0DETAILED ACTION
The receipt is acknowledged of applicant’s IDS filed 06/22/2023; and election filed 01/05/20206.
Claims 58-72 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, claims 58-63, in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 64-72 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/05/2026.
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 58-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
First, the claimed invention must be to one of the four statutory categories. 35 U.S.C. 101 defines the four categories of invention that Congress deemed to be the appropriate subject matter of a patent: processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter. The latter three categories define "things" or "products" while the first category defines "actions" (i.e., inventions that consist of a series of steps or acts to be performed). See 35 U.S.C. 100(b) ("The term ‘process’ means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material."). See MPEP § 2106.03 for detailed information on the four categories.
Second, the claimed invention also must qualify as patent-eligible subject matter, i.e., the claim must not be directed to a judicial exception unless the claim as a whole includes additional limitations amounting to significantly more than the exception. The judicial exceptions (also called "judicially recognized exceptions" or simply "exceptions") are subject matter that the courts have found to be outside of, or exceptions to, the four statutory categories of invention, and are limited to abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena (including products of nature). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 216, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1980 (2014) (citing Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589, 106 USPQ2d 1972, 1979 (2013). See MPEP § 2106.04 for detailed information on the judicial exceptions.
Claims 58-63 are directed to “a method of treating metabolic syndrome in a mammal in need thereof comprising administering to the mammal in need thereof an effective amount of Chardonnay pomace”.
Analysis of the flowchart:
Step 1, is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes. The claim is drawn to a process as stated above.
Step 2A. Prong one: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea?
Yes, the claims are drawn to a process using product of nature, chardonnay grapes pomace. There is no indication that chardonnay pomace has components having any characteristics that are different from the naturally occurring components in chardonnay grapes. The claims read on a subject eating or chewing chardonnay grapes. Therefore, the claim is not meaningfully limited and does not amount to significantly more than using product of nature by itself. Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 131 (1948), discussed in Myriad Genetics, 133 S. Ct. at 2117. While not discussed in the opinion, it is noted that several of the claims held ineligible in Funk Brothers recited specific amounts of the bacterial species in the mixture. Funk Brothers, 333 U.S. at 128 n.1. Therefore, even if amounts are claimed, claims are ineligible. Thus, there is no evidence of record to indicate that the claimed method used markedly different product that is structurally, chemically, functionally, than its naturally occurring counterpart.
Step 2A. Prong two: Does the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. Claims of 58-63 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as there is no indication that the pomace derived from chardonnay grapes has been altered by any way that caused active components of chardonnay grapes to have any characteristics that are different from the naturally occurring components. Instant method claims fail to recite any specific step or method of using the chardonnay, other than administering the chardonnay pomace, in order to treat metabolic syndrome. In other words, the claimed method does not require a specific step of administration or application of the composition for specific duration of use, and lacks the mention of a quantitative or qualitative measure of the claimed method. Instant claims merely state “treating metabolic syndrome.
Step 2B. If additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept (Step 2B) also called "significantly more" than the recited judicial exception).
No, in the instant case no additional elements are added to the chardonnay pomace.
There is no indication that any component or any manipulation of the claimed chardonnay pomace results in a different characteristic of the chardonnay pomace as compared to components of chardonnay grapes in the nature.
Therefore, the claimed method treating metabolic syndrome by administering chardonnay pomace is not markedly different from the natural chardonnay grapes chewed by a subject, and thus are product of nature judicial exceptions. Eating chardonnay grapes will read on the claims.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite any additional elements beyond the claimed chardonnay pomace. Further, although the claims are process claims, there are no claimed method steps, there are no additional elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception themselves. Therefore, the claims do not recite something significantly more than a judicial exception and are thus deemed patent ineligible subject matter. The claimed method requires naturally occurring chardonnay grapes, without reciting any additional component such that it is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Instant claims recites the transitional phrase “comprising” allows for the other components/materials of the plants along with chardonnay grapes. No other specific limitations other than what is well-understood, routine and conventional in the field at a high level of generality have been added to the claimed nature-based product (e.g., addition of well-known ingredients).
Thus, the claimed composition is not eligible subject matter under current 35 USC 101 standards. See MPEP 2106.07.
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.
Claims 58-63 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 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 58 recites: “method of…..comprising administering….”. The claims do not recite any method of administration. The specification does not describe any method of administrating the claimed chardonnay pomace. To satisfy the Written description requirement, applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the present invention that applicant were in possession of the claimed invention. Reciting “administering” without partial or complete description of any method of administration does not convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that applicants were in possession of the claimed subject matter. This is because one of ordinary skill in the art would not recognize or understand how the chardonnay pomace can be administered, orally, topically, by injection, implantation, food, etc. Claims employing limitation at the point of novelty, such as applicants’, neither provide those elements required to practice the inventions, nor “inform the public” during the life of the patent of the limits of the monopoly asserted. The step of “administering” could encompass myriad of methods, known and unknown, and applicants claimed method represents only an invitation to experiment regarding possible methods.
