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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 5 is 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.
The use of the phrase “A use of claim 4” renders the claim indefinite because
it fails to set recite steps, and thus it is unclear as to what constitutes the claimed invention. Amending the claim to recite “The method of claim 4 …” would be remedial.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because of the following reasons.
Claim 5 is directed to “A use of claim 4”. This is not one of the four categories of statutory subject matter which are processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter. Amending the claim to recite “The method of claim 4 …” would be remedial.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Czarapata et al.
Czarapata et al. teaches treating interstitial cystitis comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of super-strength, freeze-dried Aloe vera capsules to IC patients, with very effective results (abstract). The concentrate would inherently comprise glycosaminoglycans because these compounds are naturally found within Aloe vera and would naturally have the properties that are an inherent part of the compounds, including hydro-repellant and when administered as taught, would inherently replenish the GAG layer as evidenced by the instant application.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czarapata et al (IDS ref #5).
Czarapata et al. teaches treating interstitial cystitis comprising administering a therapeutically effective amount of super-strength, freeze-dried Aloe vera capsules to IC patients, with very effective results (abstract). The concentrate would inherently comprise glycosaminoglycans because these compounds are naturally found within Aloe vera and would naturally have the properties that are an inherent part of the compounds, including hydro-repellant and when administered as taught, would inherently replenish the GAG layer as evidenced by the instant application.
Czarapata et al. fails to specifically teach that the capsules containing Aloe vera concentrate contain about 600 mg pure, freeze-dried Aloe vera with a minimum of 200 mg of glycosaminoglycans per capsule, the moisture content is 8%, maximum pH is 4.5-4.7 and the capsule contains about 20 mg of calcium carbonate to raise the pH of the Aloe powder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to adjust the moisture content, the pH by use of a routinely used calcium carbonate buffer, and adjusting the dosage in capsules to a convenient level for administration because Czarapata et al teaches it is within the ordinary skill in the art to administer freeze-dried Aloe vera capsules to IC patients and the adjustments to the capsules are all routine and obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the dosing and contents of the capsules for administration to IC patients. Absent evidence to the contrary, there would have been a reasonable expectation of success to result in the claimed invention.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERRY A. MCKELVEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0775. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9-5:30..
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, TC director Daniel Sullivan can be reached at 571-272-0900. 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.
/TERRY A MCKELVEY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655