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. Claim Objections Claims 2-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: In Claim 2 , “ wherein an equivalent, derivative or analog thereof is nicotinic acid, nicotinamide riboside, or nicotinic acid riboside ” should read “ wherein [[an]] the equivalent, derivative or analog thereof is nicotinic acid, nicotinamide riboside, or nicotinic acid riboside ” to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). In Claim 3 , “ wherein a Parkinson motor response is tremor, cogwheel rigidity, or glabellar reflex ” should read “ wherein [[a]] the Parkinson motor response is tremor, cogwheel rigidity, or glabellar reflex ” to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). In Claim 4 , “ wherein an equivalent, derivative or analog thereof is nicotinic acid, nicotinamide riboside, or nicotinic acid riboside and wherein a Parkinson motor response is tremor, cogwheel rigidity, or glabellar reflex ” should read “ wherein [[an]] the equivalent, derivative or analog thereof is nicotinic acid, nicotinamide riboside, or nicotinic acid riboside and wherein [[a]] the Parkinson motor response is tremor, cogwheel rigidity, or glabellar reflex ” to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-4 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 1 recites “ A method to diagnose Parkinson's disease in a human subject… ” . The written description describes scientific findings and theory behind the energy requirements of dopaminergic neurons, the connection between L-lactate and Parkinson’s disease, ATP metabolism, thermodynamics, the prior art of sodium DL-lactate and L-lactate infusions ([0007]-[0027]). The written description then describes the method steps in Claim 1 as initiating remission of motor symptoms , wherein the remission of motor symptoms ([0031-[0040]) is stated to be “diagnostic of Parkinson’s disease” ([0031] and [0040]) . However, the motor symptoms specified in the written description (tremor, cogwheel rigidity, or glabellar reflex) are also symptoms of other diseases (e.g. Multiple Sclerosis , Traumatic Brain Injury, dementia, stroke, etc.) There is no further discussion of what diagnostic criteria is used (e.g. what level of remission, eliminating false positives and false negatives, a flowchart, differentiating between diseases with similar symptoms, etc.) to positively diagnose Parkinson’s disease , and therefore the written description never fully describes how Parkinson’s disease is diagnosed from the method steps . Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of dependence on Claim 1. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “ A method to diagnose Parkinson's disease in a human subject… ”. It is unclear how merely administering nicotinamide (or equivalent, derivative or analog thereof), infusing sodium L-lactate, and/or recording a decrement in Parkinson’s motor symptoms are also positively diagnosing Parkinson’s disease, as the motor symptoms specified in the written description (tremor, cogwheel rigidity, or glabellar reflex) are also symptoms of other diseases (e.g. Multiple Sclerosis , Traumatic Brain Injury, dementia, stroke, etc.) and administering chemical compounds is not diagnosing a disease. For the purposes of substantive examination, this Office Action will rely on this unclear definition and it is assumed that administering treatment for a disease (e.g., nicotinamide or sodium L-lactate) is also a diagnosis of the disease. Claims 2-4 are rejected by virtue of dependence on Claim 1. 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. Claim s 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows. Regarding Claim 1 , the claim recites a method to diagnose Parkinson's disease in a human subject. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1). The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong One). The following limitations set forth the judicial exception of laws of nature, natural phenomena, and products of nature: administering nicotinamide or an equivalent, derivative or analog thereof to the subject infusing sodium L-lactate or a salt of L-lactate via an intravenous access to the subject recording a decrement in a Parkinson motor response in the subject These limitation(s) describe a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, and/or a product of nature. The law of nature and natural phenomenon exceptions reflect the Supreme Court's view that the basic tools of scientific and technological work are not patentable, because the "manifestations of laws of nature" are "part of the storehouse of knowledge," "free to all men and reserved exclusively to none." Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130, 76 USPQ 280, 281 (1948). Thus, as merely an example, a correlation between the presence of myeloperoxidase in a bodily sample (such as blood or plasma) and cardiovascular disease risk is a law of nature or natural phenomenon that is not patentable. See Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1361, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2017) and MPEP 2106.04(b)(I). As merely another example, a correlation that is the consequence of how a certain compound is metabolized by the body, see Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012). In this case: Administering nicotinamide or an equivalent, derivative or analog thereof to the subject infusing sodium L-lactate or a salt of L-lactate via an intravenous access to the subject, and recording a decrement in a Parkinson motor response in the subject is a law of nature, wherein a decrement in a Parkinson motor response is a correlation that is the consequence of how certain compounds ( nicotinamide or an equivalent, derivative or analog and sodium L-lactate) are metabolized by the body . Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, integrates the identified judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two). There are no additional elements in the claim to analyze. Therefore, no additional limitations integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the identified judicial exception (Step 2B): There are no additional elements in the claim to analyze. Therefore, no additional limitations amount to significantly more than the abstract idea . Dependent C laims 2-4 also fail to add subject matter qualifying as significantly more to the abstract independent claims as they merely further limit the abstract idea. Therefore, Claims 1-4 are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tzoulis et al (US 20240366648 A1, hereinafter Tzoulis ) in view of Goldberg (US 2016/0271085 Al, cited in applicant’s IDS, hereinafter Goldberg) . Regarding Claim 1 , Tzoulis discloses a method to diagnose Parkinson's disease in a human subject comprising (“ The present invention provides nicotinamide riboside for use in a method for treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD) in a human subject ”, Abstract; remission of motor skill deficits due to pharmaceutical intervention is also proof that the motor skill deficits existed ; see the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) above ) comprising: administering nicotinamide or an equivalent, derivative or analog thereof to a subject (“The present invention provides nicotinamide riboside for use in a method for treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD) in a human subject”, Abstract ) ; and recording a decrement in a Parkinson motor response (“According to an embodiment, the total score parts I, II, III and IV, or the total score of parts I, II and IIII according to the Movement Disorder Society Revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS; see above) is improved. The MDS-UPDRS has four parts: Part I (non-motor experiences of daily living), Part II (motor experiences of daily living), Part III (motor examination) and Part IV (motor complications)”, [0077]) in the subject (“To stratify the Primary analysis of mean MDS-UPDRS change between the NR and placebo arm, a stratified analysis comparing the tremor dominant and PIGD dominant (defined by MDS-UPDRS) subgroups in NR and placebo arm is performed”, [0288]) . Tzoulis discloses the claimed invention except for expressly disclosing: infusing sodium L-lactate or a salt of L-lactate via an intravenous access to the subject. However, Goldberg, which also discloses a method to diagnose motor skill deficits ( “A method to treat the symptoms associated with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)”, Claim 1; remission of motor skill deficits due to pharmaceutical intervention is also proof that the motor skill deficits existed ) teaches infusing sodium L-lactate or a salt of L-lactate via an intravenous access to the subject (“it is possible to elevate blood lactate levels with oral or parenteral administration of sodium lactate”, [0015]; parenteral administration includes intravenous administration) . It would have been obvious to add the method step of infusing sodium L-lactate or a salt of L-lactate via an intravenous access to the subject , as taught by Goldberg, to the method of Tzoulis , because this infusion also ameliorates symptoms of a motor response deficit such as Parkinson’s disease , which are further proof that the motor response deficit (and the Parkinson’s disease) existed. Regarding Claim 2 , modified Tzoulis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an equivalent, derivative or analog thereof is nicotinic acid, nicotinamide riboside (“The present invention provides nicotinamide riboside for use in a method for treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD) in a human subject”, Abstract) , or nicotinic acid riboside. Regarding Claim 3 , modified Tzoulis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein a Parkinson motor response is tremor (“Part II… tremor”, [0082]) , cogwheel rigidity, or glabellar reflex. Regarding Claim 4 , modified Tzoulis discloses the method of claim 1, wherein an equivalent, derivative or analog thereof is nicotinic acid, nicotinamide riboside (“The present invention provides nicotinamide riboside for use in a method for treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD) in a human subject”, Abstract) , or nicotinic acid riboside and wherein a Parkinson motor response is tremor (“Part II… tremor”, [0082]) , cogwheel rigidity, or glabellar reflex. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Johe (US 10413534 B2), which discloses administering nicotinamide or an equivalent, derivative or analog thereof to a subject (“the invention is directed to a method to ameliorate the motor skill deficits and/or cognitive deficits associated with stroke by administering to a subject in need of such amelioration, a pharmaceutical composition wherein the active ingredient is a pharmaceutically acceptable salt of a 2-amino-substituted nicotinamide”, 1:60-61) . See the Non-Patent Literature (NPL) to Borlongan et al (“Elevated body swing test: a new behavioral parameter for rats with 6-hydroxydopamine-induced hemiparkinsonism ”), which discloses a link between the elevated body swing test disclosed by Johe and Parkinson’s disease (Abstract) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JONATHAN EPHRAIM COOPER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2860 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30AM-5:30PM 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5596 . 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. /JONATHAN E. COOPER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /JACQUELINE CHENG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791