz et al. discloses that the administered modified pectin may play an essential role by lowering SARS-CoV-2 levels and gal-3 levels (see paragraph 0007). Eliaz et al. discloses that the administration of modified pectins can begin prior to detection of COVID-19, and that the administration of a preventative dosage of modified pectin is on the order of 12-18 grams per day (see paragraph 0013).
Therefore, claims 1 and 13-16 are anticipated.
In regards to claims 2-4 and 12, these recited limitations are a result of when a pectin polysaccharide is administered to a patient with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, these recited results would necessarily flow for the treatment disclosed in Eliaz et al. because as evidenced by the instant specification, the administered pectin polysaccharides in the instant invention can be a pectin polysaccharide derived from citrus and further chemically or enzymatically modified to reduce the natural molecular weight of 40,000-1,000,000 to a desired range (see page 7 lines 9-17 and lines 23-32 in instant specification), and Eliaz et al. discloses administering the same chemically or enzymatically modified citrus pectin polysaccharides in the same effective amounts to treat the same patient population with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, both Eliaz and instant specification disclose that their respective administered pectins inhibit gal-3 (see paragraph 0007 in Eliaz et al. and page 8 lines 38-40 through page 9 lines 1-9 in instant specification). MPEP 2112 section I recite "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable”. Furthermore, MPEP 2112.01 section II recites “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”
Therefore claims 2-4 and 12 are anticipated.
In regards to claims 18-23, the limitations of 22-23 are disclosed in Eliaz as described above. Furthermore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited sample of cells encompasses those in the body. Therefore, the methods of Eliaz meet this limitation, and the recited result of reducing the number of SARS-CoV-2 virons would necessarily flow because Eliaz discloses the same pectin polysaccharides being administered to treat the same patient population with SARS-CoV-2 infection as discussed above. Furthermore, Eliaz discloses an effective amount of 2.5 – 25 grams of pectin, and the instant specification discloses an effective amount of 80 mg for a 70 kg adult (see page 12 lines 25-27) Therefore, an ordinary skilled artisan would reasonably expect that the amount administered in Eliaz would provide a viron reduction percentage greater than the recited 50%, 80%, or 95% due to providing a higher dosage amount.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1, 14-15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eliaz et al. (US20220072031A1 in PTO-892, filed 10/05/2020 as well as effective filing date of 09/10/2020) in view of Muntendam et al. (US20230107479A1 in PTO-892, filed 03/23/2021 as well as effective filing date of 03/23/2020).
The teachings of Eliaz are as described above. The teachings of Eliaz teach the methods recited in claims 1, 14-15, and 18 as discussed above.
The difference between the Eliaz and the claim invention is that Eliaz does not disclose the pectin polysaccharides are administered to the subject one time per hour during each hour that the subject is awake.
Muntendam et al. discloses methods, compositions, and kits using a galectin-3 inhibitor to treat fibrosis resulting from a coronavirus infection, such as fibrosis in a subject's lung resulting from a coronavirus 2 infection (see Abstract). Muntendam et al. discloses that the galectin-3 inhibitor may be a pectin (see paragraph 0006) such as modified citrus pectin (MCP) (see paragraph 0069). Muntendam et al. discloses that a suitable effective daily dose of the active compound may be administered as two, three, four, five, six or more sub-doses administered separately at appropriate intervals throughout the day, optionally, in unit dosage forms (see paragraph 0162). Muntendam discloses that their composition can be provided in a dosage amount of 0.01-100 mg/kg body weight / day (see paragraph 0119).
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine Eliaz and Muntendam before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by optimizing the dosing regimen and amounts of Eliaz as suggested by Muntendam et al. to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Muntendam et al. discloses administering the same modified citrus pectin to the same SARS-CoV-2 patients at two, three, four, five, six or more sub-doses per day in appropriate intervals as well as 0.01-100 mg/kg amounts. Therefore, an ordinary skilled artisan could have performed routine optimization to find the optimal dosing regimens and amounts for the compounds of Eliaz to treat COVID-19 patients. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Furthermore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited sample of cells encompasses those in the body. Therefore, the modified method discussed above meet this limitation, and the recited result of reducing the number of SARS-CoV-2 virons would necessarily flow because the modified method discloses the same pectin polysaccharides being administered to treat the same patient population with SARS-CoV-2 infection as discussed above. Furthermore, Muntendam discloses an effective amount of 0.01-100 mg/kg of pectin, and the instant specification discloses an effective amount of 80 mg for a 70 kg adult (~1.14 mg/kg) (see page 12 lines 25-27). Therefore, the combined method discussed above would also provide a viron reduction percentage greater than the recited 50%, 80%, or 95% due to disclosing the same dosage amounts.
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.
Claims 1-4, 12, and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14-16, and 22-23 of copending Application No. 18/847,466 (‘466).
Claim 1 of ‘466 recites a method of treating a viral infection in a subject in need thereof, the method comprising administering to the subject an effective amount of lectin-binding carbohydrates. Claim 2 of ‘466 recites the lectin-binding carbohydrates are pectin polysaccharides. Claim 23 of ‘466 recites the viral infection is caused by SARS-CoV-2.
The claims of ‘466 meet all limitations and anticipate instant claim 1.
