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
This application was filed 09/21/2026 and claims priority to Pro 63/457919 (04/07/2023) and PRO 63/383130 (11/10/2022) and PRO 63/376591 (09/21/2022). Claims 1-20 are before the examiner.
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 10-20 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. The specification does not reasonably provide enablement for preventing diseases. The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. Applicants are not enabled for preventing tuberculosis or MRSA. The only established prophylactics are vaccines not the compounds such as presently claimed. In addition, it is presumed that “prevention” of the claimed diseases would require a method of identifying those individuals who will develop the claimed diseases before they exhibit the symptoms. There is no evidence of record that would guide the skilled clinician to identify those who have the potential of becoming afflicted. “The factors to be considered [in making an enablement rejection] have been summarized as a) the quantity of experimentation necessary, b) the amount of direction or guidance presented, c) the presence or absence of working examples, d) the nature of the invention, e) the state of the prior art, f) the relative skill of those in that art, g) the predictability or unpredictability of the art, h) and the breadth of the claims”, In re Rainer, 146 USPQ 218 (1965); In re Colianni, 195 USPQ 150, Ex parte Formal, 230 USPQ 546. a) As discussed above, preventing diseases requires identifying those patients who will acquire the disease before the disease occurs. This would require extensive and potentially open-ended clinical research on healthy subjects. B) The claims list tuberculosis and MRSA as the diseases applicant intends to prevent. C) There are no working examples of such preventive procedure in a man or animal in the specification. D) The claims rejected are drawn to the medical prevention and are therefore physiological in nature. E) The state of the art is that no general procedure is art-recognized for determining which patients generally will become afflicted with disease before the fact. F) The artisan using Applicant’s invention would be a board-certified physician who specializes in treating diseases. Despite intensive efforts, pharmaceutical science has been unable to find a way of getting a compound to be effective for the prevention of diseases generally. Under such circumstances, it is proper for the PTO to require evidence that such an unprecedented feat has actually been accomplished, In re Ferens, 163 USPQ 609. No such evidence has been presented in this case. The failure of skilled scientists to achieve a goal is substantial evidence that achieving such a goal is beyond the skill of the practitioners in that art, Genetech vs. Novo Nordisk, 42 USPQ2nd 1001, 1006. This establishes that it is not reasonable to any agent to be able to prevent diseases generally. That is, the skill is so low that no compound effective generally against diseases has ever been found let alone one that can prevent such conditions. G) It is well established that “the scope of enablement varies inversely with the degree of unpredictability of the factors involved”, and physiological activity is generally considered to be an unpredictable factor. See In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 214 (CCPA 1970). H) The claims broadly read on all patients, not just those undergoing therapy for the claimed diseases and on the multitude of compounds embraced by formula (I).
The Examiner suggests deletion of the word “prevention”.
Claims 1-2, 7-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification fails 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(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The Instant specification does not adequately describe the nexus between the “glutathione support composition” and a useful treatment of tuberculosis or MRSA. MRSA has been shown to be difficult to treat with known antibiotics. Tuberculosis has been treated by using known antibiotic agents such as levofloxacin or clofazimine. It is not seen where the instant specification adequately describes the nexus between “glutathione support” and the useful treatment of tuberculosis or MRSA. It is possible that such glutathione support will aid in the treatment of tuberculosis or MRSA when an antibiotic is used, but the solo treatment of tuberculosis or MRSA with just glutathione support is not given written support in the instant specification.
Claims 1-2, 7-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, because the specification fails 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.
There are many factors to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”. These factors include 1) the breadth of the claims, 2) the nature of the invention, 3) the state of the prior art, 4) the level of one of ordinary skill, 5) the level of predictability in the art, 6) the amount of direction provided by the inventor, 7) the existence of working examples, and 8) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737, 8 USPQ2d 1400, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The nature of the invention: The nature of the invention is the method of treating tuberculosis or MRSA by increasing glutathione levels and supporting glutathione by administering a composition of collagen, glutamate, cysteine, selenium and boron.