To satisfy the written description requirement, the applicant does not have to utilize any particular form of disclosure to describe the subject matter claimed, but the description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that he or she invented what is claimed. Carnegie Mellon Univ. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 541 F.3d 1115, 1122 (Fed.Cir.2008) (quoting In re Alton, 76 F.3d 1168, 1172 (Fed.Cir. 1996)). In other words, the applicant must `convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and demonstrate that by disclosure in the specification of the patent.
Written description requirement, serves both to satisfy the inventor's obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee was in possession of the invention that is claimed. Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed.Cir. 2005). The requirement serves a teaching function, as a quid pro quo in which the public is given meaningful disclosure in exchange for being excluded from practicing the invention for a limited period of time. (Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 922 (Fed.Cir.2004) (quoting Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 970 (Fed.Cir.2002)). A patentee can lawfully claim only what he has invented and described, and if he claims more his patent is void; Reiffin v. Microsoft Corp., 214 F.3d 1342, 1345-46 (Fed.Cir.2000). The purpose of the written description requirement] is to ensure that the scope of the right to exclude and does not overreach the scope of the inventor's contribution to the field of art as described in the patent specification.
Regardless whether a compound is claimed per se or a method is claimed that entails the use of the compound, the inventor cannot lay claim to that subject matter unless he can provide a description of the compound sufficient to distinguish infringing compounds from non-infringing compounds, or infringing methods from non-infringing methods,"). Where the specification provides only constructive examples in lieu of working examples, it must still "describe the claimed subject matter in terms that establish that the applicant was in possession of the claimed invention, including all of the elements and limitations." Id. (citing Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed.Cir. 1998)).
Applicant has failed to provide any written description for "method of administration" in the instant specification. As such, it is not apparent that Applicant was actually in possession of, and intended to use, within the context of the present invention, any "method of administration", known or unknown.
In re Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 19 USPQ2d 1111, makes clear that "applicant must convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention. The invention is, for purposes of the 'written description' inquiry, whatever is now claimed." (See page 1117.) The specification does not "clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [he or she] invented what is claimed." (See Vas-Cath at page 1116.)
Finally, University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404, 1405 held that:
“To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that "the inventor invented the claimed invention." Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli , 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (" [T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed."). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement "by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious," and by using "such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention." Lockwood , 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.
As outlined in Univ. of Calf. V. Eli Lilly, 43 USPQ 2d 1398, 1406 (Fed. Cir. 1997), a description of a genus can comprise a recitation of structural features common to the members of the genus, which features constitute a substantial portion of the genus. This is analogous to enablement of a genus under Section 112, Para. 1, by showing the enablement of a representative number of species within the genus. Mere indistinct terms (here the word "analog"), however, may not suffice to meet the written description requirement.
Further, applicants claiming a genus "method of administration" that can be adequately described if the disclosure presents a sufficient number of representative species that encompass the genus. If the genus has substantial variance, the disclosure must describe a sufficient number of species to reflect the variation within that genus. See MPEP 2163. Although the MPEP does not specifically define what constitutes a representative number of species, courts have indicated what does not constitute same. See, e.g., In re Gostelli, 10 USPQ 2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989), holding that the disclosure of two compounds within a subgenus did not adequately describe such subgenus.
The instant specification does not describe specific "method of administering". Accordingly, the method of administering as used currently by instant claims are deemed so indistinct that it fails to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that applicant was in possession of a representative number of species within that genus.
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 pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 58, 60, 62 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by the article to Decorde et al. (“Chardonnay grape seed procyanidin extract supplementation prevents high-fat diet-induced obesity in hamsters by improving adipokine imbalance and oxidative stress markers”, IDS filed 06/22/2023), copy was provided in the parent application 14/398,093.
Claim 58 is directed to method of treating metabolic syndrome in a mammal in need thereof comprising administering to the mammal in need thereof an effective amount of Chardonnay pomace.
Decorde disclosed administering extract from chardonnay grape seed to hamster, i.e. mammal. Administering extract of chardonnay reduces obesity and lowers glycemia, and related metabolic syndromes by reducing oxidative stress (see the entire document, and in particular: abstract; paragraphs: 2.1, 3.1, 4; table 2).
All the limitations of claim 58 of treating metabolic syndrome using chardonnay grape pomace are disclosed by the reference.
Regarding reducing weight, and restore blood glucose as claimed by claims 60 and 62, respectively, these are disclosed by the reference.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 58-63 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Murase (US 2007/0244202, currently cited on PTO 892), the article to Auger et al. (“Polyphenols-enriched chardonnay white wine and sparkling pinot noir wine identically prevent early atherosclerosis in human”, currently provided), and the article to Decorde et al. (“Chardonnay grape seed procyanidin extract supplementation prevents high-fat diet-induced obesity in hamsters by improving adipokine imbalance and oxidative stress markers”, IDS filed 06/22/2023, and copy was provided in the parent application 14/398,093).
