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 Status
Applicant’s election of Group I (methods of treatment) and the species of N-isobutyryl-L-cysteine (L-NIBC) in the reply filed on 11/03/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Applicants note that the current amendment to the claims distinguishes over the prior art. However, examiner respectfully submits that the amendment to the claims is addressed by the teachings of Sun and Yang as discussed below.
Claims 6-11 and 13-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/03/2025.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are under current examination to the extent of the elected invention of N-isobutyryl-L-cysteine (L-NIBC) as the L-cysteine derivative ligand bound to gold core nanoparticles in the method of treating ischemic strokes (Group I).
Information Disclosure Statements
Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 04/16/2023; 04/18/2023 and 07/07/2024 have been considered by the Examiner. A signed copy of the IDS is included with the present Office Action.
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, 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.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (WO 2018024111) in view of Yang et al. (United States Patent Publication 20160015742) and Hopkins medicine (Types of Strokes).
Sun teaches the pharmaceutical use of a gold cluster and a substance containing the gold cluster for treating Alzheimer's disease and/or Parkinson's disease (See abstract). Sun teaches a gold cluster-containing material characterized by comprising a gold cluster and an externally coated ligand Y, wherein the gold cluster has a gold core diameter of less than 3 nm, preferably 0.5 to 2.6 nm, see claims 1-2. The said ligand Y is selected from the group consisting of L(D)-cysteine and its derivatives, oligopeptides containing cysteine and their derivatives, and other compounds containing thiol. Specifically, L(D)-cysteine and its derivatives include L-NIBC, see claims 3-9 and page 4 and pages 12-13, 16-17 and 21. Sun teaches a composition comprising the gold core nanoparticles and a ligand for treating CNS related conditions such as Alzheimer's disease and/or Parkinson's disease, see pages 12, 17 and 20.
Sun does not teach administering the gold nanoparticles modified with L-NIBC ligand to treat cerebral ischemic stroke in a subject.
However, Yang et al. teach that gold nanoparticles can treat neurological disorders, see claims 12 and 15. Examples of neurological disorders include stroke, Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, see claim 20 and paragraphs [0029] and [0055]. The gold metal nanoparticles improve neurite outgrowth and treats neurological disorders including stroke, see abstract and paragraph [0029].
Yang teaches the treatment of strokes with metal nanoparticles. According to Hopkins Medicine, ischemic strokes make up 87% of all strokes but there are only two categories, ischemic or hemorrhagic.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the gold nanoparticles having L-NIBC ligand of Sun to treat ischemic stroke in the alternative to the Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease that Sun teaches.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to treat ischemic stroke with the compositions of Sun because Sun teaches that the compositions comprising a gold core and a L-NIBC ligand bound to the gold core for effective treatment of CNS related conditions such as Alzheimer's disease and/or Parkinson's disease and Yang teaches that metal gold nanoparticles are effective in treatment of neurological disorders which include stroke in the alternative to Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s. Furthermore, Sun discloses that gold nanoparticles have unique optical and electrical properties, good biocompatibility, easy surface modification and the ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier at low concentrations. Although Yang et al. teach the genus of strokes, it would have been obvious to treat ischemic stroke because Hopkins Medicine teaches that ischemic stroke makes up about 87% of all stroke cases and thus is the most common type of stroke. Furthermore, Yang’s teaching of stroke is inclusive of the genus for both types of strokes to ischemic or hemorrhagic.
Accordingly, the teachings of Sun in view of Yang and Hopkins Medicine render instant claims 1 and 3-5 obvious.
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 and 3-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,000,543 in view of Yang et al. (United States Patent Publication 20160015742) and Hopkins medicine (Types of Strokes).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because examined claims are obvious over the Patent ‘543 claims in view of Yang. Specifically, both the instant invention and Patent ‘543 are directed to a method of treatment by administration of a pharmaceutical composition comprising a ligand bound gold cluster comprising a gold core and ligand bound to the gold core. The ligand is inclusive of L-NIBC, see claim 1 of Patent ‘543. The core can have a diameter of less than 3nm, see claim 1.
The difference is that instant claims are drawn to a method of treating ischemic stroke, while reference claims are drawn to a method of treating Parkinson’s disease.
However, the prior art, including Yang et al. teach that conditions such as Parkinson’s or stroke can be treated with gold nanoparticles, see paragraphs [0056] and [0029].