The state of the prior art: The state of the prior art is that it involves screening in vitro and in vivo to determine which compounds exhibit the desired pharmacological activities (i.e. what compounds can treat which specific disease). MRSA is well known to be difficult to treat with strong antibiotics or a mixture of antibiotics. Tuberculosis is known to be treatable by known antibiotics such as levofloxacin and clofazimine. There is no showing in the art that glutathione support treats tuberculosis or MRSA by itself. There is no absolute predictability even in view of the seemingly high level of skill in the art. The existence of these obstacles establishes that the contemporary knowledge in the art would prevent one of ordinary skill in the art from accepting any therapeutic regimen on its face.
The predictability in the art: It is noted that the pharmaceutical art is unpredictable, requiring each embodiment to be individually assessed for physiological activity. In re Fisher, 427 F. 2d 833, 166 USPQ 18 (CCPA 1970) indicates that the more unpredictable an area is, the more specific enablement is necessary in order to satisfy the statute. In the instant case, the instantly claimed invention is highly unpredictable since one skilled in the art would recognize that in regard to the therapeutic effects of tuberculosis and MRSA, whether or not increasing glutathione would make a difference in the disease. Hence, in the absence of a showing of a nexus between tuberculosis and MRSA treatment and supporting glutathione, one of ordinary skill in the art is unable to fully predict possible results from the administration of the composition of claim 1 due to the unpredictability of the role of modulation of glutathione levels and the treatment of tuberculosis and MRSA.
The presence or absence of working examples: The composition instantly claimed has no working examples of treating tuberculosis or MRSA in the instant specification.
The amount of direction or guidance present: The guidance present in the specification is that of the composition supports glutathione and therefore can treat tuberculosis and MRSA. The specification does not seem to enable a correlation between the mediation of glutathione levels and the treatment of tuberculosis or MRSA.
The breadth of the claims: The claims are drawn to the treatment of tuberculosis or MRSA mediated by the glutathione levels with the composition of claim 1.
The quantity of experimentation needed: The quantity of experimentation needed is undue. One skilled in the art would need to determine if the composition of the instant claims would provide treatment of tuberculosis or MRSA.
The level of the skill in the art: The level of skill in the art is high. However, due to the unpredictability in the pharmaceutical art, it is noted that each embodiment of the invention is required to be individually assessed for physiological activity by in vitro and in vivo screening to determine which compounds exhibit the desired pharmacological activity and which diseases would benefit from this activity.
Thus, the specification fails to provide sufficient support of the broad use of the compounds of claim 1 for the treatment of any disease. As a result, necessitating one of ordinary skill to perform an exhaustive search for which diseases can be treated by which compound of claim 1 in order to practice the claimed invention.
Genentech Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S (CA FC) 42 USPQ2d 1001, states that “a patent is not a hunting license. It is not a reward for search, but compensation for its successful conclusion” and “[p]atent protection is granted in return for an enabling disclosure of an invention, not for vague intimations of general ideas that may or may not be workable”.
Therefore, in view of the Wands factors and In re Fisher (CCPA 1970) discussed above, to practice the claimed invention herein, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to engage in undue experimentation to test which diseases can be treated by the compounds of the instant claims, with no assurance of success.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crum USPGPub20170281713. Crum teaches the treatment of bacterial infections by supporting glutathione. Collagen (glycine) is taught in paragraph 31 along with glutamate, cysteine and selenium. This composition is taught to support glutathione production and therefore treat infections such as tuberculosis (paragraph 249) treatment 116. Minich teaches how glutathione support is helped with other phyto nutrients including boron. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make the glutathione support composition of Crum with boron as taught by Minich to treat infections such as tuberculosis and MRSA. Crum teaches the treatment and Minich teaches the glutathione playing a role in physiological processes in immune systems.
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.
Claim1, 2, 7-9 and 17-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12 of copending Application No. 18/370922, claims 18-20 of copending application No. 18/370919 and claims 1 and 18 of copending application 18/370941. Each of these teach a composition to support glutathione and treat infections with a composition of collagen, glutamate, cysteine, selenium and boron. This is the same composition as instantly claimed to treat tuberculosis or MRSA.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to D MARGARET M SEAMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0694. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm Eastern.
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, Andrew Kosar can be reached at 571-272-0913. 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 MARGARET M SEAMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1625
Prosecution Insights