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 1 - 5 , are pending in this application. C laim 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 1-4, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The claims are drawn to prevention, which implies glaucoma has not occurred. But, the specification fails to disclose how a “normal” subject predisposed to glaucoma will be identified and treated before the occurrence of glaucoma. Deleting prevent/preventing in every occurrence will obviate the rejection. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-3, 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. “[P]reparation method comprising a step of administering”, claim 1, lines 2-3, is not clear. Preparation is a process of making, not an administering step. Hence, the inventor fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Appropriate correctio is required. 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. Claim(s) 1- 5 , are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) as being anticipated by Cipriano de Sousa et al., US 2006/0008506 , which teaches treatment of glaucoma with impregnated composition of valdecoxib on optical devices . See the attached abstract . Claims 1-3, cite inherent properties of valdecoxib. Under the US patent practice, inherent property, is not a limitation of a product or compound. See In re Best , 562 F.2d 1252; 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA, 1977), Titanium Metals Corp. v Banner, 778 F.2d 775 (Fed. Cir. 1985), Continental Can Co. v Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264 (Fed. Cir. 1991), In re Cruciferous Sprout Litig., 301 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2002), In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2004). IDS No IDS was filed in this application. The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." See the MPEP 2000 and 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98. The references and English translations of all foreign documents must be submitted. Telephone Inquiry Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directe d to Taofiq A. Solola, whose telephone number is (571) 272-0709. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, An dy Kosar , can be reached on (571) 272-0 913 . The fax phone number for this Group is (571) 273-8300. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-1600. /TAOFIQ A SOLOLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1625 November 17, 2025