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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. The priority date is July 20, 2021.
Claim Objections
Claims 4-15 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because they are improperly multiple dependent claims, and because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claims. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims 4-15 have not been further treated on the merits.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed is directed to non-satuatory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. The claims recite Boswellia extract for treatment of infection with SARS-CoV-2. The first step of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within a statutory category (see MPEP 2106.03). Since claim 1-3 are directed toward the extract of Boswellia for treatment of SARS-CoV-2, the claims are directed to a composition.
Effective January 7, 2019, subject matter eligibility determinations under 35 U.S.C. § 101 follow the procedure explained in the Federal Register notice titled 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Federal Register, Vol. 84, No.4, 50-57), which is found at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf. Applicants are kindly asked to review this guidance as well as MPEP 2106.
The statutory categories of invention under 35 U.S.C. 101 are processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. However, certain members of these categories constitute judicial exceptions, i.e., the courts have determined that these entities are not patentable subject matter. These judicial exceptions include abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena. The Office released guidance on December 16, 2014 for the examination of claims reciting natural products under 35 U.S.C. 101 in light of the recent Supreme Court decisions in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (569 U.S. ___, 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116, 106 USPQ2d 1972 (2013)) and Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories (566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1289, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)), Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)) and Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co. - 333 U.S. 127 (1948)). (inter alia). See eg. MPEP 2106.04(b)
The Supreme Court has explained that the judicial exceptions reflect the Court’s view that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena are "the basic tools of scientific and technological work", and are thus excluded from patentability because "monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it." Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2116, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). The Supreme Court’s concern that drives this "exclusionary principle" is pre-emption. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354, 110 USPQ2d at 1980. The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena; i.e., one may not patent every "substantial practical application" of an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon, even if the judicial exception is narrow.
While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. v. CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1052, 119 USPQ2d 1370, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Instead, questions of preemption are inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework from Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B). It is necessary to evaluate eligibility using the Alice/Mayo test, because while a preemptive claim may be ineligible, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible.
Products of Nature: When a law of nature or natural phenomenon is claimed as a physical product, the courts have often referred to the exception as a "product of nature". Products of nature are considered to be an exception because they tie up the use of naturally occurring things, but they have been labeled as both laws of nature and natural phenomena. See Myriad 133 S. Ct. at 2116-17, 106 USPQ2d at 1979 (claims to isolated DNA held ineligible because they "claim naturally occurring phenomena" and are "squarely within the law of nature exception"); Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130, 76 USPQ 280, 281 (1948) (claims to bacterial mixtures held ineligible as "manifestations of laws of nature" and "phenomena of nature"). Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis uses the terms "law of nature" and "natural phenomenon" as inclusive of "products of nature".
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is important to keep in mind that product of nature exceptions include both naturally occurring products and non-naturally occurring products that lack markedly different characteristics from any naturally occurring counterpart. Instead, the key to the eligibility of all non-naturally occurring products is whether they possess markedly different characteristics from its closest naturally occurring counterpart.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
When a claim recites a nature-based product limitation, examiners 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. Nature-based products, as used herein, include both eligible and ineligible products and merely refer to the types of products subject to the markedly different characteristics analysis used to identify product of nature exceptions.
The Markedly Different Characteristics Analysis
The markedly different characteristics analysis is part of Step 2A, because the courts use this analysis to identify product of nature exceptions. If the claim includes a nature-based product that has markedly different characteristics, then the claim does not recite a product of nature exception and is eligible. If the claim includes a nature-based product that does not exhibit markedly different characteristics from its closest naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state, then the claim is directed to a "product of nature" exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis in Step 2B to determine whether any additional elements in the claim add significantly more to the exception.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nature-based Product Claim Analysis
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claim is to a nature-based product by itself, the markedly different characteristics analysis should be applied to the entire product.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Where the claim is to a nature-based product produced by combining multiple components, the markedly different characteristics analysis should be applied to the resultant nature-based combination, rather than its component parts. Where the claim is to a nature-based product in combination with non-nature based elements, the markedly different characteristics analysis should be applied only to the nature-based product limitation. For a product-by-process claims, the analysis turns on whether the nature-based product in the claim has markedly different characteristics from its naturally occurring counterpart.
The markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. Markedly different characteristics can be expressed as the product’s structure, function, and/or other properties, and are evaluated based on what is recited in the claim on a case-by-case basis. If the analysis indicates that a nature-based product limitation does not exhibit markedly different characteristics, then that limitation is a product of nature exception. If the analysis indicates that a nature-based product limitation does have markedly different characteristics, then that limitation is not a product of nature exception.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Because the markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state, the first step in the analysis is to select the appropriate counterpart(s) to the nature-based product.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
When there are multiple counterparts to the nature-based product, the comparison should be made to the closest naturally occurring counterpart. 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. 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).
Markedly changed characteristics can include structural, functional, chemical changes. In order to show a marked difference, a characteristic must be changed as compared to nature, and cannot be an inherent or innate characteristic of the naturally occurring counterpart or an incidental change in a characteristic of the naturally occurring counterpart. Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2111, 106 USPQ2d at 1974-75. Thus, in order to be markedly different, applicant must have caused the claimed product to possess at least one characteristic that is different from that of the counterpart.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
If there is no change in any characteristic, the claimed product lacks markedly different characteristics, and is a product of nature exception.
Step 1: Determine if the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. YES, the claims are directed to a composition of matter, which are statutory categories within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A: PRONG ONE: Evaluate whether the claim recites a Judicial Exception
(e.g., law of nature, natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.04). YES, the claims are product claims reciting something that appears to be a nature-based product (i.e., Boswellia extract) which is not markedly different from the closest naturally-occurring counterpart (i.e., the individual nature-based products).
Because the claim states the nature-based products which are plant extracts the markedly different characteristics is performed by comparing the nature-based product limitation to its natural counterpart.
The claim recites the naturally occurring components found within Boswellia. This equates to a plant extract. The process of creating a plant extract is by partitioning the starting plant material into separate compositions based upon some property. The closest naturally occurring counterparts of extracted components are those same components when found existing in the plant in an unseparated form, even when purified and/or concentrated because they are chemically identical to the extracted compounds/components. All of these are naturally occurring in nature and are not markedly different from its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. The properties of the nature-based product as claimed are not markedly different than the properties of these naturally occurring counterparts found in nature as these activities would inherently be found in the plant they come from. The components which would give the activities claimed in the instant invention would inherently do the same in nature as there has been nothing done in the instant invention that would make them act in any different way.
Step 2A prong two evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.04(d)). This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional recited elements in the claim beyond the judicial exception and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the plant extract composition is only comprising the nature-based components. The claims do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because in this context, such integration for a claimed product would be a physical form of the specific practical application instead of a more general composition that is not so limited.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these components and their activity are already found naturally occurring in nature and the addition of an intended use does not impart any added benefit to the compounds or integrate the composition into a practical application.
Step 2 B evaluates whether the claim as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
The claims as a whole do not amount to more than the recited exceptions because there aren’t any other additional elements to consider, which does not add an inventive concept to the claims. Thus, the claims are not eligible subject matter under current 35 U.S.C. 101 standards.
Thus, when the relevant factors are analyzed, they weigh against a significant difference between the claimed invention and a judicial exception. Therefore, the claimed invention is not considered to be patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112, 1st paragraph, enablement rejection
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification, while being enabling for tre, does not reasonably provide enablement for preventing infection from SARS-CoV-2.The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The instant claim 1-3 recites Boswellia extract for use, it is unclear to one skilled in the art to make and use the extract for prevention of infection. The claims are rejected because of undue experimentation to practice the claimed use of preventing infection with SARS-CoV-2 or a variant thereof in a subject. The undue experimentation arises due to the unpredictability based on the differing conditions of SARS-CoV-2 or variants thereof.
In In re Wands, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir., 1988) eight factors should be addressed in determining enablement.
While the analysis and conclusion of a lack of enablement are based on the factors discussed in MPEP § 2164.01(a) and the evidence as a whole, it is not necessary to discuss each factor in the written enablement rejection. The language should focus on those factors, reasons, and evidence that lead the examiner to conclude that the specification fails to teach how to make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation, or that the scope of any enablement provided to one skilled in the art is not commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. This can be done by making specific findings of fact, supported by the evidence, and then drawing conclusions based on these findings of fact. For example, doubt may arise about enablement because information is missing about one or more essential parts or relationships between parts which one skilled in the art could not develop without undue experimentation. In such a case, the examiner should specifically identify what information is missing and why one skilled in the art could not supply the information without undue experimentation. See MPEP § 2164.06(a). References should be supplied if possible, to support a prima facie case of lack of enablement, but are not always required. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 224, 169 USPQ 367, 370 (CCPA 1971). However, specific technical reasons are always required.