According to Hopkins Medicine, ischemic strokes make up 87% of all strokes but there are only two categories, ischemic or hemorrhagic
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have administered the composition of Patent ‘543 which contains gold nanoparticles to treat conditions such as ischemic stroke or Parkinson’s. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang expressly teaches that metal nanoparticles including gold are useful in treating stroke or Parkinson’s and per the teachings of Hopkins Medicine, ischemic stroke is the most common type of stroke.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,058,717 in view of in view of Yang et al. (United States Patent Publication 20160015742) and Hopkins medicine (Types of Strokes).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because examined claims are obvious over the Patent ‘717 claims in view of Yang et al. Specifically, both the instant invention and Patent ‘717 are directed to a method of treatment by administration of a pharmaceutical composition comprising a ligand bound gold cluster comprising a gold core and ligand bound to the gold core. The ligand is inclusive of L-NIBC, see claim 1 of Patent ‘717. The particle size is from 0.5-2.6nm, see claim 2.
The difference is that instant claims are drawn to a method of treating ischemic stroke, while reference claims are drawn to a method of treating Alzheimer's disease.
However, the prior art, including Yang et al. teach that conditions such as Alzheimer’s or stroke can be treated with gold nanoparticles, see paragraphs [0056] and [0029].
According to Hopkins Medicine, ischemic strokes make up 87% of all strokes but there are only two categories, ischemic or hemorrhagic
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have administered the composition of Patent ‘717 which contains gold nanoparticles to treat conditions such as ischemic stroke or Alzheimer’s. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang expressly teaches that metal nanoparticles including gold are useful in treating stroke or Alzheimer’s and per the teachings of Hopkins Medicine, ischemic stroke is the most common type of stroke.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,985 in view of Yang et al. (United States Patent Publication 20160015742) and Hopkins medicine (Types of Strokes).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because examined claims are obvious over the Patent ‘985 claims in view of Yang. Specifically, both the instant invention and patent ‘985 are directed to a method of treatment by administration of a pharmaceutical composition comprising a ligand bound gold cluster comprising a gold core and ligand bound to the gold core. The ligand modifying the core includes L-NIBC. The size of the gold core can comprise 0.5-2.6nm, see claim 13.
The difference is that instant claims are drawn to a method of treating ischemic stroke, while reference claims are drawn to a method of treating diabetes.
However, the prior art, including Yang et al. teach that conditions such as stroke or diabetes can be treated with gold nanoparticles, see paragraphs [0056] and [0029] and claim 20.
According to Hopkins Medicine, ischemic strokes make up 87% of all strokes but there are only two categories, ischemic or hemorrhagic
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have administered the composition of Application ‘985 which contains gold nanoparticles to treat conditions such as ischemic stroke or diabetes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang expressly teaches that metal nanoparticles including gold are useful in treating stroke or diabetes and per the teachings of Hopkins Medicine, ischemic stroke is the most common type of stroke.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,310,985 in view of Yang et al. (United States Patent Publication 20160015742) and Hopkins medicine (Types of Strokes).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because examined claims are obvious over the reference claims in view of Yang. Specifically, both the instant invention and reference Application are directed to a method of treatment by administration of a pharmaceutical composition comprising a ligand bound gold cluster comprising a gold core and ligand bound to the gold core. The ligand modifying the core includes L-NIBC and includes a size for the gold core of 0.5-2.6nm, see claims 11, and 13-15.
The difference is that instant claims are drawn to a method of treating ischemic stroke, while reference claims are drawn to a method of treating diabetes.
However, the prior art, including Yang et al. teach that conditions such as stroke or diabetes can be treated with gold nanoparticles, see paragraphs [0056] and [0029] and claim 20.
According to Hopkins Medicine, ischemic strokes make up 87% of all strokes but there are only two categories, ischemic or hemorrhagic
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have administered the composition of Application ‘985 which contains gold nanoparticles to treat conditions such as ischemic stroke or diabetes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang expressly teaches that metal nanoparticles including gold are useful in treating stroke or diabetes and per the teachings of Hopkins Medicine, ischemic stroke is the most common type of stroke.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 17/222,229 (reference application) in view of Sun (WO 2018024111), Yang et al. (United States Patent Publication 20160015742) and Hopkins medicine (Types of Strokes).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because examined claims are obvious over the reference claims in view of Sun and Yang et al. Specifically, both the instant invention and reference Application are directed to a method of treatment by administration of a pharmaceutical composition comprising a ligand bound gold cluster comprising a gold core and ligand bound to the gold core wherein the ligand includes L-cysteine thiol containing compound. The difference is that instant claims are drawn to a method of treating ischemic stroke, while reference claims are drawn to a method of treating Parkinson’s disease and wherein the ligand is L-NIBC.
Sun teaches a gold cluster-containing material characterized by comprising a gold cluster and an externally coated ligand Y, wherein the gold cluster has a gold core diameter of less than 3 nm, preferably 0.5 to 2.6 nm (See claims 1-2).
