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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-16 are pending and examined herein.
Priority
This application, filed 02/05/2024, is a CON of PCT/JP2022/030329, filed 08/08/2022, which claims foreign benefit of JAPAN 2021-129744, filed 08/06/2021. This claim is priority is acknowledged and the claims examined herein are treated as having an effective filing date of 08/06/2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements filed 02/05/2024 and 07/15/2025 are acknowledged and have been considered.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “the cell have been” is not proper English. It appears that the claim should recite “the cell has been”, as recited in claim 6. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, and 5-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0283872 A1, “COMPOSITIONS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCING ODORANT RECEPTOR ACTIVITY” (published 10/05/2017, herein referred to as Duke), as evidenced by “Azelaic acid” PubChem (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Azelaic-Acid, accessed 06/08/2026, referred to herein as PubChem).
Regarding claims 1, 2, 10, and 11, Duke teaches a method measuring a response of an olfactory receptor to a substance (para. 0358) comprising contacting the olfactory receptor with the test substance (para. 0358, lines 22-23) and measuring the response of the olfactory receptor to the substance (para. 0358, lines 22-25), wherein the olfactory receptor is on a cell (para. 0358, lines 10-15). Duke teaches a method further comprising a GPCR receptor (para. 0358, lines 9-11). Duke teaches a method of reducing a response of the GPCR receptor, M3, to the substance (para. 0362, lines 1-10).
Regarding claims 3 and 5, Duke teaches performing the method in the presence of an M3 antagonist (para. 0362, lines 6-10) at 10-8 M, which is 0.1µM (Figure 7B).
Regarding claim 6, Duke teaches using a HEK293T cell as a vector control, which does not have the M3 receptor or the adenosine receptor (para. 0362, lines 6-16).
Regarding claim 7, Duke teaches using cells that have been modified to not have the M3 receptor (Figure 3A and 3B, “OR Only”).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Duke teaches a method of measuring a variety of responses of the olfactory receptor, including activation and inactivation of the receptor (Figures 1A-F and 2A-C), in the presence of an activating substance (para. 0358, lines 22-24).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Duke teaches measuring the response by using intracellular cAPM concentration by a reporter assay (para. 0358, lines 22-26).
Regarding claim 14, Duke teaches that the test substance is nonanedioic acid (para. 0362, lines 6-10), which is a fractionation product of the foods, wheat, rye, and barley, as evidenced by PubChem (“Description”, para. 2, line 1).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Duke teaches using the olfactory receptor, OR2J2, among others (Para. 0361, lines 1-9, Figure 6II), which is a human olfactory receptor.
However, Duke does not teach a method wherein a response to an adenosine receptor, such as A2A or A2B, is reduced.
Duke teaches that receptors other than M3 could modulate olfactory receptor signaling (para. 0358, lines 1-7). Duke teaches that that adenosine receptor A2B could modulate olfactory receptor signaling (para. 0358, lines 1-7, Table 1). Duke teaches that A2B does modulate the activity of various olfactory receptors (Figure 1A, 1B, 1D, 1E, 1F, and 2B).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method taught by Duke to substitute the non-OR GPCR, M3, with the alternative non-OR GPCR, A2B, as taught by Duke. An artisan would have been motivated to make this substitution and had a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught by Duke, A2B is a candidate GPCR for analysis of olfactory receptor response and, as taught by Duke, the presence of A2B does modulate the activity of olfactory receptors. These results would motivate an artisan to perform further experimentation using A2B in the olfactory receptor functional analysis methods further taught by Duke.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duke as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ongini et al., “Comparison of CGS 15943, ZM 241385, and SCH 58261 as antagonists at human adenosine receptors” Arch Pharm. (published January 1999, referred to herein as Ongini).
As discussed above in the rejection of claim 1 and incorporated herein, regarding claims 1 and 4, Duke teaches a method of using the adenosine receptor, A2B, as the GPCR receptor in the assay and the use of an antagonist to reduce GPCR activity in the assay.
However, Duke does not specifically teach the use of a specific antagonist against the A2B receptor, as claimed (Claim 4).
Ongini teaches the use of CGS 15943 in cell-based assays to evaluate A2B receptor activity using cAMP reporter systems (p. 9, col. 1, para. 3, lines 2-13).
It would have been obvious to one of skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use CGS 15943 as an antagonist of A2B in the method taught by Duke. An artisan would have been motivated to use CGS 15943 with a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught by Ongini, CGS 15943 is an effective antagonist of A2B in cell-based assays designed to assay the activity of A2B, such as the one taught by Duke.
Conclusion
No claims are allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER EVANS whose telephone number is (571)272-4897. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30am to 4:30pm 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, Bao-Thuy Nguyen can be reached at (517) 272-0824. 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.
/C.E./Examiner, Art Unit 1677
/BAO-THUY L NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1677 June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights