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 . 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Priority
The instant application is a 371 of PCT/IB2021/062083 filed on 12/21/2021, which claims domestic benefit to US provisional application no. 63/128,316 filed on 12/21/2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/22/2023 and 12/16/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
The preliminary claim amendments filed on 06/21/2023 are acknowledged. Claims 5-9, 12, 14, and 17-18 are amended. Claims 19-34 are cancelled.
Accordingly, claims 1-18 are pending and being examined on the merits herein.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14 recites “The method according to any claim 1 …”. The “any” appears to have not been deleted between “to” and “claim”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites “… wherein the compound according to formula (I) and the crocin are each administered in an amount having a synergistic effect.” Applicant performed in Example 1 of the instant specification an in vivo model of anxiety disorder to assess the anti-anxiolytic effect of the recited two compounds. As seen in Table 1, mice were administered several dosage combinations of psilocybin and crocin as well as psilocybin and crocin administered alone in comparison to a vehicle control. As seen in Fig. 1, Applicant demonstrates and states that psilocybin administered alone did not have a beneficial effect but rather a detrimental effect on anxiety in comparison to the vehicle. Applicant demonstrates and states that crocin administered alone also did not have a beneficial effect on anxiety in comparison to controls. Applicant demonstrates and states that 0.1 mg/kg of psilocybin used in combination with 50 mg/kg of crocin had a significant difference in comparison to vehicle, while 0.1 mg/kg of psilocybin used in combination with 30 mg/kg of crocin appeared to provide a slight but not statistically significant anti-anxiolytic effect (see page 12 lines 14-26). Furthermore, the other dosage combinations of psilocybin and crocin appeared to have no effect on anxiety in comparison to controls as well as a detrimental effect on anxiety at a dosage of 0.5 mg/kg psilocybin and 30 mg/kg crocin.
Here, claim 7 recites a synergistic effect for the two recited compounds, but does not limit or specify which dosage amounts of the recited compounds results in the synergy. Furthermore, as described above, Applicant does not demonstrate that all dosage combinations of the two recited compounds necessarily results in a synergy for treating anxiety. Therefore, the instant specification does not provide a representative number of species to cover the recited “synergistic effect”. The examples in the instant specification do not demonstrate a structure-function relationship which would allow a skilled artisan to predict which dosage amounts are needed for the two compounds to have a synergistic effect.
The state of the prior art discloses that dosages as well as other non-pharmacological factors can result in significant differences in therapeutic responses from using either psilocybin or crocin.
For example, Studerus (in PTO-892) teaches that responses to classical hallucinogens, such as psilocybin, strongly vary between and within subjects, even when the drug dose is kept constant (see left column page 1). Studerus teaches that it has therefore long been postulated that a large proportion of inter- and intra- individual differences in reactions to hallucinogens is determined by non-pharmacological variables – also often referred to as set and setting (see left column page 1). Studerus teaches that little is known about the order of importance of these variables and their effect sizes in comparison to drug dose (see Abstract). Studerus teaches that previous studies have relied on simple correlations instead of multiple regression to investigate association between set and setting variables and drug response (see right column page 1). Studerus teaches that these studies did not adjust potentially confounding variables and also could not reveal the order of importance of different variables (see right column page 1). Studerus teaches that understanding these variables are important in order to improve the safety of controlled experiment using hallucinogens by providing a basis for deciding which subjects to exclude at screening and how to adjust the environment and procedures for minimizing the risk of adverse reactions (see right column page 1). Studerus analyzed data from 23 controlled experimental studies involving 409 psilocybin administrations to 261 healthy volunteers and found that although drug dose was clearly the most important predictor for all measured response variables, several non-pharmacological variables significantly contributed to the effects of psilocybin. Specifically, having a high score in the personality trait of Absorption, being in an emotionally excitable and active state immediately before drug intake, and having experienced few psychological problems in past weeks were most strongly associated with pleasant and mystical-type experiences, whereas high Emotional Excitability, low age, and an experimental setting involving positron emission tomography most strongly predicted unpleasant and/or anxious reactions to psilocybin (see Abstract).
Here, Studerus teaches that the therapeutic responses to psilocybin can vary significantly depending on dosage and several non-pharmacological factors, thus demonstrating that it is not predictable to identify which amounts of psilocybin would result in a synergistic effect with crocin to treat anxiety.
