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 .
Status of Application
The Amendments and Remarks filed on 07/23/26 are acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 were previously cancelled.
Claims 26, 29, and 34 were cancelled; claims 21-22, 24-25, 28, 30, 33, and 35 were amended; and new claim 41 was added on 07/23/26.
Claims 39-40 were previously withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 21-25, 27-28, 30-33, 35-38, and 41 are included in the prosecution.
Response to Amendments/Arguments
Claim Objection
In light of the amendment of claim 21, the objection to this claim is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims under 35 USC § 112(b)
In light of the amendment of claims 24 and 35, the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
Rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103
Applicant amended claim 21 to recite a lower limit of the drying and pulverizing temperature of 10°C. In light of this amendment, Applicant’s arguments (Pages 6-9, filed 07/23/26) regarding the following obviousness rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Rejection of claims 21-25, 27, 29-30, 32-35, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medasani et al. (US 2012/0148569 A1 – “Medasani”) in view of Rupali et al. (Journal of Drug Delivery & Therapeutics; 2013, 3(4), 99-104 – “Rupali”) and Thani et al. (Nepal Journal of Science and Technology; 2016, 17(1): 23-26 – “Thani”)
Rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medasani in view of Rupali, Thani, and Vashisht et al. (Planta; 2015, 241: 1255-1268 – “Vashisht”)
Rejection of claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medasani in view of Rupali, Thani, and Bhat et al. (Gene 547 (2014) 245-256 – “Bhat”)
Rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medasani in view of Rupali, Thani, and Saxena (US 2010/0178367 A1)
Rejection of claims 36 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medasani in view of Rupali, Thani, and Ragot et al. (US 2015/0056255 A1)
Since the prior art references of record do not expressly teach or suggest a temperature within the range now recited in instant claim 21, the obviousness rejections of record are withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration of the amended claims, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new supporting reference Chand et al. (International Journal of Herbal Medicine 2016;4(1):64-69).
Since the new grounds of rejection were necessitated by Applicants’ amendment, this action is made FINAL.
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 21-25, 27-28, 30-33, 35-38, and 41 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection. As amended, instant claim 21 recites the limitation “… dried at a temperature between 10°C and 25°C to obtain dried PK plants and the dried PK plants are pulverized into the powder at a temperature between 10°C and 15°C … performing extraction on the powder … at a temperature between 10°C and 35°C …” (emphasis added).
After carefully examining the instant disclosure, the examiner respectfully submits that support for this amendment is lacking and the addition of said limitation is new matter. Although the specification discloses that the entire process of collecting, cleaning, washing with normal water and drying in Embodiment-1 is done below 35°C, in Embodiment-2 is done below 15°C, in Embodiment-3 is done below 25°C and more preferably 15°C (Page 10), and in Embodiment-4 is done below 25°C (Page 11), the specification does not disclose the lower limit of 10°C as now recited in amended claim 21. This limitations of the lower limits of the drying, pulverizing, and extracting temperature of 10°C was not set forth and is considered new matter.
Claims 22-25, 27-28, 30-33, 35-38, and 41 are included in this rejection because they depend on claim 21 which contains new matter.
Notice for all US Patent Applications filed on or after March 16, 2013
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.
New Rejections Necessitated by Amendment
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
Claims 21-25, 27, 30, 32-33, 35, 38, and new claim 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medasani et al. (US 2012/0148569 A1 – “Medasani”) in view of Rupali et al. (Journal of Drug Delivery & Therapeutics; 2013, 3(4), 99-104 – “Rupali”), Thani et al. (Nepal Journal of Science and Technology; 2016, 17(1): 23-26 – “Thani”), and Chand et al. (International Journal of Herbal Medicine 2016;4(1):64-69 – “Chand”).
Instant claim 21 is drawn to a method of preparing a hydrophobic extract, comprising:
obtaining a powder from roots/rhizomes of PK plants in which the PK plants have been collected, cleaned, washed, and dried at a temperature between 10°C and 25°C to obtain dried PK plants and the dried PK plants are pulverized into the powder at a temperature between 10°C and 15°C; and
preparing the hydrophobic extract by performing extraction on the powder with an apolar solvent and/or super critical carbon dioxide at a temperature between 10°C and 35°C,
wherein the PK plants comprise Picrorhiza kurroa, Neopicrorhiza scrophulariiflora, Picrorhiza scrophulariiflora, or any combination thereof.
