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 .
Claim Status
Currently, claims 1-13 and 16-22 are pending in the instant application. Claims 14-15 have been canceled and claims 11-13, 16, 20 are withdrawn. This action is written in response to applicant' s correspondence submitted 07/14/2026. All the amendments and arguments have been thoroughly reviewed but were found insufficient to place the instantly examined claims in condition for allowance. The following rejections are either newly presented, as necessitated by amendment, or are reiterated from the previous office action. Any rejections not reiterated in this action have been withdrawn as necessitated by applicant' s amendments to the claims. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. This action is FINAL.
Claims 1-10, 18-19 and 21-22 are under examination. Claim 5 is under examination with respect to elected species of small molecule inhibitor.
Withdrawn Objections/Rejections
The objection to claim 1 is withdrawn view of the amendment to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-10, 18-19, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vasudevan (US2020/0101057 A1) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claims.
The rejection of claims 1-7, 9-10, 18-19 and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN110934873A) in view of Frasca (Mechanism of Ageing and Development, 2010, 131, 306-314) is withdrawn in view of the amendment to the claims.
New Grounds of Rejection, Necessitated by Amendment to the Claims
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 1-10, 18-19 and 21-22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea and law of nature without significantly more. This rejection was previously presented and has been rewritten to address the amendment to the claims.
The claims recite an abstract idea, a mental process and a law of nature. Claim 1 recites determining for each compound whether the compounds reduce a level of phosphorylated TTP in a treated sample compared to a control. Claim 1 further recites a step of selecting the anti-aging compound from multiple compounds by analyzing the response of a sample to each compound and choosing the anti-aging in compound that is effective in reducing the level of phosphorylated TTP. The broadest reasonable interpretation of determining, selecting and choosing is steps that can be accomplished mentally be evaluating data and includes critical think process. Selecting and choosing may be performed entirely in one’s mind or may involve only a verbal or written communication. Additionally the claims encompasses a law of nature. The claims require the natural correlation between reduction of phosphorylated TTP and anti-aging activity. This correlation is required to determine if a compound is an anti-aging compound and thus decreased phosphorylated TTP is correlated to anti-aging activity which does not require the hand of man to occur.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional steps or elements that integrate the recited judicial exceptions into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps in addition to the judicial exception are data gathering steps recited at a high level of generality employing techniques that were well-established, routine and conventional at the time of the invention. The cited prior art demonstrate the additional steps were well established routine and conventional. Vasudevan (US2020/0101057 A1) teaches providing a sample of THP1 cells, treating with test compounds and measuring level of phosphorylated TTP (see fig 6K). The step of determining levels of TTP phosphorylation was well known in the art. Frasca (2007, cited on IDS) and Frasca (2010, cited on IDS) teaches measuring phosphorylated levels of TTP in senescence spleen cells by western blotting (see western blotting). Iv (Frontiers in Immunology, 2021, 12:675534 pp 1-12) teaches dephosphorylation of TTP in senescence cells (see fig 4B).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements for determining anti-aging compounds and phosphorylated TTP were well known, routine and conventional in the art as taught by Vasudevan and Frasca.
Claim 2-4 recite a control level, reduced of 15% phosphorylated TTP, and using antibody to target phosphorylated TTP. Determining TTP levels and using control levels was well known, routine and conventional in the art as taught by Vasudevan.
Claim 5-6, 18, 21-22 limits the anti-aging compound. These agents were known in the art as taught by Vasudevan.
Claims 7-8 and 19 include additional step of determining SASP marker expression and phenotype. Determining SASP marker expression and phenotype was well known, routine and convention in the art as taught by Vasudevan.
Claims 9-10 limit the sample, which is a field of use limitation and does not amount to significantly more.
Response to Arguments
The response traverses the rejection on page 6-8 of the remarks mailed 07/14/2026. The response asserts the claims require the use of specific laboratory techniques and biological reagent to quantify phosphorylated TTP in a biological sample comprising senescent cells and non-cancer cells. The response asserts the determining step is limited to specific methods including western blot, IHC, immunofluorescence, mass spectrometry, flow cytometry, FACS and ELISA which are not mental steps. This response has been reviewed but not found persuasive. While the step of determining a level of phosphorylated TTP recited in step (b) is not an abstract idea, the step of determining a level of phosphorylated TTP compared to a control in step (e) is an abstract idea, the step requires mental process of evaluating data and making a mental comparison between the level of pTTP in a sample compared to pTTP in a control, this step may be performed entirely in one’s mind. Additionally steps (f) is a mental step that encompasses critical thinking to select and choose an anti-aging compound.
