DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action for non-provisional application 18/201441 filed May 24, 2023, which claims foreign priority to CN 2022107558193 filed June 29, 2022.
Claims 1-6 are pending.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Aboul-Fotouh et al (Egyptian Journal of Basic and Clinical Pharmacology, Vol. 1, No. 1: pp. 9-21, December 2011; cited in the attached PTO-892).
Regarding claim 1; Aboul-Fotouh et al teach a study aimed to investigate the effects of pentoxifylline on delayed airway functional and histopathological injury induced by NaOCl-inhalation in guinea pigs (abstract). 48 guinea pigs were exposed to NaOCl and 6 groups of the guinea pigs were administrated pentoxifylline (50 mg/kg/day) intraperitoneally (abstract). According to Aboul-Fotouh et al, treatment with pentoxifylline reduced airway resistance and bronchial reactivity to methacholine in addition to inflammatory markers such as total cell count, neutrophil percentage and TNFα in bronchoalveolar lavage and lung myeloperoxidase activity and neutrophil infiltration (abstract; results: pp. 12-17). Thus, Aboul-Fotouh et al teach medicaments comprising pentoxifylline. With respect to “for repairing endothelial glycocalyx damage” recited in the preamble of claim 1; such a recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-6 and the limitations directed to “chlorine-induced endothelial glycocalyx damage” recited in claim 2, “effectively repairs shedding of glycosaminoglycans and syndecans in the endothelial glycocalyx damage” recited in claim 4, “significantly downregulates expression of an inflammatory factor that comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of TNFα, IL-6, and MMP-13” recited in claims 5-6; such limitations impose no patentable distinction on the claims. It is noted that functional limitations are presumed to be present in any composition that meets the structural requirements of the claims. According to MPEP 2112.02, products of similar chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. 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 as In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3; Aboul-Fotouh et al teach the administration of pentoxyphylline powders dissolved in distilled water (Materials and Methods 2.2, pg. 10), wherein water constitutes a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gonzalez-Cadavid et al (US 2020/0000811; cited in the attached PTO-892).
Gonzalez-Cadavid et al teach novel methods for therapeutic treatment of Peyronie’s disease, erectile dysfunction, arteriosclerosis and other fibroses (paragraph 0011). According to Gonzalez-Cadavid et al, petoxifylline and sildenafil were given orally to rats in their drinking water for 45 days following TGF-B1 injection to initiate plaque in the rat model (paragraph 0233). Gonzalez-Cadavid et al demonstrated pentoxifylline showed considerable reduction in plaque size and inducing apoptosis (paragraph 0233; Figure 2A). Thus, Gonzalez-Cadavid et al teach medicaments comprising pentoxifylline. With respect to “for repairing endothelial glycocalyx damage” recited in the preamble of claim 1; such a recitation is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Regarding claims 2 and 4-6 and the limitations directed to “chlorine-induced endothelial glycocalyx damage” recited in claim 2, “effectively repairs shedding of glycosaminoglycans and syndecans in the endothelial glycocalyx damage” recited in claim 4, “significantly downregulates expression of an inflammatory factor that comprises one or more selected from the group consisting of TNFα, IL-6, and MMP-13” recited in claims 5-6; such limitations impose no patentable distinction on the claims. It is noted that functional limitations are presumed to be present in any composition that meets the structural requirements of the claims. According to MPEP 2112.02, products of similar chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. 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 as In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3; Gonzalez-Cadavid et al teach the administration of pentoxyphylline in drinking water (paragraph 0233), wherein water constitutes a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
Conclusion
Claims 1-6 are rejected.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHAEL E BREDEFELD whose telephone number is (571)270-5237. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 Monday-Friday.
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, Kiesha Bryant can be reached at (571) 272-3606. 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.
/RACHAEL E BREDEFELD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3786