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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Arguments and Amendment filed, 02/03/2026, wherein the Amendment amended claims 1, 7, 21, and 25, and cancelled claims 2, 8, and 22.
Claims 1, 3-7, 14, 21, and 23-26 are pending and examined herein.
Priority
This application claims the following priority:
PNG
media_image1.png
42
528
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
84
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Receipt is acknowledged of a certified copies of foreign applications KR 10-2020-0120799 and KR10-2021-0104190, however the present application does not properly claim priority to the submitted foreign application KR 10-2020-0120799.
A google translation of Foreign Priority Document KR 10-2020-0120799, filed 03/20/2023, does not provide support for the instant claims:
PNG
media_image3.png
775
440
media_image3.png
Greyscale
.
Applicant provided a certified translation of KR 10-2020-0120799, on 02/03/2026, which is 12 pages long with multiple figures and chemical structures. However, the filed Certified Priority Document is only 2 pages long with zero figures or chemical structures. As such, the certified translation filed on 02/03/2026, cannot be that of the filed Certified Priority Document of KR 10-2020-0120799.
As such, the instant application is afforded an effective filing date of 08/06/2021, which is the filing date of KR10-2021-0104190.
REJECTIONS WITHDRAWN
The status for each rejection and/or objection in the previous Office Action is set out below.
Nucleotide/Amino Acid Deficiencies
Applicant’s amendment to the Specification is sufficient to overcome this deficiency.
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 7, and 21, and deletion of claims 2, 8, and 22, are sufficient to overcome these objections.
35 U.S.C. § 102 over Amrane
Applicant’s amendment to independent claims 1, 7, and 21 that adds species of compounds that bind to G4 structures, is sufficient to overcome this rejection.
REJECTIONS—MAINTAINED, MODIFIED, & NEW
Applicant amendment to independent claims 1, 7, and 21 adds compounds of Chemical Formulas 1-4, and adds the limitation, in reference to the G4 structure, “located in an RNA region encoding non-structural protein 1 (NSP1) or non-structural protein 3 (NSP3).” As such, the prior art rejections have been modified, and a 112(a) rejection is newly applied.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)-New Matter
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.
(New) Claims 1, 3-7, 14, 21, and 23-26 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.
In claims 1, 7, and 21, the recitation in reference to the G4 structure, “located in an RNA region encoding non-structural protein 1 (NSP1) or non-structural protein 3 (NSP3),” is new matter.
Applicant has not pointed to support for this limitation, and a careful review of the original disclosure does not provide support for this limitation.
Example 3, on pg. 45 of the Specification, teaches “Instability of G4 according to introduction of site-directed mutations to Nsp1 and Nsp3,” and states “Since G4s (G4-353, G4-644, and G4-3467) located in Nsp 1 and Nsp3 showed the highest ▵Tm when treated with PDS and PhenDC3 as shown in the following Table 4, and have important biological functions, the G4s were selected as a mutation target. To visualize the effect of SARS-CoV-2 G4 targeting on Nsp1 and Nsp3, guanine (G) highlighted in red in the WT-G4 sequence was mutated to adenine (A) to make Mut-G4 which interferes with the formation of G4.”
However, this teaching does not provide support for, in reference to the G4 structure, “located in an RNA region encoding non-structural protein 1 (NSP1) or non-structural protein 3 (NSP3).” As such, this phrase is new matter.
All other claims not specifically recited are rejected for depending from an indefinite claim and failing to cure the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(Modified) Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) and (a2) as
being anticipated by WO 2018/211148 to Blondel (published 2018, PTO-892 of 11/05/2025).
Regarding claim 7, Blondel teaches a compound of instant Chemical Formula 1, in a composition comprising a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (pgs. 66-67, 70-71, claims 12, 14).
Regarding the phrase “An antiviral composition against coronaviruses,” in claim 7, line 1, and the entirety of claim 14, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed composition must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since the composition of Blondel is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
Regarding the phrase “a compound that binds G-quadruplex (G4) structures located in an RNA region encoding non-structural protein 1 (NSP1) or non-structural protein 3 (NSP3),” Applicant is respectfully reminded that "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, i.e., a compound of instant Chemical Formula 1, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01.
Response to Arguments
On pg. 13, Remarks, Applicant argues that Blondel allegedly disclosed PhenDC3 corresponding to Formula 1 for the treatment of Epstein-Barr virus and not coronavirus.
