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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of the specie,
PNG
media_image1.png
192
247
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, in the reply filed on 2/2/2026 is acknowledged. As the elected specie is found to be free of art, the search to the next specie,
PNG
media_image2.png
185
330
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
Claims 1-3, 40, 41, 45, and 51 read on the specie.
Claims 4-5, 7, 11-12, 16, 20,23, 28, 32, 35, 38-39 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected specie, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/2/2026.
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 38 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 claim recites the expression “The method of claim 1 further defined as” renders the claim indefinite because it is not clear which part of the method is being further defined.
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) 1-3, 40, 41, 45, and 51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisutthanan et al., Chiang Mai J Sci, 2005;32(2):!39-148 in view of Ruiz-Manzano et al., Arch Bronconeumol. 2008;44(10):551-66.
Pisutthanan et al. teaches an extracts of Chromolaena odorate, that contain compound 3, has anti-mycobacterium tuberculosis activity (see page 145, Table 3; also page 146, col. 1, first paragraph).
Pisutthanan et al. does not teach the additional antibiotics in the method of treating mycobacterium infection.
Ruiz-Manzano et al. teaches four-drugs combinations ((isoniazid, rifampicin, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol) being administered for 4 months as the first-line treatment for TB (see page 557, col. 1, 4th paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to employ the additional antibiotic in combination of the herein claimed specie in the method of treating tuberculosis.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to employ the additional antibiotic in combination of the herein claimed specie in the method of treating tuberculosis. combining two agents which are known to be useful to treat tuberculosis individually into a single composition useful for the very same purpose is prima facie obvious (See In re Kerkhoven 205 USPQ 1069 (CCPA 1980)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAN MING R HUI whose telephone number is (571)272-0626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30.
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, Kortney Klinkel can be reached at 571-270-5239. 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.
/SAN MING R HUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1627
Prosecution Insights