The said ligand Y is selected from the group consisting of L(D)-cysteine and its derivatives, oligopeptides containing cysteine and their derivatives, and other compounds containing thiol. Specifically, L(D)-cysteine and its derivatives are selected from the group consisting of L(D)-cysteine, N-isobutyryl-L(D)-cysteine (L(D)-NIBC) or N-acetyl-L(D)-cysteine (L(D)-NAC), (See claims 3-9). Sun teaches a composition comprising the gold core nanoparticles and a ligand for treating CNS related conditions such as Alzheimer's disease and/or Parkinson's disease.
Sun does not teach treating ischemic stroke.
Yang et al. teach that conditions such as Parkinson’s or stroke can be treated with gold nanoparticles, see paragraphs [0056] and [0029].
According to Hopkins Medicine, ischemic strokes make up 87% of all strokes but there are only two categories, ischemic or hemorrhagic
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have administered the composition of Application ‘229 which contains gold nanoparticles with L-NIBC ligand to treat conditions such as ischemic stroke or Parkinson’s. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang expressly teaches that metal nanoparticles including gold are useful in treating stroke or Parkinson’s and per the teachings of Hopkins Medicine, ischemic stroke is the most common type of stroke. Furthermore, Sun teaches that L-NIBMC ligand with gold nanoparticles treats Parkinson’s disease.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of copending Application No. 17/222,310 (reference application) in view of Sun (WO 2018024111), Yang et al. (United States Patent Publication 20160015742) and Hopkins medicine (Types of Strokes).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because examined claims are obvious over the reference claims in view of Yang et al and Sun. Specifically, both the instant invention and reference Application are directed to a method of treatment by administration of a pharmaceutical composition comprising a ligand bound gold cluster comprising a gold core and ligand bound to the gold core. The claims of Application ‘310 include L-cysteine as the ligand. The core can comprise 0.5-2.6nm, see claim 2.
The difference is that instant claims are drawn to a method of treating ischemic stroke, wherein the L-cysteine is L-NIBC and wherein the reference claims are drawn to a method of treating Alzheimer’s disease.
Sun teaches the pharmaceutical use of a gold cluster and a substance containing the gold cluster for preventing and treating Alzheimer's disease and/or Parkinson's disease (See abstract).
Sun teaches a gold cluster-containing material characterized by comprising a gold cluster and an externally coated ligand Y, wherein the gold cluster has a gold core diameter of less than 3 nm, preferably 0.5 to 2.6 nm (See claims 1-2).
The said ligand Y is selected from the group consisting of L(D)-cysteine and its derivatives, oligopeptides containing cysteine and their derivatives, and other compounds containing thiol. Specifically, L(D)-cysteine and its derivatives are selected from the group consisting of L(D)-cysteine, N-isobutyryl-L(D)-cysteine (L(D)-NIBC) or N-acetyl-L(D)-cysteine (L(D)-NAC), (See claims 3-9). Sun teaches a composition comprising the gold core nanoparticles and a ligand for treating CNS related conditions such as Alzheimer's disease and/or Parkinson's disease.
Sun does not teach treating ischemic stroke.
Yang et al. teach that conditions such as Alzheimer’s or stroke can be treated with gold nanoparticles, see paragraphs [0056] and [0029].
According to Hopkins Medicine, ischemic strokes make up 87% of all strokes but there are only two categories, ischemic or hemorrhagic
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have administered the composition of Application ‘310 which contains gold nanoparticles to treat conditions such as ischemic stroke or Alzheimer’s. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang expressly teaches that metal nanoparticles including gold are useful in treating stroke or Alzheimer’s and per the teachings of Hopkins Medicine, ischemic stroke is the most common type of stroke. Furthermore, Sun teaches that L-NIBMC ligand with gold nanoparticles treats Parkinson’s disease.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, and 3 of copending Application No. 17/755,672 (reference application) in view of in view of Yang et al. (United States Patent Publication 20160015742) and Hopkins medicine (Types of Strokes).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because examined claims are obvious over the reference claims in view of Yang et al. Specifically, both the instant invention and reference Application are directed to a method of treatment by administration of a pharmaceutical composition comprising a ligand bound gold cluster comprising a gold core and ligand bound to the gold core. The ligand is inclusive of L-NIBC and the gold nanoparticles have a size of from 0.5-2.6nm, see claim 1.
The difference is that instant claims are drawn to a method of treating ischemic stroke, while reference claims are drawn to a method of treating Multiple sclerosis.
However, the prior art, including Yang et al. teach that conditions such as stroke or multiple sclerosis can be treated with gold nanoparticles, see paragraphs [0027], [0056] and [0029] and claim 20.