This argument has been fully considered, but is not found persuasive. It is respectfully pointed out that instant claim 7 is a product claim and not a method of use claim. As discussed in the above rejection, regarding the phrase “An antiviral composition against coronaviruses,” in claim 7, line 1, and the entirety of claim 14, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed composition must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since the composition of Blondel is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
On pg. 14, Remarks, Applicant argues that Blondel is completely silent on “a compound that binds to G-quadruplex (G4) structures located in an RNA region encoding non-structural protein 1 (NSP1) or non-structural protein 3 (NSP3).”
This argument has been fully considered, but is not found persuasive. As discussed in the above rejection, regarding the phrase “a compounds that binds G-quadruplex (G4) structures located in an RNA region encoding non-structural protein 1 (NSP1) or non-structural protein 3 (NSP3),” Applicant is respectfully reminded that "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, i.e., a compound of instant Chemical Formula 1, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01.
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to overcome the instant rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
(Modified) Claims 1, 3-7, 14, 21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0319811 to Amrane (published 2018, PTO-892 of 11/05/2025) in view of Ruggiero (“G-quadruplexes and G-quadruplex ligands: targets and tools in antiviral therapy, Nucleic Acids Research, published 2018, IDS of 03/20/2023).
Amrane teaches metalated porphyrin derivatives as ligands of G-quadruplex and their novel use as anti-viral agents (abstract).
Amrane teaches a method for the prevention and/or treatment of a viral infection, such as SARS coronavirus, comprising administering
PNG
media_image4.png
372
246
media_image4.png
Greyscale
, wherein the compounds is in a pharmaceutical composition with a pharmaceutically acceptable excipient (pgs. 12-13, claims 1-2, 4-10).
Amrane teaches the compounds as stabilizing the G4 ([0144]-[0146]).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 21, while Amrane teaches a method of treating a viral infection, such as SARS coronavirus, with a pharmaceutical composition comprising G quadruplex ligands, it differs from that of instant claims 1, 7, and 21, in that it does not teach the instantly claimed species of compounds that bind the G4 structure of coronavirus.
Ruggiero teaches G-quadruplexes and G-quadruplex ligands as targets and tools in antiviral therapy since G4s are usually located in regulatory regions of the genome and implicated in the control of key viral processes (title, abstract; pg. 3271, “G-Quadruplexes in Viruses: Presence and Function”).
Ruggiero teaches that G4 putative sequences have been identified in SARS-CoV, wherein the SARS unique domain plays an essential role in viral replication and transcription and preferentially binds G4-forming oligonucleotides (pg. 3274, “Other viruses”).
Ruggiero teaches instant Chemical Formula 1, instant Chemical Formula 2, instant and Chemical Formula 4, as chemical structures or reported G4 ligands with antiviral activity (pg. 3275).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention, to substitute
PNG
media_image5.png
341
225
media_image5.png
Greyscale
of Amrane, with instant Chemical Formulas 1, 2, or 4 of Ruggiero, to arrive at instant claims 1, 7 and 21. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a substitution, with a reasonable expectation of success, because:
-Amrane teaches its porphyrin derivatives as ligands of G-quadruplex for use as anti-viral agents,
-Ruggiero teaches its compounds as G-quadruplexes and G-quadruplex ligands for use as anti-viral agents, and
-substituting equivalents known for the same purpose is prima facie obvious, see MPEP 2144.06.
As such, an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make such a substitution, to predictably arrive at a therapeutically effective method of treating SARS-CoV.
Regarding the phrase “a compound that binds G-quadruplex (G4) structures located in an RNA region encoding non-structural protein 1 (NSP1) or non-structural protein 3 (NSP3),” in claims 1, 7, and 21, Applicant is respectfully reminded that "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, i.e., a compounds of instant Chemical Formulas 1-4, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01.
Further, regarding claims 1 and 21, since the combination of Amrane and Ruggiero teach a method of treating the same disease (SARS coronavirus) in the same patient population (patients with coronavirus), by administering the same compounds, the compounds in the method of the combination of Amrane and Ruggiero would necessarily bind to G-quadruplex structures located in an RNA region encoding NSP1 or NSP3 of coronaviruses. See MPEP 2112.02, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process.
Applicants are reminded that the office does not have the facilities and resources to provide the factual evidence needed in order to establish that the product of the prior art does not possess the same material, structural and functional characteristics of the claimed product. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the burden is on the applicant to prove that the claimed product is different from those taught by the prior art and to establish patentable differences. See In re Best 562F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Gray 10 USPQ 2d 1922 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
Regarding claims 3, 14, and 23 Amrane teaches SARS-CoV.