The response asserts that the step of treating a specific sample with multiple test compounds followed by quantitative comparison of pTTP is not a mere observation or mental evaluation. This response has been reviewed but not found pervasive. This step was not indicated as a judicial exception, however this step does not integrate the judicial exceptions recited in the claims. This step was routine and conventional in the art. Additionally this step does not integrate the judicial exceptions. For example the step of treating does not apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment for disease. In the instant case the step of treating is a data gathering step which is routine, conventional and well-known and does not integrate the judicial exception.
The response asserts that even if the laboratory techniques were known, the specific combination and use for the purpose of screening anti-aging compounds by quantifying phosphorylated TTP in non-cancerous senescent cells is not conventional. The response asserts that the method transforms the information from the assays into a practical outcome the identification of anti-aging compounds. This response has been reviewed but not found persuasive. The step of selecting and identifying anti-aging compounds is a judicial exception, it is an abstract idea. This step does not transform the method into a practical outcome because the outcome is an abstract idea or mental process. Additionally the step of quantifying phosphorylated TTP in non-cancerous cells is conventional as taught by Frasca and the step of treating a sample with compound, such as dasatinab was routine and conventional in the art as taught by Sun et al. (CN110934873A). For these reasons and reasons of record this rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-7, 9-10, 18-19 and 21-22are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (CN110934873A) in view of Iv (Frontiers in Immunology, 2021, 12:675534 pp 1-12). This is a new ground of rejection, necessitated by the amendment to the claims.
Sun teaches administering dasatinib and SRT2104 to samples comprising PSC27 cells and mice (see pg. 3). Sun teaches eliminating senescent cells by administration of dasatinib and SRT 2104 (see pg. 3) (claim 5-6, 18, 21-22). Sun further teaches administering dasatinib eliminates activity of senescent cells and down regulation of gene targets. Sun teaches contacting anti-aging compound, dasatinib to aged cells (see pg. 4). Sun teaches dasatinib and SRT2104 is used for reducing the level of SASP markers (see pg. 7)(multiple compounds). Sun teaches use of down regulated ABL for the preparation of medicament as the deletion of ABL caused significant decrease in senescent stromal cells (see pg. 7). Sun teaches screening compounds can be performed by one skilled in the art using routine screening methods in the art. Sun teaches contacting bleomycin to PSC27 cells (claim 9-10, providing sample comprising cells and inducing senescence, cells comprising macrophages). Sun teaches senescent cells were stained with SA-µ-gal positive (see pg. 8, ex 1) (claim 7, 19) Sun teaches PSC27 cells showed an increase in staining indicating increased gaining. Sun teaches pharmacodynamic screening analysis and teaches dasatinib survival rate of senescent PSC27 was reduced (See fig 9, 10, ex 2). While Sun teaches providing a sample comprising senescent cells, providing and contacting a compound to be tested, and treating a sample with compounds, dasatinib, Sun does not teach determining if one or more compounds reduce a level of phosphorylated TTP in the sample.
However it was well known in the art to determine phosphorylated levels of TTP in a sample. It was additionally known that TTP levels were correlated to aging. Iv teaches administering arctigenin and measuring pTTP levels(see fig 4b). Iv teaches dephosphorylation of TTP in response to anti-aging compound, arctigenen (See pg. 5, 2nd column). Iv teaches teaches western blotting for analysis for phosphorylated TTP by using antibody to TTP (see 4b) (claim 4). Iv teaches reduced levels of phosphor-TTP by 15% (see fig 4) (claim 3).
Therefore it would have been prima obvious to modify the teaching of Sun to include analysis of phosphorylated TTP in senescence cells as taught by Iv. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to include additional assays in the method of Sun because Sun teaches using known screening assays and Iv teaches analysis of dephosphorylated TTP cells in response to treatment with an anti-aging compound and teaches a difference in phosphorylated TTP upon treatment with ATG. The ordinary artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success of using an assay of identifying anti-aging compounds by measuring phosphorylated TTP because Sun teaches anti-aging compounds and suggests the use of routine assays and Iv teaches an assay that identifies a compound ATG as anti-aging by measuring dephosphorylated levels of TTP.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARAE L BAUSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-2912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-4p.
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, Fereydoun Sajjadi can be reached at 571-272-3311. 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.
/SARAE L BAUSCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1699