According to Hopkins Medicine, ischemic strokes make up 87% of all strokes but there are only two categories, ischemic or hemorrhagic
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have administered the composition of Application ‘672 which contains gold nanoparticles to treat conditions such as ischemic stroke or multiple sclerosis. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang expressly teaches that metal nanoparticles including gold are useful in treating stroke or multiple sclerosis and per the teachings of Hopkins Medicine, ischemic stroke is the most common type of stroke.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim 1 and 3-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/249,530.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the claims of the instant Application and reference Application are directed to a method of treating stroke and the pharmaceutical composition comprising a ligand bound gold cluster comprising a gold core and ligand bound to the gold core, wherein the gold core has a diameter in the range of 0.5 to 3 nm, or 0.5 to 2.6 nm wherein the ligand includes L-NIBC. The stroke of both the instant claims and that of Application ‘530 are inclusive of ischemic strokes.
Thus, the claims of Application ‘530 anticipate the instant claims as Application ‘530 claims gold nanoparticles having L-NIBC ligand for treating ischemic stroke.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-5 of copending Application No. 18/546,269 (reference application) in view of Yang et al. (United States Patent Publication 20160015742) and Hopkins medicine (Types of Strokes).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because examined claims are obvious over the reference claims in view of Yang et al. Specifically, both the instant invention and reference Application are directed to a method of treatment by administration of a pharmaceutical composition comprising a ligand bound gold cluster comprising a gold core and ligand bound to the gold core. The ligand is inclusive of L-NAC, see claim 5 of Application ‘269. The particle size is inclusive of smaller than 3nm.
The difference is that instant claims are drawn to a method of treating ischemic stroke, while reference claims are drawn to a method of treating depression.
However, the prior art, including Yang et al. teach that conditions such as depression or stroke can be treated with gold nanoparticles, see paragraphs [0056] and [0029].
According to Hopkins Medicine, ischemic strokes make up 87% of all strokes but there are only two categories, ischemic or hemorrhagic.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have administered the composition of Application ‘269 which contains gold nanoparticles to treat conditions such as ischemic stroke or depression. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because Yang expressly teaches that metal nanoparticles including gold are useful in treating stroke or depression and per the teachings of Hopkins Medicine, ischemic stroke is the most common type of stroke.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3 of Application 18/725,231 in view of Sun (WO 2018024111), Yang et al. (United States Patent Publication 20160015742) and Hopkins medicine (Types of Strokes).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because examined claims are obvious over the reference claims in view of Sun and Yang. Specifically, both the instant invention and reference Application are directed to a method of treatment by administration of a pharmaceutical composition comprising a ligand bound gold cluster comprising a gold core and ligand bound to the gold core. The ligand modifying the core includes L-NIBC.
The claims of Application ‘231 does not claim the size of the gold core or for treating ischemic stroke. Application ‘231 claims treating Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s.
Sun teaches the pharmaceutical use of a gold cluster and a substance containing the gold cluster for preventing and treating Alzheimer's disease and/or Parkinson's disease (See abstract). Sun teaches a gold cluster-containing material characterized by comprising a gold cluster and an externally coated ligand Y, wherein the gold cluster has a gold core diameter of less than 3 nm, preferably 0.5 to 2.6 nm (See claims 1-2).The said ligand Y is selected from the group consisting of L(D)-cysteine and its derivatives, oligopeptides containing cysteine and their derivatives, and other compounds containing thiol. Specifically, L(D)-cysteine and its derivatives are selected from the group consisting of L(D)-cysteine, N-isobutyryl-L(D)-cysteine (L(D)-NIBC) or N-acetyl-L(D)-cysteine (L(D)-NAC), (See claims 3-9). Sun teaches a composition comprising the gold core nanoparticles and a ligand for treating CNS related conditions such as Alzheimer's disease and/or Parkinson's disease.
Yang et al. teach that conditions such as stroke or diabetes or Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis can be treated with gold nanoparticles, see paragraphs [0056] and [0029] and claim 20 and entire document.
According to Hopkins Medicine, ischemic strokes make up 87% of all strokes but there are only two categories, ischemic or hemorrhagic
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have administered the composition of Application ‘231 which contains gold nanoparticles having sizes from 0.5-3nm to treat conditions such as ischemic stroke or diabetes. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because the ligand modified gold nanoparticles of Sun treat Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s and Yang expressly teaches that metal nanoparticles including gold are useful in treating stroke or diabetes and per the teachings of Hopkins Medicine, ischemic stroke is the most common type of stroke.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Currently, no claims are allowed and claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAH ALAWADI whose telephone number is (571)270-7678. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00am-6:30pm EST.
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, David Blanchard can be reached at 571-272-0827. 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.
/SARAH ALAWADI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1619