Regarding the wherein clauses of claims 4-6, and 24-26, MPEP 2111.04 states, a “‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). In the instant case, the wherein clauses express the desired result of the positive step of administering a composition comprising compounds of Chemical Formulas 1, 2, or 4, to a subject in need of treatment for coronavirus infectious disease. As such, the combined method of Amrane and Ruggiero, meet this limitation.
Regarding the phrase “An antiviral composition against coronaviruses,” in claim 7, line 1, and the entirety of claim 14, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed composition must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since the composition of the combination of Amrane and Ruggiero, is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claims limitations.
Response to Arguments
On pg. 15, Remarks, Applicant argues that claims 1, 7, and 21 have been amended to recite “wherein the coronavirus is one or more selected from the group consisting of human coronavirus 229E. . .human coronavirus OC43. . .human coronavirus NL63. . .human coronavirus HKU1, Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus. . .and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2.”
This argument has been fully considered, but is not found persuasive. None of claims 1, 7, or 21 have been amended to recite this limitation.
On pg. 15-22, Remarks, Applicant details the “technical significance” of the instant invention.
On pg. 16, Remarks, Applicant argues “Ruggiero merely discloses the general presence or potential of G4 structures as antiviral targets. Ruggiero, even combined with Amrane, neither disclose or suggest selectively identifying RNA G4 structures located in NSP1 or NSP3 coding regions, nor verify any functional relevance of such structures.”
On pg. 20, Remarks, applicant argues that “the G4 structures targeted in the claimed invention are not simply ‘G4 structures present somewhere in the viral genome,’ but G4 structures located within evolutionarily conserved RNA regions encoding NSP1 and NSP3 and functionally associated with viral protein expression,” and that “In contrast, Amrane and Ruggiero merely acknowledge the general present or potential antiviral relevance of Gr structures and do not provide any teaching or suggestion to target G4 structures located in such conserved and functionally critical RNA regions.”
On pg. 22, Remarks, Applicant argues that “the claimed invention presents technical results that would not have been specifically foreseeable from mere combination of Amrane and Ruggiero, in view of (i) the difficulty of target selection, (ii) the selectivity of compound effects, and (iii) the quantitative antiviral outcomes demonstrated.”
These arguments have been fully considered, but are not found persuasive.
Independent claim 1 is a method for treating coronavirus by administering, to a subject in need thereof, a composition comprising a compounds of Chemical Formulas 1, 2, 3, or 4.
Independent claim 7 is directed toward a composition comprising compounds of Chemical Formulas 1, 2, 3, or 4.
Independent claim 21 is directed toward a method for suppressing coronavirus by administering, to a subject in need thereof, a composition comprising compounds of Chemical Formulas 1, 2, 3, or 4.
As discussed above, regarding the phrase “a compound that binds G-quadruplex (G4) structures located in an RNA region encoding non-structural protein 1 (NSP1) or non-structural protein 3 (NSP3),” in claims 1, 7, and 21, Applicant is respectfully reminded that "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, i.e., a compounds of instant Chemical Formulas 1, 2, or 4, the properties Applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01.
Further, regarding claims 1 and 21, since the combination of Amrane and Ruggiero teach a method of treating the same disease in the same patient population, by administering the same compounds, the compounds of the combination of Amrane and Ruggiero would necessarily bind to G-quadruplex structures located in an RNA region encoding NSP1 or NSP3 of coronaviruses. See MPEP 2112.02, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process.
Applicants are reminded that the office does not have the facilities and resources to provide the factual evidence needed in order to establish that the product of the prior art does not possess the same material, structural and functional characteristics of the claimed product. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the burden is on the applicant to prove that the claimed product is different from those taught by the prior art and to establish patentable differences. See In re Best 562F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Gray 10 USPQ 2d 1922 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
Applicant is further respectfully reminded that “Mere recognition of latent properties in the prior art does not render nonobvious an otherwise known invention. . .’The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious,’” MPEP 2145 (II).
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive to over this rejection.
(Modified) Claims 1, 3-7, 14, 21, and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN112043703 to Qu (Translation, published 12/08/2020, PTO-892 of 11/05/2025; Original, published 12/08/2020, IDS of 03/20/2023) in view of US 2018/0319811 to Amrane (published 2018, PTO-892 or 11/05/2025).
