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 4, 5, 9, 15, 18, 21, 22, and 28-32 are cancelled.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23-27 are currently pending in this Application.
Priority
CONTINUING DATA
This application is a 371 of PCT/US22/27140 04/29/2022
PCT/US22/27140 has PRO 63/182,030 04/30/2021
Objections
Claim 8 does not conform to M.P.E.P. 608.01(m) since each claim must end with a period and no other periods may be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. The claim has 2 periods. Appropriate corrections is required.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,946,097 B2
An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claims are either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims.
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims substantially overlap the reference claims; the methods are covered by the referenced claims. The difference between the instant and the patented claims is in scope only.
.The instant invention of claims 1 is directed to:
PNG
media_image1.png
198
707
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-8, 10-14, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 23-27 further limit the type of fluorocarbon, the antibody therapy, the type of cancer, mode of administration etc.
Claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,946,097 B2 are drawn to
PNG
media_image2.png
377
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Both sets of claims are using perfluorocarbon emulsions to treat cancer disorders. The instant claims don’t recite a fluorosurfactant in the claims but the specification teaches the use of fluorosurfactant in the fluorocarbon emulsions. The instant specification also teaches the use of oxygen in the therapy.
“Factors that may be considered in determining level of ordinary skill in the art include: (1) the educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which innovations are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) the education level of active workers in the field.” Envtl. Designs, Ltd. V. Union Oil Co., 713 F.2d 693, 696 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.3d 1376, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The above factors are not exhaustive, but are a guide. Id.
In this case, the education level of the inventor and the education level of active workers in the field of organic chemistry, as well as the high degree of sophistication required to solve problems encountered in the art, a person of ordinary skill in the art would likely have at least a college degree in the field of organic chemistry, with industry experience, i.e., a masters or doctorate level of skill and knowledge in the laboratory. Thus, the level of skill in the art is relatively high.
“Structural similarity between claimed and prior art subject matter, proved by combining references or otherwise, where the prior art gives reason or motivation to make the claimed compositions, create a prima facie case of obviousness.” Takeda v. Alphapharm, 83 USPQ2d 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692 (Fed. Cir. 1990). “The ‘reason or motivation’ need not be an explicit teaching that the claimed compound will have a particular utility; it is sufficient to show that the claimed and prior art compounds possess a ‘sufficiently close relationship…to create an expectation,’ in light of the totality of the prior art, that the new compound will have ‘similar properties’ to the old.” Aventis v. Lupin, 84 USPQ2d 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing Dillion, 919 F.2d 692). “Once such prima facie case is established, it falls to the applicant or patentee to rebut it, for example with a showing that the claimed compound has unexpected properties.” Id.
MPEP 804 states : “where the claims of an application are not the "same” as those of the first patent, but the grant of a patent with the claims in the application would unjustly extend the rights granted by the first patent, a double patenting rejection under nonstatutory grounds is proper.”
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, the Examiner finds that a person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the claimed invention would unjustly extend the rights granted to U.S. Patent No. 10,946,097 B2, because a hypothetical infringer of U.S. Patent No. 10,946,097 B2 would necessarily be an infringer of the claimed invention. Accordingly, U.S. Patent No. 10,946,097 B2 renders the instant claims obvious absent a showing of unpredictability or comparative evidence suggesting otherwise.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL A SAEED whose telephone number is (571) 272-0705.
Communication via Internet e-mail regarding this application, other than those under 35 U.S.C. 132 or which otherwise requires a signature, may be used by applicant and should be addressed to [Symbol font/0x5B]joseph.mckane@uspto.gov[Symbol font/0x5D]. All Internet e-mail communications will be made of record in the application file. PTO employees will not communicate with applicant via Internet e-mail where sensitive data will be exchanged or where there exists a possibility that sensitive data could be identified unless there is of record an express waiver of the confidentiality requirements under 35 U.S.C. 122 by the applicant. See the Interim Internet Usage Policy published by the Patent and Trademark Office Official Gazette on February 25, 1997 at 1195 OG 89.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or public PAIR only. For more information about the pair system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197.
/Kamal A Saeed/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1626
Prosecution Insights