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 .
Withdrawn Rejections:
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed on 01/26/2026 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Any rejection and/or objection not specifically addressed below is herein withdrawn.
The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set of rejections and/or objections presently being applied to the instant application.
The application is examined in view of EGCG + one or more of polyphenols selected from the groups consisting of resveratrol, curcumin, flavonoids, isoflavones and combinations thereof + ascorbic acid as specific substance.
Claims 1-14 are pending, claims 1-9 are under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/26/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jie et al. (US20170035829) in view of Yaday et al. (“Cliv‑92‑Loaded Glycyrrhetinic Acid‑Modified Chitosan Nanoparticles for Enhanced Hepatoprotection-Preparation, Characterization, and In Vivo Evaluation, AAPS PharmSciTech (2021) 22: 259).
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Jie et al. teaches Compositions and methods for treatment of and maintaining the health of the liver are disclosed that include a mixture of plant extracts (abstract). The composition additionally comprises one or more known liver protectants wherein the liver protectants is selected from the group consisting of plant powder or plant extract of milk thistle, Aloe, Artemisia curcuma, bupleurum, licorice, salvia, morus, hovenia, agrimony, cudrania, lyceum, citrus, prunus, yellow mume, Korea gim, dandelion, vitis, grape seed, rubus, camellia, green tea, krill oil, yeast, soy bean; isolated and enriched silymarins, EGCG, catechins, flavonoids, phospholipids, thios, pycnogenols, gelatins, Soy Lecithin, Pancreatic Enzymes; natural or synthetic N-acetyl-cysteine, taurine, riboflavin, niacin, pyridoxine, folic acid, carotenes, vitamin A, vitamin B2, B6, B16, vitamin C, vitamin E, glutathione, branched-chain amino acids, selenium, copper, zinc, manganese, coenzyme Q10, L-arginine, L-glutamine, Phosphatidylcholine or the like (claims 1 and 23). The composition is for oral or injection administration in one embodiment ([0083]), as particle or microsphere from micro (100um to about 100nm) to nano size (no more than 100nm) ([0090]). In one embodiment, the active agents are in a single dosage or separated dosage form ([0094]).
Yaday et al. teaches Cliv-92 is a mixture of three structurally similar coumarinolignoids and a proven hepatoprotective agent. Low aqueous solubility and poor bioavailability are notable hindrances for its further use. Therefore, glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan nanoparticles loaded with Cliv-92 were prepared for active targeting to the liver. The nanoparticles were prepared by the ionic gelation method to avoid the use of toxic solvents/rigorous agitation. The method of preparation was optimized using a central composite design with independent variables, namely polymer: drug ratio (3:1, w/w), crosslinker concentration (0.5%), and stirring speed (750 rpm). The optimized nanoparticles had a mean particle size of 185.17 nm, a polydispersity index of 0.41, a zeta potential of 30.93 mV, and a drug loading of 16.30%. The prepared formulation showed sustained release of approximately 63% of loaded Cliv-92 over 72 h. The nanoparticles were freeze-dried for long-term storage and further characterized. The formulation was found to be biocompatible for parenteral delivery. In vivo imaging study showed that optimized nanoparticles were preferentially accumulated in the liver and successfully targeting the liver. The present study successfully demonstrated the improved pharmacokinetic properties (≈12% relative bioavailability) and efficacy profile (evidenced by in vivo and histopathological studies) of fabricated Cliv-92 nanoparticles (abstract). In the present investigation, an attempt has been made to develop liver-targeted nanoparticle formulation of glycerrhetinic acid-functionalized chitosan for efficient delivery of Cliv-92. The glycyrrhetinic acid has been selected as a liver-targeting ligand because hepatocytes express specialized recognition receptors on its surface (page 2, right column).
PNG
media_image1.png
509
1310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Moreover, the polynomial Eq. 8 suggested that polymer to drug ratio and crosslinker concentration both affected the drug entrapment efficiency of nanoparticles, and particle size ranges from 165-260 nm (page 9). Response surface methodology provided a simple processing window for optimizing the nanoparticle size for intended applications. The particle size, polydispersity index (PDI), and zeta (ζ) potential of optimized Cliv-92 loaded nanoparticles were found to be 185.17 ± 0.59 nm, 0.41 ± 0.02, and 30.93 ± 0.72 mV, respectively. The drug entrapment efficiency and loading efficiency of optimized polymeric nanoparticles of Cliv-92 nanoparticles were found to be 69.38 ± 0.24% and 16.30 ± 0.79%, respectively (page 11, right column). The prepared Cliv-92-loaded nanoparticles exhibited enhanced hepatoprotection compared to their free form (page 17, conclusion section).