Furthermore, Pitsikas (in PTO-892) teaches the effects of crocins in an animal model of anxiety (light/dark test) (see Abstract). Pitsikas teaches that higher dosage of crocin (50 mg/kg) significantly increased the latency to enter the dark compartment and prolonged the time spent in the lit chamber in the rats (see Abstract). However, Pitsikas teaches that lower doses of crocin (15-30 mg/kg) did not substantially modify animal behavior (see Abstract). Pitsikas also teaches that while the light/dark test is a useful procedure to predict anxiolytic-like activity in rodents, this paradigm is limited by its ability to yield false positive results due to a drugs’ ability to affect general activity (see right column page 1138). Pitsikas teaches that the pharmacological mechanism that might account for the anxiolytic effect of crocins has yet to be determined, and further studies are required to assess the generality of their findings to other species and behavioural paradigms (see right column page 1138).
Here, Pitsikas demonstrates that certain dosages of crocin may have therapeutic uses for treating anxiety, but also determined that their studies are limited by the animal model used to study anxiety and that more studies are required to assess the generality of their findings to other species.
Therefore, it is not evident by the disclosure or the prior art, that the Applicant was in possession of a representative number of species of dosage amounts for the two recited compounds that can provide the recited “synergistic effect” as recited in claim 7. Furthermore, as discussed above, there is no disclosed or art recognized correlation between structure and function which would allow for the predictable identification of dosage amounts needed for the two compounds to have a synergistic effect. Therefore, the instant claim does not meet the written description requirement under 35 USC 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to natural products without significantly more.
Claim 18 recites “A pharmaceutical composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of formula (I) … in combination with a therapeutically effective amount of crocin.”
Subject matter that is not patent eligible is determined by evaluating a claim for patentability based on the eligibility test set forth below:
(1) Is the claim directed to one of the four statutory categories, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
For the instant claims, the answer is “Yes” because the claims are to a composition of matter.
(2a) Prong 1: Does the claim recite or involve a judicial exception?
The answer is “Yes” because the composition includes two compounds (psilocybin and crocin) that are derived from natural sources such as mushrooms and in the flowers of crocus and gardenia.
(2a) Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
The answer is “No”.
MPEP 2106.04(b) section II recites “When a claim recites a nature-based product limitation, examiners should use the markedly different characteristics analysis discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(c) to evaluate the nature-based product limitation and determine the answer to Step 2A.”, and MPEP 2160.4(c) sets forth the markedly different characteristic analysis consisting of A. selecting the appropriate counterpart, B. identifying appropriate characteristics for analysis, and C. evaluating characteristics to determine whether they are “markedly different”.
The claims are drawn to a pharmaceutical composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of a compound of formula (I) … in combination with a therapeutically effective amount of crocin. Here, the combination of psilocybin and crocin does not naturally occurring. However, as recited in MPEP 2106.04(c) II A, “When the nature-based product is a combination produced from multiple components, the closest counterpart may be the individual nature-based components of the combination.” and “Because there is no counterpart mixture in nature, the closest counterparts to the claimed mixture are the individual components of the mixture, i.e., each naturally occurring species by itself. See, e.g., Funk Bros., 333 U.S. at 130, 76 USPQ at 281 (comparing claimed mixture of bacterial species to each species as it occurs in nature)” Therefore, the closest counterpart in nature for the composition are to the individual components of psilocybin found in mushrooms and crocin found in the flowers of crocus.
Applicant performed in Example 1 of the instant specification an in vivo model of anxiety disorder to assess the anti-anxiolytic effect of the recited two compounds. As seen in Table 1, mice were administered several dosage combinations of psilocybin and crocin as well as psilocybin and crocin administered alone in comparison to a vehicle control. As seen in Fig. 1, Applicant demonstrates and states that psilocybin administered alone did not have a beneficial effect but rather a detrimental effect on anxiety in comparison to the vehicle. Applicant demonstrates and states that crocin administered alone also did not have a beneficial effect on anxiety in comparison to controls. Applicant demonstrates and states that 0.1 mg/kg of psilocybin used in combination with 50 mg/kg of crocin had a significant difference in comparison to vehicle, while 0.1 mg/kg of psilocybin used in combination with 30 mg/kg of crocin appeared to provide a slight but not statistically significant anti-anxiolytic effect (see page 12 lines 14-26). Furthermore, the other dosage combinations of psilocybin and crocin appeared to have no effect on anxiety in comparison to controls as well as a detrimental effect on anxiety at a dosage of 0.5 mg/kg psilocybin and 30 mg/kg crocin.
