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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/08/2024. 04/10/2025, 09/18/2025, and 01/23/2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 12-17 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 12/22/2025.
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.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LifeSense in view of Pham et al. (see 07/08/2024 IDS Ref. Des. C4 and C9, respectively).
LifeSense teaches that oral bioavailability of CBD is low due to limited aqueous solubility (p. 3) and that MCTs are useful for increasing solubility and oral bioavailability of CBDs (p. 8).
LifeSense does not teach the inclusion of a tocopheryl phosphate component comprising TP and T2P.
Pham et al. teaches the use of TPM (a mixture of TP and T2P, see Fig. 1) in combination with MCTs for improving solubility and bioavailability of poorly water-soluble drugs such as CoQ10 (see Abstract; whole document). Solutions comprising 100mg MCT, 10% w/w CoQ10 and 10 mg TPM were prepared (pp. 401-402). The TPM is a 2:1 w/w mixture of alpha-tocopheryl phosphate and di-alpha tocopheryl phosphate (p.401). Both Lifesense and Pham et al. are drawn toward methods of increasing solubility and oral bioavailability of poorly water-soluble drugs. Accordingly, would have been prima facie obvious to include TPM in the formulation taught by LifeSense as taught by Phan et al. with a reasonable expectation that doing so would improve solubility and oral bioavailability of CBD which is taught to be a poorly water-soluble drug. Claims 1-11 require specific ratios or amounts of specific components which either overlap with the amounts taught by Pham et al. or would be attained under the process of routine optimization. Additionally, claims 9 and 11 are drawn to routine oral dosage administration parameters/forms which are at once envisaged by a PHOSITA upon contemplation of oral delivery taught by both Lifesense and Pham et al. Accordingly, claims 1-11 are 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 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,539,307 in view of Izgelov et al. (07/08/2024 Ref. Des. C2).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,539,307 are drawn to compositions and methods of use thereof comprising the same components of the instant claims but differ in that they require LCT instead of MCT. These are considered obvious variants in the art and therefore it would have been obvious to substitute LCT with MCT. See Izgelov et al. which teaches that MCT and LCT are both useful as carriers for cannabinoids (Title, Abstract). While properties may differ, they are nevertheless taught to be useful for the same purpose of drug delivery of cannabinoids and therefore claims 1-11 are obvious over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,539,307.
Claims 1-11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19420850 (reference application) in view of Izgelov et al. (07/08/2024 Ref. Des. C2).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19420850 are drawn to compositions and methods of use thereof comprising the same components of the instant claims but differ in that they require LCT instead of MCT. These are considered obvious variants in the art and therefore it would have been obvious to substitute LCT with MCT. See Izgelov et al. which teaches that MCT and LCT are both useful as carriers for cannabinoids (Title, Abstract). While properties may differ, they are nevertheless taught to be useful for the same purpose of drug delivery of cannabinoids and therefore claims 1-11 are obvious over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19420850.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Claims 1-11 are rejected.
Claims 12-17 are withdrawn.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JED A KUCHARCZK whose telephone number is (571)270-5206. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30 to 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, Adam Milligan can be reached at (571) 270-7674. 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.
/JED A KUCHARCZK/Examiner, Art Unit 1623
/ADAM C MILLIGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1623