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Jie et al. is that Jie et al. do not expressly teach encapsulation with glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan. This deficiency in Jie et al. is cured by the teachings of Yaday et al.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Jie et al., as suggested by Yaday et al., and produce the instant invention.
Jie et al. teaches liver protectants comprising EGCG, flavonoids and vitamin C (ascorbic acid) as particle for treating and maintaining liver health, but silent about encapsulation by glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare liver protectants particle comprising EGCG, flavonoids and vitamin C (ascorbic acid) encapsulated by glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan because glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan encapsulated liver protectant provides liver-targeted nanoparticle formulation for improved bioavailability and enhanced hepatoprotection compared to their free form as suggested by Yaday et al. Since it is advantage to do so, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare liver protectants particle comprising EGCG, flavonoids and vitamin C (ascorbic acid) encapsulated by glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 1-4, prior art teaches prepare liver protectants particle comprising EGCG, flavonoids and vitamin C (ascorbic acid) encapsulated by glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan as targeted nanoparticle wherein glycyrrhetinic acid and chitosan are linked by amide bond (see Fig. 1). Since the encapsulated particle has positively Zeta potential 30.93 ± 0.72 mV, the surface of nanoparticle is expected to be positively charged. Since prior art teaches the same nanoparticle, this same nanoparticle is expected to have the same properties such as positively surface charged.
Regarding claims 5-8, Yaday et al. teaches particle size 165-260 nm, and Zeta potential 30.93 ± 0.72 mV, entrapment efficiency (encapsulation efficiencies) and loading efficiency (ratio) of 69.38 ± 0.24% and 16.30 ± 0.79%, and optimization for intended application, thus, one artisan in the art would have been motivated to optime those parameter through routing experimentation to obtain claimed range, especially in the absence evidence to show criticality of claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, this is regarded as inherency of prior art composition. since prior art teaches the same encapsulated nanoparticle, this same prior art encapsulated nanoparticle is expected to have the same properties. MPEP 2112, "[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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
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 was 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mousa (US20160346308) in view of Yaday et al. (“Cliv‑92‑Loaded Glycyrrhetinic Acid‑Modified Chitosan Nanoparticles for Enhanced Hepatoprotection-Preparation, Characterization, and In Vivo Evaluation, AAPS PharmSciTech (2021) 22: 259).
For compact prosecution purpose, addition species EGCG +resveratrol is also examined.
Determination of the scope and content of the prior art
(MPEP 2141.01)
Mousa teaches A composition and associated method for treating a hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection in a subject who is human being (abstract). The composition comprises one or more Polyphenols epigallocatech gallate (EGCG) and resveratrol (claims 1 and 12). The composition targets hepatic cells ([0013]). Polymeric nanoparticles are of particular interest, as the polymeric nanoparticles are more stable and permit administration by the parenteral route (subcutaneous) as well as oral route as tablet, chewable tablet or capsule ([0041]). In one example, Oligomerized EGCG conjugated with Chitosan and the reaction was initiated with the addition of acetaldehyde, and was conducted at room temperature and low pH 2-3 under a nitrogen atmosphere for 2-3 days (FIG. 16). Chitosan—Oligomeric EGCG complex with Glycyrrhizin (Glycyrrhetinic acid) forming a nanoparticle (100-300 nm, with +10 to +20 zeta potential) (FIG. 17) for encapsulation ([0220-230]). Glycyrrhetinic acid is included for targeting hepatitis C virus (claims 1 and 16-17).
Yaday et al. teaching has already been discussed in the above 103 rejection and is incorporated herein by reference.
Ascertainment of the difference between the prior art and the claims
(MPEP 2141.02)
The difference between the instant application and Mousa is that Mousa do not expressly teach encapsulation with glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan. This deficiency in Mousa is cured by the teachings of Yaday et al.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
Rational and Motivation (MPEP 2142-2143)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Mousa, as suggested by Yaday et al., and produce the instant invention.