Here, the appropriate characteristic for the claimed composition is the anti-anxiolytic effect. While Applicant demonstrates that a specific dosage combination of psilocybin and crocin has this anti-anxiolytic effect, the composition in claim 18 does not recite a specific dosage amount for each compound, and Applicant has demonstrated that not all dosage combinations of psilocybin and crocin have this anti-anxiolytic effect. Therefore, the composition in claim 18 does not does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because not all dosage amounts for the two recited compounds in the composition would have a markedly different characteristic.
(2b) Does the claim as a whole recite additional elements that amount to something significantly more than the judicial exception(s)?
The answer is “No.”
As described above, MPEP 2160.4(c) sets forth the markedly different characteristic analysis consisting of A. selecting the appropriate counterpart, B. identifying appropriate characteristics for analysis, and C. evaluating characteristics to determine whether they are “markedly different”.
Applicant performed in Example 1 of the instant specification an in vivo model of anxiety disorder to assess the anti-anxiolytic effect of the recited two compounds. As seen in Table 1, mice were administered several dosage combinations of psilocybin and crocin as well as psilocybin and crocin administered alone in comparison to a vehicle control. As seen in Fig. 1, Applicant demonstrates and states that psilocybin administered alone did not have a beneficial effect but rather a detrimental effect on anxiety in comparison to the vehicle. Applicant demonstrates and states that crocin administered alone also did not have a beneficial effect on anxiety in comparison to controls. Applicant demonstrates and states that 0.1 mg/kg of psilocybin used in combination with 50 mg/kg of crocin had a significant difference in comparison to vehicle, while 0.1 mg/kg of psilocybin used in combination with 30 mg/kg of crocin appeared to provide a slight but not statistically significant anti-anxiolytic effect (see page 12 lines 14-26). Furthermore, the other dosage combinations of psilocybin and crocin appeared to have no effect on anxiety in comparison to controls as well as a detrimental effect on anxiety at a dosage of 0.5 mg/kg psilocybin and 30 mg/kg crocin.
Here, the appropriate characteristic for the claimed composition is the anti-anxiolytic effect. While Applicant demonstrates that a specific dosage combination of psilocybin and crocin have this anti-anxiolytic effect, the composition in claim 18 does not recite a specific dosage amount for each compound, and Applicant has demonstrated that not all dosage combinations of psilocybin and crocin have this anti-anxiolytic effect. Therefore, the composition in claim 18 does not does not recite additional elements that amount to something significantly more than the judicial exception because not all dosage amounts for the two recited compounds in the composition would have a markedly different characteristic.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, 11-12, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’851 (US20190142851 in IDS filed 08/22/2023) in view of Zhang et al. (Brain Research Bulletin, 2018 in PTO-892).
US’851 teaches new compositions and methods comprising a psilocybin derivative (see Abstract).
US’851 teaches that their methods comprise treating a psychological disorder, e.g., an anxiety disorder, a compulsive disorder, a depressive disorder, etc., with the compositions disclosed herein, e.g., a composition with one or more psilocybin derivatives, a composition with one or more cannabinoids, a composition with one or more terpenes, and/or a combination thereof (see paragraph 0022). US’851 teaches that psychological or mood disorders, such as depression, anxiety, compulsion, and post-traumatic stress disorders involve a person's serotonin system—including interactions between (A) the neurotransmitter serotonin (often abbreviated 5-HT) and (B) several different subtypes of serotonin neurotransmitter receptors found in the human body (paragraph 0003) US’851 teaches that a variety of compositions are known to modulate activity at the serotonin receptors (paragraph 0004), and further teach that the users of these pharmaceutical products are unsatisfied with their long onset times, severe side-effects, and poor efficacy (paragraph 0005). US’851 teaches that “magic mushrooms” are taken recreationally by millions of people in the United States, which primarily contain psilocybin and psilocin (paragraph 0006). US’851 teaches that when formulated and administered correctly, psilocin and psilocybin provide fast-acting and long-lasting changes to a person's mood. These effects can be accomplished with only minor side effects, low potential for addiction, low potential for abuse, and low risk of toxicity (paragraph 0007).
