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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-17 are pending. Claims 1-7are examined on the merits. Claims 8-17 are withdrawn.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (Claims 1-7) in the reply filed on 2/10/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 8-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 2/10/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/24/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by 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 1-3 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.
This is a “written description” rejection, rather than an enablement rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Applicant us directed to the Guidelines for the Examination of Patent Applications under the 354 U.S.C. 112, 1 “Written Description” Requirement, Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 4, pages 1099-1111, Friday January 5, 2001.
The claims are drawn to medicament comprising plant active compounds and, Claim 1, the term “modulator”. Modulator is not specific to described what is being claimed. What is modulator doing? Please describe. In analyzing whether the written description requirement is met for genus claims, it is first determined whether a representative number of species have been sufficiently described. In this case, only a transport enhancer, tariquidar, has been described while the claims potentially encompass thousands of other types of modulators. Applicant has not demonstrated what are the active compounds of modulators. This limited information is not deemed sufficient to reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that Applicant was in possession of active compounds extracted from all types of plants at the time the application was filed. Thus, it is concluded that the written description requirement is not satisfied for the claimed genus.
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 7 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.
In Claim 7, the term “molecularly linked to generate a liked structure” is used by the claim to mean fused structure or encased structure? The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly define the term.
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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-3 is directed to a composition comprising natural products. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
MPEP § 2106 sets forth the Subject Matter Eligibility Test to determine if a claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter. Step 1 asks if a claim is directed to a statutory category of invention. Applicant’s claims are directed to a product; thus, the answer to Step 1 is Yes.
Step 2A, Prong One, asks if a claim recites to a product of nature. In this case, applicant’s claims a botanical substance can be fruits and vegetables and a modulator can be water. Thus, the claims do recite products of nature. MPEP § 2106.04(b) states that “When a claim recites a nature-based product limitation, examiners should use the markedly different characteristics analysis discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(c) to evaluate the nature-based product limitation and determine the answer to Step 2A.”
MPEP § 2106.04(c)(I) states that “if the nature-based product limitation is not naturally occurring, for example due to some human intervention, then the markedly different characteristics analysis must be performed to determine whether the claimed product limitation is a product of nature exception…”. To perform the markedly different characteristic analysis, MPEP § 2106.04(c)(II) states “The markedly different characteristics analysis compares the nature-based product limitation to its naturally occurring counterpart in its natural state. Markedly different characteristics can be expressed as the product’s structure, function, and/or other properties…”.
In this case, in claim 1, the ingredients mixed together would still be a product of nature because as long as there are nature-based molecules found in the composition, the composition contains a mixture of products that are found in nature (the individual natural molecules) and thus must be evaluated as per the described analysis. Mixing together various natural molecules doesn’t change those molecules per se; they are simply mixed together and thus would have the same characteristics as the same molecules prior to being mixed together.
Therefore, the answer to Step 2A, Prong One, is Yes.
Thus, the analysis must move to Step 2A, Prong Two, which asks if the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2) this evaluation is performed by identifying whether there are additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluating these additional elements to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The composition of the different plants and vegetables together are non-natural. However, a composition can be used in many different ways and thus not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the answer to Step 2A, Prong Two, is No.
The analysis must then move to Step 2B which asks if claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05 states that this evaluation is performed by “Evaluating additional elements to determine whether they amount to an inventive concept requires considering them both individually and in combination to ensure that they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.” In this case, there are no amounts. The mixing of homogenized fruits and vegetable are well understood, routine, and conventional method of making a product for supplementing nutrition such as a fruit juice or powder (see Liu, 2013, J American Society for Nutrition Adv Nutr, 4: 3845-3925). Thus, the answer to Step 2B is No. Therefore, the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Arnatt et al. (US 20210353561 A1).
Arnatt et al. teaches a composition comprising Chelerythrine and tariquidar (Claim 1). Chelerythrine is a benzophenanthridine alkaloid present in the plant Chelidonium majus (greater celandine). It is a potent, selective, and cell-permeable protein kinase C inhibitor in vitro. And an efficacious antagonist of G-protein-coupled CB1 receptors [0078]. The same ingredients would inherently have the same activities as those in Claims 2, 5-7.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERYNE CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9947. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9-5:30 PM.
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, Anand U Desai can be reached on 571-272-0947. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Catheryne Chen Examiner Art Unit 1655
/ANAND U DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1655