1) The nature of the invention: the instant claims are directed to a Boswellia extract for use in prevention of infection with SARS-CoV-2 or a variant thereof in a subject.
3) The predictability or unpredictability of the art: & 6) The quantity of experimentation necessary: & 7.) The state of the prior art: the prior art has shown a large quantity of experimentation is often necessary to overcome the unpredictable nature of preventing infection with SARS-CoV-2 and variants thereof.
Gomaa Adel A. et. al. (10.1007/s10787-021-00841-8), teaches “Based on scientific evidence, a recent publication suggested that some plant extracts or their components could have a role in the prevention and early treatment of symptoms of viral respiratory infections (Therapeutic basis of the potential use of BA’s and B.serrata extract against SARS-CoV-2… These medicinal plants are widely used in traditional Chinese medicine with some evidence of the effectiveness in the management of hepatitis B, HIV, SARS-CoV, and COVID-19 (Firenzuoli et al. 2020; Gomaa and Abdel-Wadood 2021), ([pg. 1035; right col. last paragraph] and 1036 left col. lines 1-2).” While the reference teaches that plant extracts could have role in the prevention, but does not indicate the measures for prevention. Reference teaches that there is a possibility, but not demonstrated effect of prevention from infection from SARS-CoV-2.
Therefore, the unpredictability arises due to difficulty of preventing infection with SARS-CoV-2 with natural products of Boswellia extract. In the medical art, infection with SARS-CoV-2 has high transmissibility, frequent mutation, and asymptomatic carriers. Variability in host response further contributes to the uncertainty to prevent the infection from reoccurring, thus, the prevention of infection is highly unpredictable.
Consequently, there would be a large quantity of experimentation necessary to determine what conditions are required to prevent infection from SARS-CoV-2. Considering the teachings of Gomaa, it is evident that prevention is highly unpredictable. Prevention defines as to stop from infection occurring. These practices decrease the incidence of infection, however, does not prevent “stop” the infection from occurring. To prevent requires higher standards for enablement than does “treat” since it is well accepted in the medical art that vast majority of infections undergone by mankind cannot be totally prevented with current medicines. Preventing infection from SARS-CoV-2 is not recognized in the medical art as being totally preventable condition.
4) The amount of direction or guidance presented: & 5) The presence or absence of working examples: DOES THE SPECIFICATION DISCLOSE ANY PREVENTION? the specification is devoid of any examples of preventing any SARS-CoV-2 or any variant thereof infection.
How would one of skilled in the art use the Boswellia extract to prevent infection?
8.) Level of skill in the art: the level of skill in this art is high, at least that of a doctoral scientist with several years of experience in the art.
In consideration of the Wands factors, it is apparent that there is undue experimentation because of variability in prediction of outcome that is not addressed by the present application disclosure, examples, teaching, and guidance presented. Absent factual data to the contrary, the amount and level of experimentation needed is undue.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gomaa Adel A. et. al. (10.1007/s10787-021-00841-8).
Instant claims recite Boswellia extract, species, and active agent for use in the treatment or prevention of infection with SARS-CoV-2 or a variant thereof in a subject. Gomaa et. al. ‘841-8, teaches, “the antiviral activity of boswellic acids, flavonoids of B. serrata possess inhibitory activity against many viruses (Zakaryan et al. 2017). On the basis of these studies, it is clear that B. serrata extract and boswellic acids have a broad antiviral activity that may be beneficial in the fight against SARS-CoV-2 (Broad antiviral effect of boswellic acids and B. serrata extract [pg.1043 right column; line 3-6]).”, ”More than 12 different boswellic acids have been identified as components of the B. serrata extract, but only KBA (11-keto-β-boswellic acid) and AKBA (3-O-acetyl11-keto-β-boswellic acid) have received marked pharmacological interest (Introduction [pg.1035 right column; line 9-13]), as recited in instant claim 3.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). “When the PTO shows a sound basis for believing that the products of the applicant and the prior art are the same, the applicant has the burden of showing that they are not.” In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir.1990). Therefore, the prima facie case can be rebutted by evidence showing that the prior art products do not necessarily possess the characteristics of the claimed product. In re Best, 562 F.2d at 1255, 195 USPQ at 433.
Conclusion
No claims are presently allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alpa Amin whose telephone number is (571)272-0562. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 6:00.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 571-272-0947. 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.
/ALPA NILESH AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655