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 . Claims included in prosecution are claims 1 and 4-9.
Previous Rejections
Applicants' arguments, filed 8/13/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (New)
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.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
1. Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shantha et al. (US 2011/0052678, Mar. 3, 2011) (hereinafter Shantha) in view of Mishra et al. (Recent Applications of Liposomes in Ophthalmic Drug Delivery, 2011) (hereinafter Mishra) as evidenced by Roy (US 2005/0245856, Nov. 3, 2005) (hereinafter Roy).
Shantha teaches a method for treating age related macular degeneration comprising topically applying a therapeutically effective amount of a preparation to an affected conjunctival sac of the eye (Abstract). The method involves instilling insulin containing ophthalmic drops in the conjunctival sac for treating age related macular degeneration (satisfies methods of claims 1 and 5-9). The age related macular degeneration is treated with insulin and/or IGF-I with or without known anti-age related macular degeneration therapeutic, pharmaceutical, biochemical, and biological agents or compounds, nurticeuticals, and drugs (¶ [0044]). Suitable medications may be used with the insulin containing ophthalmic drops and include carotenoids such as lutein and/or zeaxanthin (satisfies active of claim 1) (¶ [0069]). Compatible vehicles or carriers may be employed for preparing the compositions where suitable vehicles/carriers include liposomes (¶ [0075]). In Example 21, uptake facilitators such as iontophoresis are used along with the active agent as prophylaxis, to diagnose, prevent and to treat age related macular degeneration in humans or animals (satisfies device of claim 1 and claims 5-9) (¶ [0308]).
The prior art is not anticipatory insofar as this combination must be selected from different lists/locations in the reference. It would have been obvious, however, to have made and utilized an active containing ophthalmic liposome comprising lutein and zeaxanthin with the use of iontophoresis as an uptake facilitator in a method of depositing a bioactive molecule in ocular tissues, as instantly claimed, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A).
Shantha differs from the instantly recited claims insofar as not disclosing wherein the liposomes are positively charged.
However, Mishra discloses that surface charge of liposomes plays a significant role in improving the efficiency of ocular drug delivery system. Positively charged liposomes exhibited higher drug loading efficiencies as well as faster drug release rates compared to negatively charged liposomes (Page 9, Paragraph 3).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant claims, to have formulated Shantha’s liposomes to be positively charged motivated by the desire to achieve a more efficient ocular drug delivery system characterized by higher drug loading efficiencies and faster drug release rates as taught by Mishra. Therefore, the combined teachings of Shantha and Mishra meet the requirement of “positively charged liposome” as recited in claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claims 1 and 5 reciting delivering the composition via the iontophoresis device, as discussed above, Shantha discloses in an Example 21 that iontophoresis is an uptake facilitator that is used along with actives to treat age related macular degeneration. As evidenced by Roy, the principle of ocular iontophoresis is applying an electric field to an electrolytic substance containing at least one medication, in order to transport the medication(s) into the body or the organ to be treated, via the biological membranes of the eye (¶ [0002]). As such, it would be reasonable for one of ordinary skill in the art to expect that the iontophoresis utilized by Shantha delivers Shantha’s composition to the target ocular tissue.
Regarding claim 1 reciting a method of depositing lutein and zeaxanthin in ocular tissue, as discussed above, Shantha discloses that suitable actives for use include lutein and zeaxanthin and further discloses that iontophoresis is an uptake facilitator that is used along with actives to treat age related macular degeneration. Accordingly, Shantha satisfies the method of depositing lutein and zeaxanthin in ocular tissue as instantly claimed.
Regarding claim 4 reciting wherein the liposome has a positive zeta potential, as discussed above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated Shantha’s liposomes to be positively charged since positively charged liposomes exhibited higher drug loading efficiencies as well as faster drug release rates compared to negatively charged liposomes.
Regarding the treatment methods recited in instant claims 5-9, as discussed above, Shantha’s method for treating involves treating age related macular degeneration using actives such as lutein and zeaxanthin. Accordingly, the Shantha’s treatment method satisfies the recited limitations.
Therefore, claims 1 and 4-9 are rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Shantha, as evidenced by Roy, and Mishra.
2. Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shantha et al. (US 2011/0052678, Mar. 3, 2011) (hereinafter Shantha) in view of Mishra et al. (Recent Applications of Liposomes in Ophthalmic Drug Delivery, 2011) (hereinafter Mishra) and Roy (US 2005/0245856, Nov. 3, 2005) (hereinafter Roy).
The teachings of Shantha and Mishra are discussed above.
It is believed that the teachings of Shantha in view of Mishra satisfy the limitation of delivering the composition via the iontophoresis device. However, purely arguendo and for the purposes of this rejection, Shantha in view of Mishra does not disclose delivering actives to ocular tissue via iontophoresis.
However, Roy discloses an ocular iontophoresis device for delivering medication (Abstract). Techniques of locally administering medication to the eye such as direct injection and topical application of drops are known but have their drawbacks. These drawbacks include such techniques being very traumatic, the drug diluting rapidly, risks of infection or bleeding, limited penetration, and/or the need for frequent application (¶ [0005-0007]). Ocular iontophoresis is a technique for local administration of medication into the eye which enables for most of the drawbacks of the other techniques to be mitigated. It also makes it possible in a noninvasive manner to obtain concentrations and residence times in the eye that are equal to or greater than such techniques (¶ [0011]). Medications and molecules which benefit from this administration technique include those which treat age-related degenerative diseases of the retina and degenerative pathologies of the retina (¶ [0143-0144]). The medication to be administered may be in the form of liposomes which are positively or negatively charged (¶ [0157]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant claims, to have utilized the iontophoresis device of Roy to administer the positively charged liposomes of Shantha in view of Mishra motivated by the desire to utilize a local administration technique that avoids the many major drawbacks of other known techniques and to achieve the desired concentrations and residence times in the eye as taught by Roy.
Therefore, claims 1 and 4-9 are rendered obvious by the combined teachings of Shantha, Mishra, and Roy.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 4-9 have been considered but are moot because new rejections necessitated by Applicant’s amendment have been made. As discussed in the current rejections, Shantha discloses teaches a method for treating age related macular degeneration comprising applying a preparation in the form of liposomes comprising lutein and zeaxanthin and also teaches the use of an iontophoresis device but does not expressly disclose wherein the liposomes are positively charged. However, Mishra is relied upon for this teaching. Furthermore, Roy’s teaching in reference to an iontophoresis device is applied to meet the requirements of the new limitation “delivering the composition to the ocular tissue of the subject with the iontophoresis device.”.
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.
1. Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 10,327,946 B2 (hereinafter ‘946).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite methods of depositing an active molecule in ocular tissues and methods of treating or ameliorating. The difference between the instant claims and the claims of ‘946 lies in the fact that the instant claims require both lutein and zeaxanthin in claim 1 while the claims of ‘946 require at least one of the two in the independent claim. However, the claims are obvious over each other since the methods have the same steps and utilize the same actives in treating the same diseases.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 4-9 on the grounds of non-statutory double patenting, Applicants‘ arguments and the amendment have been fully considered and deemed unpersuasive for the reasons that follow. Applicants have not submitted arguments or documentation (i.e. terminal disclaimer) in response to the double patenting rejection. Applicant requested that the double patenting rejection(s) recited above be held in abeyance until otherwise allowable subject matter is identified. Therefore, the previous rejection of non-statutory double patenting is maintained.
Conclusion
Claims 1 and 4-9 are rejected.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Abdulrahman Abbas whose telephone number is (571)270-0878. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached on (571) 272-. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612