Medasani teaches the preparation of a composition derived by extraction of the roots and rhizomes of mixtures of Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle, Picrorhiza scrophularflora Pennell and Neopicrorhiza scrophulańiflora (Abstract, [0003]-[0004], [0048], [0049], [0075], claims 1-22 and 39-54). The extraction process is preferably carried out on dry plant matter that is pre-dried ([0050]). The solvents used for extraction of the plant matter includes apolar solvents hexane and n-hexane ([0017], [0052]-[0053], [0061], [0080], [0091], [0103], [0129], [0137], claims 19, 20, 46).
Medasani does not expressly teach performing extraction on the powder or the temperature limitations in the method.
Rupali teaches the preparation of an extract from the roots of Picrorhiza kurroa which includes air dried roots which were powdered and then soaked in a solvent, extracted and dried (Page 100, Col. 1, “Preparation of extract”).
Thani teaches that loss in the glycoside content of Picrorhiza kurroa, which include picroside-I and picroside-II, is minimized when samples were stored at low temperature (4-6°C) (Abstract and Page 26, Col. 1, 1st and 2nd ¶s).
Chand teaches that drugs like Picroliv, Picroside-I, II, III, V and Kutkoside are extracted from dried stolons and roots of Picrorhiza kurrooa are responsible for its vast medicinal properties (Abstract). “After harvesting, the stolons and roots are washed to remove soil particles and then dried. Stolons and roots are dried in shade at room temperature (15-25°C) which yields high content of picrotin and picrotoxin. Drying in direct sunlight or in oven, decrease the active contents rapidly” (Page 66, Col. 2, section 4.3.11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of preparation of a composition derived by extraction of the roots and rhizomes of mixtures of Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle, Picrorhiza scrophularflora Pennell and Neopicrorhiza scrophulańiflora, wherein the extraction process is preferably carried out on dry plant matter that is pre-dried, as taught by Medasani, in view of the preparation of an extract from the roots of Picrorhiza kurroa which includes air dried roots which were powdered and then soaked in a solvent, extracted and dried, as taught by Rupali, the advantage of minimizing the loss of glycosides when storing Picrorhiza kurroa, at low temperature (4-6°C), as taught by Thani, and further in view of drying the roots of Picrorhiza kurroa in shade at room temperature (15-25°C), as taught by Chand, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform the extraction on the powder of Picrorhiza kurroa, as taught by Rupali, because the resultant extract is effective for inhibiting pain (Page 103, Col. 1, “4. Discussion”, 3rd bullet). One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use a lower temperature when preparing the extract because Thani teaches that glycoside loss from of Picrorhiza kurroa is minimized when using low temperature (4-6°C) (Abstract and Page 26, Col. 1, 1st and 2nd ¶s).
Moreover, Chand teaches the advantage of drying the roots of Picrorhiza kurroa in shade at room temperature (15-25°C) which yields high content of picrotin and picrotoxin and the disadvantage of drying at higher temperatures, i.e., in direct sunlight or in oven, since this decreases the active contents rapidly (Page 66, Col. 2, section 4.3.11). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the lower drying temperature taught by Chand and also use this temperature range for the pulverizing temperature and the extraction temperature. The claimed temperature range of between 10°C and 25°C overlaps the temperature range taught by Chand, i.e., 15-25°C. According to MPEP 2144.05, “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists.”
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Regarding instant claims 21, 38, and 41, the limitations of preparing a hydrophobic extract comprising obtaining a powder from roots/rhizomes of PK plants in which the PK plants have been collected, cleaned, washed, and dried at a temperature between 10°C and 25°C (instant claim 21) and between 15°C and 25°C (instant claim 41) to obtain dried PK plants and the dried PK plants are pulverized into the powder at a temperature between 10°C and 15°C would have been obvious over the preparation of a composition derived by extraction of the roots and rhizomes of mixtures of Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle, Picrorhiza scrophularflora Pennell and Neopicrorhiza scrophulańiflora (Abstract, [0003]-[0004], [0048], [0049], [0075], claims 1-22 and 39-54), wherein the extraction process is preferably carried out on dry plant matter that is pre-dried ([0050]), as taught by Medasani, in view of the preparation of an extract from the roots of Picrorhiza kurroa which includes air dried roots which were powdered and then soaked in a solvent, extracted and dried (Page 100, Col. 1, “Preparation of extract”), as taught by Rupali, the advantage of minimizing the loss of glycosides when storing Picrorhiza kurroa, at low temperature (4-6°C) (Abstract and Page 26, Col. 1, 1st and 2nd ¶s), as taught by Thani, and drying the roots of Picrorhiza kurroa in shade at room temperature (15-25°C) which yields high content of picrotin and picrotoxin (Page 66, Col. 2, section 4.3.11), as taught by Chand.