Qu teaches a G-quadruplex specific binding agents for treating coronavirus, and specifically for treating COVID-19 (abstract; claim 1), wherein the binding agent is a compound of instant Chemical Formula 1 (claim 2, Original and Translation). The purpose of the present invention is to provide the application of a G-quadruplex specific binding reagent in the preparation of anti-coronavirus drugs. The present invention first discovered the existence of a novel RNA G-quadruplex structure in SARS-CoV-2 and proved this structure is a potential target of anti-COVID-19 virus drugs, and the use of G-quadruplex specific binding reagents to stabilize the structure can significantly reduce the N-protein level because the N-protein plays a key role in virus assembly and replication (pg. 2, last full paragraph).
Qu specifically teaches the application of a G-quadruplex specific binding reagent as a coronavirus drug (claims 1-3).
Regarding claims 1, 7, and 21, while Qu teaches instant Chemical Formula 1 as a G-quadruplex specific binding agent for treating coronavirus, it differs from that of the instantly claimed invention in that it does not teach a method of administering instant Chemical Formula 1 in a pharmaceutical composition to a subject in need thereof.
Amrane is applied as discussed above, and incorporated herein.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the instantly claimed invention to modify the application of Qu to select a method of treating coronavirus by administering, to a subject with coronavirus, the G-quadruplex specific binding agent of instant Chemical Formula 1 of Qu, to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification, with a reasonable expectation of success, because:
-Qu teaches instant Chemical Formula 1 as a G-quadruplex specific binding agent for treating coronavirus,
-Amrane teaches administering compositions comprising G-quadruplex ligands for the treatment of coronavirus, and
-the methods of Qu are clearly directed toward a method of treating coronavirus by administering instant Chemical Formula 1, though it is not explicitly stated.
As such, an ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to make such a selection to predictably arrive at a method of treating coronavirus with a therapeutically effective antiviral (pg. 1, “Background technique”) that significantly reduces the N protein level which plays a key role in virus assembly and replication (pg. 1 “Summary of invention”).
Regarding the phrase “a compounds that binds G-quadruplex (G4) structures located in an RNA region encoding non-structural protein 1 (NSP1) or non-structural protein 3 (NSP3),” in claims 1, 7, and 21, Applicant is respectfully reminded that "Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, i.e., a compounds of instant Chemical Formulas 1-4, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. See MPEP 2112.01.
Further, regarding claims 1 and 21, since the combination of Amrane and Ruggiero teaches a method of treating the same disease (SARS coronavirus) in the same patient population (patients infected with SARS coronavirus), by administering the same compounds, the compounds of the combination of Amrane and Ruggiero would necessarily bind to G-quadruplex structures located in an RNA region encoding NSP1 or NSP3 of coronaviruses. See MPEP 2112.02, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process.
Applicants are reminded that the office does not have the facilities and resources to provide the factual evidence needed in order to establish that the product of the prior art does not possess the same material, structural and functional characteristics of the claimed product. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the burden is on the applicant to prove that the claimed product is different from those taught by the prior art and to establish patentable differences. See In re Best 562F.2d 1252, 195 USPQ 430 (CCPA 1977) and Ex parte Gray 10 USPQ 2d 1922 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1989).
Regarding claims 3 and 23, the combination of Qu and Amrane teaches its composition for the treatment of COVID-19, i.e., SARS-CoV-2.
Regarding the wherein clauses of claims 4-6, and 24-26, MPEP 2111.04 states, a “‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)). In the instant case, the wherein clauses express the desired result of the positive step of administering a composition comprising a compounds of Chemical Formulas 1, 2, or 4, to a subject in need of treatment for coronavirus infectious disease. As such, the combined method of Qu and Amrane, meet these limitations.
Regarding the phrase “An antiviral composition against coronaviruses,” in claim 7, line 1, and the entirety of claim 14, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed composition must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. Since the composition of the combination of Qu and Amrane, is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Moreover, the combination of Qu and Amrane teaches its composition for the treatment of COVID-19, i.e., SARS-CoV-2.
Response to Arguments
On pg. 22, Remarks, Applicant argues that Qu is disqualified as a prior art reference.
This argument has been fully considered, but is not found persuasive. For details regarding the effective filing date of the instant application, see the “Priority” section above, on pgs. 2-3.
Conclusion
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 LAUREN WELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-7316. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-4:30.
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, James (Jim) Alstrum-Acevedo can be reached on 571-272-5548. 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.
/LAUREN WELLS/Examiner, Art Unit 1622
Prosecution Insights