US’851 teaches that the psilocybin derivative can be [3-(2-Dimethylaminoethyl)-1H-indol-4-yl] dihydrogen phosphate is often described by the name “psilocybin” (paragraphs 0087-0088), 4-hydroxy-N,N-dimethyltryptamine is also known by the name “psilocin” (paragraph 0090-0091), and [3-(2-methylaminoethyl)-1H-indol-4-yl] dihydrogen phosphate (paragraph 0099). The psilocybin (left), psilocin (middle), and [3-(2-methylaminoethyl)-1H-indol-4-yl] dihydrogen phosphate (right) are shown below:
PNG
media_image1.png
415
310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
408
256
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
415
310
media_image3.png
Greyscale
US’851 further teaches that both psilocybin and [3-(2-methylaminoethyl)-1H-indol-4-yl] dihydrogen phosphate can be in protonated or deprotonated forms (paragraph 0088 and 0100). Here, the psilocybin meets the limitation of the compound recited in claim 4, psilocin meets the limitation of the compound recited in claim 2, and the [3-(2-methylaminoethyl)-1H-indol-4-yl] dihydrogen phosphate meets the limitation of the compound recited in claim 3.
US’851 teaches the psilocybin derivative is in purified form (claim 1 and Abstract). US’851 also teaches the composition can be in dried powder form that is a solid collected from a plant (e.g., mushrooms) and pulverized into a powder, e.g., using a mortar and pestle (paragraph 0034), which meets the limitation of a botanical drug substance form recited in claim 5. US’851 teaches their method comprise transmucosally administering a composition for crossing a blood-brain barrier, and teaches that “transmucosally administering” refers to providing a compound by entering through, or across, a mucous membrane, e.g, an oral administration of a composition (paragraph 0392).
The difference between US’851 and the claimed invention is that US’851 does not recite a combination with crocin.
Zhang teaches the use of crocin to attenuate lipopolysaccharide-induced anxiety and depressive-like behaviors through suppressing NF-kB and NLRP3 signaling pathway (see Abstract).
Zhang teaches that over production of inflammatory cytokines in the brain and microglial activation are the intimation of depression and cerebral signaling dysfunction (see left column page 352). Zhang teaches that microglia is a type of resident macrophage and has been reported to play a critical role in defensing against pathogens in the central nervous system (see left column through right column page 352). Zhang teaches antidepressant treatments inhibit LPS-induced microglia/macrophage M1-polarization and further teach that inflammasomes play a key role in activation of inflammatory responses and are known to be involved in depressive disorders (see left column page 353).
Zhang teaches that crocin, a water-soluble carotenoid isolated from Gardenia jasminoides and Crocus sativus, can inhibit inflammatory reactions of microglial cells in rat brain and have been shown to exhibit a protective role in anxiety and depression models (see left column second paragraph on page 353). Zhang demonstrates in Fig.1 on page 354 that crocin inhibits the secretion of ROS, NO, IL-5 and TNF-alpha induced by LPS in BV-2 cells.
Zhang further tested on mice and demonstrates in Fig. 3-4 on page 357 that LPS-induced anxiety and depressive-like behaviors in mice were decreased when administered crocin at 20 mg/kg or 40 mg/kg as demonstrated by improved locomotor activity, reduced sucrose intake, and decreased immobility time in forced swim and tail suspension tests. Zhang teaches that mice were administered crocin at 20 mg/kg or 40 mg/kg daily for 7 days before LPS-induction and was compared to vehicle controls (see Fig. 3 on page 357).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the psilocybin derivative composition of US’851 with the crocin composition of Zhang for the treatment of anxiety disorder. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this combination with a reasonable expectation of success because both US’851 and Zhang disclose that their respective compositions are useful for the same purpose of treating anxiety disorders. See In re Kerkhoven, MPEP 2144.06 I.
Claim(s) 8, 10, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’851 (US20190142851 in IDS filed 08/22/2023) in view of Zhang et al. (Brain Research Bulletin, 2018 in PTO-892), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US’447 (US20210322447 in PTO-892 with an effective filing date of 04/16/2020).