Regarding instant claim 21, the limitation of preparing the hydrophobic extract by performing extraction on the powder with an apolar solvent and/or super critical carbon dioxide at a temperature between 10°C and 35°C would have been obvious over the use of apolar solvents hexane and n-hexane ([0017], [0052]-[0053], [0061], [0080], [0091], [0103], [0129], [0137], claims 19, 20, 46), as taught by Medasani, in view of the processing of the roots of Picrorhiza kurroa in shade at room temperature (15-25°C) (Page 66, Col. 2, section 4.3.11), as taught by Chand.
Regarding instant claim 22, the limitation of the hydrophobic extract comprising more nonpolar components and less polar/bipolar components would have been obvious over the PK extract containing lipophilic compounds and constituents (LCs) of 80% by weight or more and non-lipophilic constituents (NLCs) in an amount of between 0.01% by weight and 20% by weight ([0009] and [0043]), as taught by Medasani.
Regarding instant claim 23, the limitation of the hydrophobic extract comprising aglycons of glycosides, glucosides, picrosides, and terpenoids of the PK plants would have been obvious over the PK extract containing aglycons of the glycosides (Abstract, claims 3, 17, 51) and terpenoids (claim 17), as taught by Medasani, and the picroside-I and picroside-II (Abstract and Page 26, Col. 1, 1st and 2nd ¶s), as taught by Thani.
Regarding instant claim 24, the limitation of the hydrophobic extract free from sugar moieties of the PK plants would have been obvious over the PK extract containing aglycons of the glycosides (Abstract, claims 3, 17, 51), as taught by Medasani, which are naturally free of sugar moieties. Furthermore, Medasani also teaches that the extract is free of the bitter glycosides ([0043]).
Regarding instant claim 25, the limitation of the hydrophobic extract comprising non-polar and bipolar fatty acids of the PK plants would have been obvious over the PK extract containing fatty acids ([0028]), and the combined amount of terpenes, fatty acids and aglycons, that is of the LCs of 80% by weight or more and NLCs in an amount of between 0.01% by weight and 20% by weight ([0009] and [0043]), as taught by Medasani.
Regarding instant claim 27, the limitation of the hydrophobic extract having an ability to modulate microRNAs would have been obvious over the extract of the roots and rhizomes of mixtures of Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle, Picrorhiza scrophularflora Pennell and Neopicrorhiza scrophulańiflora (Abstract, [0003]-[0004], [0048], [0049], [0075], claims 1-22 and 39-54), as taught by Medasani, in view of the preparation of an extract from the roots of Picrorhiza kurroa which includes air dried roots which were powdered and then soaked in a solvent, extracted and dried (Page 100, Col. 1, “Preparation of extract”), as taught by Rupali, and the advantage of minimizing the loss of glycosides when storing Picrorhiza kurroa, at low temperature (4-6°C) (Abstract and Page 26, Col. 1, 1st and 2nd ¶s), as taught by Thani. The limitation of the ability to modulate microRNAs is a property associated with the extract and inseparable from it. Since the prior art references teach the same extract, which is prepared in the same way, the properties associated with the extract are also taught. Moreover, the ability to modulate microRNAs does not lend patentable weight to the method of preparing since this property is not a step or a component that would impact the method. The property of modulating microRNAs is also a future intended effect of using the extract which is not material to the method of making the extract.
Regarding instant claim 30, the limitation of a composition would have been obvious over the composition in a form of a capsule, injections, parenteral, or transdermal patches (claim 12), as taught by Medasani.
Regarding instant claim 32, the limitation of the composition adsorbed on an excipient would have been obvious over the extract that is adsorbed on excipients ([0056], [0058], claims 12 and 34), as taught by Medasani.