In regards to instant claim 18, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited sample of cells is interpreted as being in the body. Furthermore, the recited result of reducing the number of SARS-CoV-2 virons would necessarily flow for the method recited in the claims of ‘466 because the claims of ‘466 recite the same pectin polysaccharides being administered to treat the same patient population with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, the method recited in the claims of ‘466 meet this limitation and anticipate instant claim 18.
In regards to instant claims 2-4 and 12, these recited limitations are a result of when a pectin polysaccharide is administered to a patient with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Therefore, these recited limitations would necessarily flow for the treatment method recited the claims of ‘466. because the administered pectin polysaccharides in the instant invention is the same pectin polysaccharides recited in the claims of ‘466 to treat the same patient population with SARS-CoV-2 infection. MPEP 2112 section I recite "[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer." Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable”. Furthermore, MPEP 2112.01 section II recites “Products of identical chemical composition can not have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present.”
Therefore, instant claims 3-4, 12, and 18 are also anticipated.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 13-16, and 18-23 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14-16, and 22-23 of copending Application No. 18/847,466 (‘466) in view of Eliaz et al. (US20220072031A1 in PTO-892, filed 10/05/2020 as well as effective filing date of 09/10/2020).
The claims of ‘466 are as described above and anticipates instant claims 1 and 18 as described above.
The difference between the claims of ‘466 and the instant invention is that the claims of ‘466 do not recite the pectin is administered intravenously and the recited dosing regimens in instant claims 14-16.
The teachings of Eliaz et al. are as described above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the claims of ‘466 and Eliaz et al. before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by administering the pectin as recited in the claims of ‘466 intravenously as disclosed in Eliaz and to further use the dosing regimens and amounts disclosed in Eliaz to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made these modifications with a reasonable expectation of success because Eliaz provides guidance that the same pectin polysaccharides can be administrated intravenously as well as the dosing regimens disclosed in Eliaz to treat patients infected with SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, the recited result of reducing the number of SARS-CoV-2 virons greater than 50%, 80%, or 95% would necessarily flow because the combination of the claims of ‘466 and Eliaz recite the same pectin polysaccharides being administered to treat the same patient population with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Furthermore, the combination of the claims of ‘466 and Eliaz recite an effective amount of 2.5 – 25 grams of pectin, and the instant specification discloses an effective amount of 80 mg for a 70 kg adult (see page 12 lines 25-27) Therefore, an ordinary skilled artisan would reasonably expect that the amount administered in the combination of the claims of ‘466 and Eliaz would provide a viron reduction percentage greater than the recited 50%, 80%, or 95% due to providing a higher dosage amount.
In regards to instant claims 22-23, it would have also been prima facie obvious to administer the pectins recited in the claims of ‘466 before or after SARS-CoV-2 exposure as disclosed in Eliaz et al. to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Eliaz et al. provides guidance that pectins can be effectively administered before or after SARS-CoV-2 exposure in a patient.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 1, 14-15, and 17-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4, 6-7, 9, 11-12, 14-16, and 22-23 of copending Application No. 18/847,466 (‘466) in view of Eliaz et al. (US20220072031A1 in PTO-892, filed 10/05/2020 as well as effective filing date of 09/10/2020) and Muntendam et al. (US20230107479A1 in PTO-892, filed 03/23/2021 as well as effective filing date of 03/23/2020).
The claims of ‘466 are as described above and anticipates instant claims 1 and 18 as described above.
The difference between the claims of ‘466 and the instant invention is that the claims of ‘466 do not recite administering the pectin to the subject one time per hour during each hour that the subject is awake.
The independent teachings of Eliaz et al. and Muntendam et al. are as described above.
It would have been prima facie obvious to combine the claims of ‘466 with Eliaz and Muntendam before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by optimizing the dosing regimen and amounts as suggested by Muntendam for the treatment method as suggested by the combination of the claims of ‘466 and the teachings of Eliaz et al. described above to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success because Muntendam et al. discloses administering the same modified citrus pectin to the same SARS-CoV-2 patients at two, three, four, five, six or more sub-doses per day in appropriate intervals as well as 0.01-100 mg/kg amounts. Therefore, an ordinary skilled artisan could have performed routine optimization to find the optimal dosing regimens and amounts for the treatment method as suggested by the combination of the claims of ‘466 and the teachings of Eliaz et al. described above. See MPEP 2144.05 II. Furthermore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited sample of cells encompasses those in the body. Therefore, the treatment method as suggested by the combination of the claims of ‘466 and the teachings of Eliaz et al. described above meet this limitation, and the recited result of reducing the number of SARS-CoV-2 virons would necessarily flow because the treatment method as suggested by the combination of the claims of ‘466 and the teachings of Eliaz et al. described above discloses the same pectin polysaccharides being administered to treat the same patient population with SARS-CoV-2 infection as discussed above. Furthermore, Muntendam discloses an effective amount of 0.01-100 mg/kg of pectin, and the instant specification discloses an effective amount of 80 mg for a 70 kg adult (~1.14 mg/kg) (see page 12 lines 25-27). Therefore, the treatment method as suggested by the combination of the claims of ‘466 and the teachings of Eliaz et al. described above would also provide a viron reduction percentage greater than the recited 50%, 80%, or 95% due to disclosing the same dosage amounts.
Conclusion
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H CHO whose telephone number is (571)270-0691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/D.H.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1693