Applicant Claims
Claim 58 is directed to method of treating metabolic syndrome in a mammal in need thereof comprising administering to the mammal in need thereof an effective amount of Chardonnay pomace.
Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art
(MPEP §2141.01)
Murase teaches materials, e.g. food and beverage, that has been consumed by human for long period of time, which is readily available and exhibits high safety and can be employed in human. These materials comprise polyphenols from grapes including chardonnay grapes. The reference teaches using such polyphenols to treat hypercholesterolemia, obesity, diabetes, and hepatic hypertrophy, i.e. reduce liver weight (abstract; ¶¶ 0015-0024; claims).
Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims
(MPEP §2141.012)
While Murase teaches the claimed method of using chardonnay extract for treating metabolic disorders including hypercholesterolemia, obesity, diabetes, and fatty liver, the reference does not exemplify chardonnay grape in particular. As such, the instant prior art does not appear to provide sufficient specificity, i.e., involves some “picking and choosing” to give rise to anticipation. See, Corning Glass Works v. Sumitomo Elec., 868 F.2d 1251, 1262 (Fed. Circ. 1989). That being said, it must be remembered that “[w]hen a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect.... the combination is obvious”. KSRv. Teleflex, 127 S,Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007)(quoting Sakraida v. A.G. Pro, 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
However, for completeness of record the following references are cited.
Auger teaches polyphenols from chardonnay grapes lowers plasma cholesterol and reduces the development of atherosclerosis and risk of cardiovascular diseases (see the entire document, and in particular: abstract; page 9824, left col.; discussion).
Decorde teaches administering extract from chardonnay grape seed to hamster, i.e. mammal. Administering extract of chardonnay reduces obesity and lowers glycemia, and related metabolic syndromes by reducing oxidative stress (see the entire document, and in particular: abstract; paragraphs: 2.1, 3.1, 4; table 2).
Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rational and Motivation
(MPEP §2142-2143)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to treat hypercholesterolemia, obesity, diabetes, and hepatic hypertrophy using polyphenols from grape extract that can be obtained from chardonnay grapes as taught by Murase, and confidently and effectively use polyphenols from chardonnay taught by Auger and Decorde. One would have been motivated to do so because Auger teaches polyphenols from chardonnay grapes lowers plasma cholesterol and reduced the development of atherosclerosis and risk of cardiovascular diseases, and because Decorde teaches administering extract from chardonnay grape seed reduces obesity and lowers glycemia, and related metabolic syndromes by reducing oxidative stress. One would reasonably expect successfully treating metabolic syndrome including lowering cholesterol, reducing obesity, reducing blood sugar and reducing liver weight by reducing fat in the liver by administering to chardonnay extract.
Regarding treating metabolic syndrome claimed by claim 58, it is suggested by all the cited references.
Regarding reducing cholesterol in mammal as claimed by claim 59, it is suggested by Murase and Auger.
Regarding reducing weight in mammals as claimed by claim 60, it is suggested by Murase and Decorde.
Regarding reducing liver weight in mammals as claimed by claim 61, Murase teaches treating live hypertrophy that will inevitably reduce liver size and weight.
Regarding restoring blood glucose as claimed by claim 62, Murase and Decorde teach lowering blood glucose.
Regarding mammals is a human as claimed by claim 63, Murase teaches treating the claimed condition in human. In any event, it is known in the art to use animal models for biological studies and extrapolate the results to the human being. The active agents are used interchangeably between human and animals since they have similar systems. Burden is shifted to applicants to show that dietary supplement disclosed by the prior art to be administered to nursing women will not be effective in non-human from the same mammalian species.
Absent any evidence to the contrary, and based upon the teachings of the prior art, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success in practicing the instantly claimed invention. Therefore, the invention as a whole would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention.
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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 58-63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,105,409. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued claims and the current claims are directed to treating metabolic syndrome by administering to a mammal a dried chardonnay seed extract that reads on the claimed chardonnay pomace. The issued claims anticipate the currently pending claims.
Claims 58-63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 10,130,671. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued claims and the current claims are directed to treating fatty liver and oxidative stress in liver by administering to a mammal a chardonnay seed extract that reads on the claimed chardonnay pomace. The issued claims anticipate the currently pending claims.
Claims 58-63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 10,772,924. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued claims and the current claims are directed to treating metabolic syndrome in a mammal by administering to a mammal a chardonnay pomace. The issued claims anticipate the currently pending claims.
Claims 58-63 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,723,943. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the issued claims and the current claims are directed to treating metabolic syndrome in a mammal by administering to a mammal a chardonnay pomace. The issued claims anticipate the currently pending claims.
It is noted that numerous patents and copending applications of Applicants encompass the same or similar subject matter of the instant application. Applicant should review all subject matter which are same or similar and amend the claims or submit terminal disclaimers for each and every one considered to contain similar subject matter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Isis A D Ghali whose telephone number is (571)272-0595. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Bethany Barham can be reached at 571-272-6175. 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.
/ISIS A GHALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611 /I.G./