Regarding instant claim 33, the limitation of the composition in a form suitable for various administrations would have been obvious over the composition in a form suitable for administration through oral, intravenous, intramuscular, trans-dermal, and dermal routes ([0058], claims 10 and 34), as taught by Medasani.
Regarding instant claim 35, the limitation of the apolar solvent would have been obvious over the use of apolar solvents hexane and n-hexane ([0017], [0052]-[0053], [0061], [0080], [0091], [0103], [0129], [0137], claims 19, 20, 46), as taught by Medasani. The limitations of the temperature between 10°C and 25°C and between 10°C and 12.5°C would have been obvious over the advantage of the low temperature (4-6°C) (Abstract and Page 26, Col. 1, 1st and 2nd ¶s), as taught by Thani. The limitation of the pressure of about 1 ATM would have been an obvious variant over the reduced pressure (Page 100, Col. 1, “Preparation of extract”), as taught by Rupali, unless there is evidence of criticality or unexpected results.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medasani et al. (US 2012/0148569 A1 – “Medasani”) in view of Rupali et al. (Journal of Drug Delivery & Therapeutics; 2013, 3(4), 99-104 – “Rupali”), Thani et al. (Nepal Journal of Science and Technology; 2016, 17(1): 23-26 – “Thani”), Chand et al. (International Journal of Herbal Medicine 2016;4(1):64-69 – “Chand”), and Bhat et al. (Gene 547 (2014) 245-256 – “Bhat”).
Instant claim 28 is drawn to the method of claim 21, further comprising formulating a composition comprising the hydrophobic extract and one or more phenolic compound.
The teachings of Medasani, Rupali, Thani, and Chand are discussed above.
Medasani, Rupali, Thani, and Chand do not expressly teach one or more phenolic compound.
Bhat teaches that P. kurrooa is a rich repository of pharmacologically active metabolites such as the iridoid glycosides known as picrosides, and one of the important steps in the biosynthesis of picrosides is the final esterification of parent iridoid skeleton called catalpol with different phenolic acids including vanillic acid and cinnamic acid (Page 253, Col. 1, section 3.1, Abstract, and Page 246, Col. 1, 1st ¶, and Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of preparation of a composition derived by extraction of the roots and rhizomes of mixtures of Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle, Picrorhiza scrophularflora Pennell and Neopicrorhiza scrophulańiflora, wherein the extraction process is preferably carried out on dry plant matter that is pre-dried, as taught by Medasani, in view of the preparation of an extract from the roots of Picrorhiza kurroa which includes air dried roots which were powdered and then soaked in a solvent, extracted and dried, as taught by Rupali, based on the advantage of minimizing the loss of glycosides when storing Picrorhiza kurroa, at low temperature (4-6°C), as taught by Thani, further in view of drying the roots of Picrorhiza kurroa in shade at room temperature (15-25°C), as taught by Chand, and the vanillic acid and cinnamic acid used to esterify the catalpol skeleton to biosynthesize picrosides in P. kurroa, as taught by Bhat, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the PK plant naturally contains the vanillic acid and cinnamic acid used to esterify the catalpol skeleton to biosynthesize picrosides, as taught by Bhat (Page 253, Col. 1, section 3.1, Abstract, and Page 246, Col. 1, 1st ¶, and Fig. 1).
Regarding instant claim 28, the limitation of the phenolic compound would have been obvious over the vanillic acid and cinnamic acid used to esterify the catalpol skeleton to biosynthesize picrosides in P. kurroa (Page 253, Col. 1, section 3.1, Abstract, and Page 246, Col. 1, 1st ¶, and Fig. 1), as taught by Bhat.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medasani et al. (US 2012/0148569 A1 – “Medasani”) in view of Rupali et al. (Journal of Drug Delivery & Therapeutics; 2013, 3(4), 99-104 – “Rupali”), Thani et al. (Nepal Journal of Science and Technology; 2016, 17(1): 23-26 – “Thani”), Chand et al. (International Journal of Herbal Medicine 2016;4(1):64-69 – “Chand”), and Saxena (US 2010/0178367 A1).
Instant claim 31 is drawn to the method of claim 21, further comprising formulating a composition comprising the hydrophobic extract wherein the composition is formulated as an eye drop.
