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 .
Restriction Response
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I (claims 21-38) in the reply filed on 10/30/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the subject matter of all claims is sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one Group of claims would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining claims. Applicant cites MPEP § 803 and argues that this policy should be applied to the present application.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive because Inventions I and II have a materially different design, mode of operation, function and effect. Invention II requires a distinct patient population which is not required in Invention I. Furthermore, there is serious examination burden since the inventions raise different non-prior art issues under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. For example, claim 39, in Invention II, recites prevention, management, and treatment of several conditions, which raises issues under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or first paragraph.
Therefore, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 39-40 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 21-38 are included in the prosecution.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 03/09/23 and 09/06/23 are acknowledged. The submissions are is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. Accordingly, the examiner is considering the information disclosure statements. Please see the attached copies of PTO-1449.
Claim Objections
Claim 21 is objected to because of the following informalities: In the last two lines of claim 21, the scientific names of the PK plants should be italicized. Appropriate correction is required.
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 24 and 35 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 term "substantially free" in claim 24 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "substantially free" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
In claim 35, line 3, the phrase "(Grade 30-60°C)” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) in the parentheses are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). It is recommended that the parentheses be removed.
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.
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, 29-30, 32-35, and 38 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”) and Thani et al. (Nepal Journal of Science and Technology; 2016, 17(1): 23-26 – “Thani”).
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 below 25°C to obtain dried PK plants and the dried PK plants are pulverized into the powder at a temperature below 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 below 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).
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, and the advantage of minimizing the loss of glycosides when storing Picrorhiza kurroa, at low temperature (4-6°C), as taught by Thani, 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).
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 and 38, 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 below 25°C to obtain dried PK plants and the dried PK plants are pulverized into the powder at a temperature below 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, 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.
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 below 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.
Regarding instant claim 22, the limitation of the hydrophobic extract comprising more than 80% by weight of nonpolar components and less than 20% by weight of 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 substantially 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 fatty acids of the PK plants would have been obvious over the PK extract containing fatty acids ([0028]), as taught by Medasani. The limitation of more than 60% by weight of the fatty acids being nonpolar fatty acids and less than 40% by weight of the fatty acids being polar/bipolar fatty acids would have been obvious over 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 29, the limitation of the hydrophobic extract comprising cell membranes and exosomes of the PK plants 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, since the cell membranes and exosomes would naturally be present from the roots and rhizomes of the PK plants.
Regarding instant claim 30, the limitation of a composition would have been obvious over the composition ina form of a powder, syrup, drink, tablet, caplet, softgel, capsule, nanogel, nano-particles, injections, parenteral, transdermal patches, absorbent gels, nasal sprays, or vaginal gel (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, sub-cutaneous, peritoneal, rectal, nasal, trans-dermal, dermal, sublingual, vaginal or other routes ([0058], claims 10 and 34), as taught by Medasani.
Regarding instant claim 34, the limitation of the composition comprising 50 mg to 5000 mg of the hydrophobic extract would have been obvious over the overlapping dosage range of about 1 mg to about 1000 mg ([0073] and claim 36), as taught by Medasani. 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.”
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 below 25°C and not above 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.
20. Claim 26 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”), and Vashisht et al. (Planta; 2015, 241: 1255-1268 – “Vashisht”).
Instant claim 26 is drawn to the method of claim 21, wherein the hydrophobic extract comprises non-coding RNAs.
The teachings of Medasani, Rupali, and Thani are discussed above.
Medasani, Rupali, and Thani do not expressly teach that the extract comprises non-coding RNAs.
Vashisht teaches that 18 miRNAs, which are non-coding RNAs, were detected in Picrorhiza kurroa (Abstract and Page 1255, Col. 1, 1st ¶). Root samples were used (Page 1256, Col. 2, “Plant material”). Fig. 2 shows the miRNA sequences.
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 the miRNAs or non-coding RNAs that were detected in Picrorhiza kurroa, as taught by Vashisht, and produce the instant invention.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the extract from the PK plant naturally contains the non-coding RNAs, as taught by Vashisht (Abstract, Page 1255, Col. 1, 1st ¶, Page 1256, Col. 2, “Plant material”, and Fig. 2).
Regarding instant claim 26, the limitation of the non-coding RNAs would have been obvious over the miRNAs or non-coding RNAs (Abstract, Page 1255, Col. 1, 1st ¶, Page 1256, Col. 2, “Plant material”, and Fig. 2), as taught by Vashisht.
20. 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”), 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 of vanillic acid, cinnamic acid, acetovanillone, or catalpol.
The teachings of Medasani, Rupali, and Thani are discussed above.
Medasani, Rupali, and Thani do not expressly teach one or more of vanillic acid, cinnamic acid, acetovanillone, or catalpol.
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 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 vanillic acid, cinnamic acid, and catalpol 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.
20. 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”), 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, and Thani are discussed above.
Medasani, Rupali, and Thani 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 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”), 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, and Thani are discussed above.
Medasani, Rupali, and Thani 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 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.
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