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 .
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 11-20 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: the invention(s) recited in claims 11-20 have a different effect, the inventions do not overlap in scope, and inventions as claimed are not obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 11-20 have been withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Applicant’s Response Dated December 15, 2025
In the Response dated December 15, 2025, claim 1 was amended, claims 3-6 were canceled, and claims 7-20 were added. Claims 1-2 and 7-20 are pending. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected invention. An action on the merits of claims 1-2 and 7-10 is contained herein.
The rejection of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lebrecht, Dirk, et al. "Uridine supplementation antagonizes zalcitabine‐induced microvesicular steatohepatitis in mice." Hepatology 45.1 (2007): 72-79 (Lebrecht) has been rendered moot in view of applicant’s response dated December 15, 2025.
The rejection of claims 1-2 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gella, A., et al. "Effect of the nucleotides CMP and UMP on exhaustion in exercise rats." Journal of physiology and biochemistry 64.1 (2008): 9-17 (Gella) is maintained for the reasons of record as set forth in the Office Action dated September 29, 2025. Newly added claims 7-10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gella, A., et al. "Effect of the nucleotides CMP and UMP on exhaustion in exercise rats." Journal of physiology and biochemistry 64.1 (2008): 9-17 (Gella) for the reasons of record and is not repeated separately.
Rejections Set Forth in the Office Action Dated September 29, 2025
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gella, A., et al. "Effect of the nucleotides CMP and UMP on exhaustion in exercise rats." Journal of physiology and biochemistry 64.1 (2008): 9-17 (Gella).
Applicant's arguments filed December 15, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Gella only teaches that data accrued from administration of cytosine monophosphate (CMP) and uridine monophosphate (UMP) to rats suggests that the rats can endure exercise by altering metabolic parameters, and administration of cytosine monophosphate (CMP) and uridine monophosphate (UMP) to rats may have beneficial effects in preventing exhaustion and muscle cramps.
Artisans of ordinary skill may not recognize the inherent characteristics or functioning of the prior art. In construing process claims and references, it is the identity of manipulative operations which leads to finding of anticipation. In the instant case, it does not appear that the claim language or limitations result in a manipulative difference in the method steps when compared to the prior art disclosure. The rats employed in the study of Gella is embraced by an instant “individual in need thereof”. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Claims 1-2 and 7-20 are pending. Claims 1-2 and 7-10 are rejected. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn as being drawn to a nonelected invention. 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.
Contacts
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK T LEWIS whose telephone number is (571)272-0655. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 10 AM to 4 PM EST (Maxi Flex).
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, Renee Claytor can be reached at (571) 272-8394. 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.
/PATRICK T LEWIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691
/PL/
Prosecution Insights