The teachings of Medasani, Rupali, Thani, and Chand are discussed above.
Medasani, Rupali, Thani, and Chand do not expressly teach an eyedrop.
Saxena teaches an herbal formulation (Abstract) that is applied as an eye drop ([0015]). The herbal formulation contains an effective amount of an extract of Picrorhiza kurrooa (claims 1-4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of preparation of a composition derived by extraction of the roots and rhizomes of mixtures of Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle, Picrorhiza scrophularflora Pennell and Neopicrorhiza scrophulańiflora, wherein the extraction process is preferably carried out on dry plant matter that is pre-dried, as taught by Medasani, in view of the preparation of an extract from the roots of Picrorhiza kurroa which includes air dried roots which were powdered and then soaked in a solvent, extracted and dried, as taught by Rupali, based on the advantage of minimizing the loss of glycosides when storing Picrorhiza kurroa, at low temperature (4-6°C), as taught by Thani, further in view of drying the roots of Picrorhiza kurroa in shade at room temperature (15-25°C), as taught by Chand, and the eye drop formulation containing an effective amount of an extract of P. kurroa, as taught by Saxena, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the formulation taught by Saxena improves blood flow and has immuno-modulatory properties in addition to being anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, anti-inflammatory and analgesic ([0014]).
Regarding instant claim 31, the limitation of an eye drop would have been obvious over the herbal formulation (Abstract) that is applied as an eye drop ([0015]) and contains an effective amount of an extract of Picrorhiza kurrooa (claims 1-4), as taught by Saxena.
20. Claims 36 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Medasani et al. (US 2012/0148569 A1 – “Medasani”) in view of Rupali et al. (Journal of Drug Delivery & Therapeutics; 2013, 3(4), 99-104 – “Rupali”), Thani et al. (Nepal Journal of Science and Technology; 2016, 17(1): 23-26 – “Thani”), Chand et al. (International Journal of Herbal Medicine 2016;4(1):64-69 – “Chand”), and Ragot et al. (US 2015/0056255 A1).
Instant claim 36 is drawn to the method of claim 21, wherein the extraction is performed with super critical carbon dioxide.
The teachings of Medasani, Rupali, Thani, and Chand are discussed above.
Medasani, Rupali, Thani, and Chand do not expressly teach super critical carbon dioxide.
Ragot teaches an extract of Picrorhiza kurroa (claim 5) and that extraction may be performed by supercritical gases such as carbon dioxide ([0169]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of preparation of a composition derived by extraction of the roots and rhizomes of mixtures of Picrorhiza kurrooa Royle, Picrorhiza scrophularflora Pennell and Neopicrorhiza scrophulańiflora, wherein the extraction process is preferably carried out on dry plant matter that is pre-dried, as taught by Medasani, in view of the preparation of an extract from the roots of Picrorhiza kurroa which includes air dried roots which were powdered and then soaked in a solvent, extracted and dried, as taught by Rupali, based on the advantage of minimizing the loss of glycosides when storing Picrorhiza kurroa, at low temperature (4-6°C), as taught by Thani, further in view of drying the roots of Picrorhiza kurroa in shade at room temperature (15-25°C), as taught by Chand, and the extract of P. kurroa which is prepared by using supercritical gases such as carbon dioxide, as taught by Ragot, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because both Medasani and Ragot teach extraction methods for P. kurroa, and it is obvious to use a known technique to improve similar methods in the same way. Please see MPEP 2141(III)(C).
Regarding instant claim 36, the limitation of supercritical carbon dioxide would have been obvious over the extract of Picrorhiza kurroa (claim 5) prepared by supercritical gases such as carbon dioxide ([0169]), as taught by Ragot.
Regarding instant claim 37, the limitations of the apolar solvent and the super critical carbon dioxide would have been obvious over the use of apolar solvents hexane and n-hexane ([0017], [0052]-[0053], [0061], [0080], [0091], [0103], [0129], [0137], claims 19, 20, 46), as taught by Medasani and the extract of Picrorhiza kurroa (claim 5) prepared by supercritical gases such as carbon dioxide ([0169]), as taught by Ragot.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARADHANA SASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9022. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 6:30 am to 3:00 pm.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached on 571-272-6023. 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.
/ARADHANA SASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615