Mousa teaches composition comprising EGCG and resveratrol as well as Chitosan—Oligomeric EGCG complex with Glycyrrhizin (Glycyrrhetinic acid) forming a nanoparticle for targeting hepatitis cell, and Mousa is silent about encapsulation with glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to replace glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan encapsulation of EGCG and resveratrol for Chitosan with Glycyrrhizin complex of polyphenol nanoparticle because this is simple substitution of one known nanoparticle for targeting liver cell for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143, it is prima facie obviousness for simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Under guidance from Yaday et al. teaching glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan encapsulation of coumarinolignoids (natural phenolic compounds) for targeting liver for improved delivery profile, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to replace glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan encapsulation of EGCG and resveratrol for Chitosan with Glycyrrhizin complex of polyphenol nanoparticle and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claims 1-2 and 5, prior art teaches nanoparticle comprising EGCG and resveratrol encapsulated by glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan wherein glycyrrhetinic acid is linked with chitosan by amide bond with particle size 165-260 nm. Since the encapsulated particle has positively Zeta potential 30.93 ± 0.72 mV, the surface of nanoparticle is expected to be positively charged. Since prior art teaches the same nanoparticle, this same nanoparticle is expected to have the same properties such as positively surface charged.
Regarding claims 6-8, Yaday et al. teaches Zeta potential 30.93 ± 0.72 mV, entrapment efficiency (encapsulation efficiencies) and loading efficiency (ratio) of 69.38 ± 0.24% and 16.30 ± 0.79%, and optimization for intended application, thus, one artisan in the art would have been motivated to optime those parameter through routing experimentation to obtain claimed range, especially in the absence evidence to show criticality of claimed range. MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, this is regarded as inherency of prior art composition. since prior art teaches the same encapsulated nanoparticle, this same prior art encapsulated nanoparticle is expected to have the same properties. MPEP 2112, "[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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
In light of the forgoing discussion, the Examiner concludes that the subject matter defined by the instant claims would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 USC 103.
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 was 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.
Response to Argument:
Applicants argue that there is no teaching of positive charged surface.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. Regarding the evidence from Wikipedia, which only teaches zeta potential is not equal to the Stern potential or electric surface potential in the double layer, and “it cannot be inferred from a positive zeta potential that the nanoparticle has a positive surface charge” is only opinion of the attorney. Furthermore, Wikipedia is generally not regarded as reliable source for legal purpose since anyone can edit the content. It is generally regarded in the art that positive Zeta potential indicates positively surface charged, see Stary et al. teaching the nanoparticles yield a positive surface charge (zeta potential 20.7±1.0 mV) and (US20160008451, [0191]) and Rapaport et al. teaching a positively charged surface layer as suggested by the measured positive zeta potential of said nanoparticles (US20170258735, [0278]). Therefore, it is properly to rely on zeta potential to indicate surface charge, and the 103 rejection is still proper.
Applicants argue that there is no teaching of claimed glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan by an amide bond between amino group of chitosan and carboxylic acid of GA.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. Yaday et al. teaches the same amide bond between amino group of chitosan and carboxylic acid of GA, as the one in applicant’s specification (Fig. 1a). Chitosan also has amino group that is not reacted with GA as shown in Yaday et al., and there is no requirement that all available amino group in the chitosan reacted with GA. Applicants simply confused them about structure of chitosan and glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan wherein glycyrrhetinic acid is linked with chitosan by amide bond. Therefore, the 103 rejection is still proper.
Applicants argue that there is no teaching of encapsulation of EGCG and all related arguments are incorporated herein by reference.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. As discussed in the above 103 rejection, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare liver protectants particle comprising EGCG, flavonoids and vitamin C (ascorbic acid) encapsulated by glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan because glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan encapsulated liver protectant provides liver-targeted nanoparticle formulation for improved bioavailability and enhanced hepatoprotection compared to their free form as suggested by Yaday et al. Since it is advantage to do so, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare liver protectants particle comprising EGCG, flavonoids and vitamin C (ascorbic acid) encapsulated by glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the rational to choose glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan is for liver-targeted nanoparticle formulation for improved bioavailability and enhanced hepatoprotection, and both active ingredients (EGCG, flavonoids and vitamin C (ascorbic acid)) in Jie et al. and coumarinolignoids (natural phenolic compounds) in Yaday et al. are liver protectant. Therefore, the 103 rejection is till proper.