The combined teachings of US’851 and Zhang are as described above and teach the method of claim 1 as discussed above.
The combined references, however, do not teach administering the compound of formula (I) in the recited amounts in claims 8 and 10 as well as the recited weight ratios in claims 14-16.
US’447 teaches transdermal administration of psychedelics, such as psilocybin, psilocin, lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), and/or ibogaine, and derivatives of these compounds, for the treatment and/or prevention and/or control of severe depression (treatment resistant), major depressive disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, quitting smoking, alcohol addiction, cocaine addiction, opioid addiction, anxiety (stress), adult ADHD, cluster headaches, and cancer related or other end-of-life psychological distress (see Abstract).
US’447 teaches dosages of the psilocybin to cause no or minimal hallucinogen effect in the patient (see paragraph 0025). US’447 teaches that the maximum dose of psilocybin used in clinical trial is 0.6 mg/kg which is approximately 50 mg/70 kg as well as the lowest dose used in clinical trial was 1-3 mg/70 kg healthy volunteers (paragraph 004). US’447 teaches that their composition is directed for 5 or 10 mg/day of active agent such as for example psilocin, psilocybin, psilocin, lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), and/or ibogaine (paragraph 0004). Here, the disclosed 5 or 10 mg per day would be ~0.071 mg/kg per day or 0.14 mg/kg per day for an average 70kg human.
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the dosage amount of the psilocybin in the combined teachings of US’851 and Zhang described above with the 5 or 10 mg per day of psilocybin dosage disclosed in US’447 to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art could have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success because US’447 provides guidance of 5 or 10 mg per day (~0.071 mg/kg per day or 0.14 mg/kg per day for an average 70kg human) of psilocybin for the same treatment and/or prevention of anxiety disorder. Therefore, an ordinary skilled artisan could have chosen from a finite number of predictable solutions with a reasonable expectations of success
In regards to claims 14-16, it would have also been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized the weight ratio of psilocybin and crocin in the combined teachings of US’851 and Zhang described above based on the amounts disclosed in Zhang and US’447. One of ordinary skill in the art could have performed routine optimization because Zhang provides guidance of 5 or 10 mg per day of psilocybin for the treatment and/or prevention of anxiety disorder, and Zhang provides guidance of 20 or 40 mg/kg per day amounts of crocin for the treatment of LPS-induced anxiety and depressive-like behaviors. See MPEP 2144.05 II.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US’851 (US20190142851 in IDS filed 08/22/2023) in view of Zhang et al. (Brain Research Bulletin, 2018 in PTO-892), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US’464 (US20190099464 in IDS filed 08/22/2023).
The combined teachings of US’851 and Zhang are as described above and teach the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Furthermore, US’851 teaches oral administration of psilocybin derivatives as described above.
The combined references, however, do not teach orally administering both the compound of formula (I) and crocin.
US’464 teaches a powdered composition obtained from saffron stigmas characterized in that it comprises from 0.03% to 1% dry weight of safranal; and at least 3.48% dry weight of crocins that encompasses the various trans-crocin-4 (major isomer), trans-crocin-3, trans-crocin-2′, cis-crocin-4, trans-crocin-2, trans-crocin-1 isomers and any of their mixtures (see Abstract). US’464 teaches that their composition has been found to have a functional effect on the improvement of mood in healthy individuals, specifically, it has been shown to reduce patients' tension, depression, anger, fatigue, anxiety, stress and confusion, while also increasing their vigor (see paragraph 0019) and can be used as a medicament for prevention of mood disorders such as fatigue, stress and anxiety, among others (see paragraph 0028). US’464 teaches their compositions are preferably adapter for oral administration, for example in the form of a tablet, capsule, powder, granule solution or syrup (see paragraph 0070).
It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have administered the crocin in the in the combined teachings of US’851 and Zhang described above orally as disclosed in US’464 to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification with a reasonable expectation of success because US’464 provides guidance of a similar crocin composition that can be administered orally to treat mood disorders including anxiety. Therefore, an ordinary skilled artisan could have chosen from a finite number of predictable solutions of administering routes for the crocin such as oral administration with a reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID H CHO whose telephone number is (571)270-0691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/D.H.C./Examiner, Art Unit 1693
/SCARLETT Y GOON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693