Applicants argue that there is no teaching the limitation of claims 2-3 and the hepatoprotection provided by the Cliv-92 encapsulated nanoparticles is not due to
encapsulation of the Cliv-92 by the nanoparticles, but rather is due to the fact that Cliv-92 is itself hepatoprotective.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. AS discussed in the above 103 rejection and response to argument, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare liver protectants particle comprising EGCG, flavonoids and vitamin C (ascorbic acid) encapsulated by glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan because glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan encapsulated liver protectant provides liver-targeted nanoparticle formulation for improved bioavailability and enhanced hepatoprotection compared to their free form as suggested by Yaday et al. Since it is advantage to do so, it is obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to prepare liver protectants particle comprising EGCG, flavonoids and vitamin C (ascorbic acid) encapsulated by glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan and produce instant claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success. Thus, the rational to choose glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan is for liver-targeted nanoparticle formulation for improved bioavailability and enhanced hepatoprotection, and both active ingredients (EGCG, flavonoids and vitamin C (ascorbic acid)) in Jie et al. and coumarinolignoids (natural phenolic compounds) in Yaday et al. are liver protectant. Regarding the enhanced hepatoprotection compared, Yaday et al. clearly teaches the prepared Cliv-92-loaded nanoparticles exhibited enhanced hepatoprotection compared to their free form (page 17, conclusion section), therefore, glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan encapsulation indeed provides advantage. Therefore, the 103 rejection is still proper.
Applicants argue about claims range in claims 6-8.
In response to this argument; this is not persuasive. Yaday et al. teaches Zeta potential 30.93 ± 0.72 mV, entrapment efficiency (encapsulation efficiencies) and loading efficiency (ratio) of 69.38 ± 0.24% and 16.30 ± 0.79%, and optimization for intended application, thus, one artisan in the art would have been motivated to optime those parameter through routing experimentation to obtain claimed range, especially in the absence evidence to show criticality of claimed range. MPEP 2144.05. therefore, the 103 rejection is still proper.
Applicants argued about claim 9.
In response to this argument; this is not persuasive. This is regarded as inherency of prior art composition. since prior art teaches the same encapsulated nanoparticle, this same prior art encapsulated nanoparticle is expected to have the same properties. MPEP 2112, "[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. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).
Applicants argue rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mousa (US20160346308) in view of Yaday et al. the same as 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jie et al. (US20170035829) in view of Yaday et al.
In response to this argument; this is not persuasive. See the above same response to arguments for 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jie et al. (US20170035829) in view of Yaday et al.
MPEP 2141 III states: “The proper analysis is whether the claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art after consideration of all the facts.” Respectfully, after weighing all the evidence, the Examiner has reached a determination that the instant claims are not patentable in view of the preponderance of evidence and consideration of all the facts which is more convincing than the evidence which has been offered in opposition to it.
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 1-9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 10046005 in view of Mousa (US20160346308) in view of Yaday et al. (“Cliv‑92‑Loaded Glycyrrhetinic Acid‑Modified Chitosan Nanoparticles for Enhanced Hepatoprotection-Preparation, Characterization, and In Vivo Evaluation, AAPS PharmSciTech (2021) 22: 259) and Jie et al. (US20170035829). The reference patent teaches a composition comprising EGCG and resveratrol (claims 1 and 10) for treating hepatitis disease (HCV), in view of Mousa teaching Chitosan with Glycyrrhizin complex of polyphenol nanoparticle, Yaday et al. teaching glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan encapsulation for liver targeting, and Jie et al. teaching vitamin C (ascorbic acid) as liver protectant, it is obvious to prepare nanoparticle comprising EGCG, resveratrol and ascorbic acid encapsulated by glycyrrhetinic acid-linked chitosan and produce applicants claimed invention with reasonable expectation of success.
Response to arguments:
Applicants argue that US20160346308 is not qualified as prior art and there is no teaching of claimed invention over US10046005 in view of those 2nd references.
In response to this argument: this is not persuasive. US20160346308 is a prior art for applicant’s claimed invention, applicants just don’t understand MPEP and are advised to review MPEP. According to the same logic as the above 103 rejection, the double patenting rejection is still proper.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JIANFENG SONG. Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1978. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at (571)272-0581. 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.
/JIANFENG SONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613