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 .
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 61, 62, 118, 170, 220, 278, 292, 317, 340, 360, 371, 387, 409, 431, 456, 457, 466 and 531-534 are presented for examination.
Applicants’ preliminary amendment filed March 14, 2024 has been received and entered.
Applicants’ information disclosure statement filed April 13, 2026 have been received and entered.
Applicants’ election filed April 13, 2026 in response to the restriction requirement of January 13, 2026 has been received and entered. The applicants elected the invention described in claims 1-3, 6, 8, 61, 62, 118, 170, 220, 278, 292, 317, 340, 360, 371, 387, 409, 431 and 531 (Group I) without traverse.
Claims 456, 457, 466 and 532-534 are withdrawn from consideration as being drawn to the non-elected invention (37 CFR 1.142(b)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 61, 62, 118, 170, 220, 278, 292, 317, 340, 360, 371, 387, 409, 431 and 531 are deemed allowable, therefore, non-elected claims 456, 457, 466 and 532-534 will be rejoined for examination.
Claims 1-3, 6, 8, 61, 62, 118, 170, 220, 278, 292, 317, 340, 360, 371, 387, 409, 431, 531 and 532 are allowable.
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 456, 457, 466, 533 and 534 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.
A lack of adequate written description issue arises if the knowledge and level of skill in the art would not permit one skilled in the art to immediately envisage the product claimed from the disclosed process. See, e.g., Fujikawa v. Wattanasin, 93 F.3d 1559, 1571, 39 USPQ2d 1895, 1905 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (a "laundry list" disclosure of every possible moiety does not constitute a written description of every species in a genus because it would not "reasonably lead" those skilled in the art to any particular species); In re Ruschig, 379 F.2d 990, 995, 154 USPQ 118, 123 (CCPA 1967).
An applicant may also show that an invention is complete by disclosure of sufficiently detailed, relevant identifying characteristics which provide evidence that applicant was in possession of the claimed invention, i.e., complete or partial structure, other physical and/or chemical properties, functional characteristics when coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or some combination of such characteristics.
In particular, the specification as original filed fails to provide sufficient written bases of any of the agents demonstrating wherein possession of use of the broad terms: a MRGPRD dependent condition, and the MRGPRD dependent condition is a pain associated condition, an itch associated condition, an ocular associated condition, a cardiovascular and renal disease associate condition, an inflammatory or autoimmune disorder, or a cognitive impairment associated condition, or a cancer related condition. The mere fact that Applicants may have discovered one type of MRGPRD dependent condition is treated with the administration of a compound of structures (I-XV and XVa-b) is not sufficient to claim the entire genus.
The mere fact that Applicants may have discovered one type of MRGPRD dependent condition is a pain associated condition, an itch associated condition, an ocular associated condition, a cardiovascular and renal disease associate condition, an inflammatory or autoimmune disorder, or a cognitive impairment associated condition, or a cancer related condition is noy sufficient to claim the entire genera.
The written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species by actual reduction to practice, reduction to drawings, or by disclosure of relevant, identifying characteristics, i.e., structure or other physical and/or chemical properties, by functional characteristics coupled with a known or disclosed correlation between function and structure, or by a combination of such identifying characteristics, sufficient to show the applicant was in possession of the claimed genus. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406.
A "representative number of species" means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure "indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us]."
Claims 456, 457, 466, 533 and 534 are not allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN E WEDDINGTON whose telephone number is (571)272-0587. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 1:30-10:00.
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, Jeff Lundgren can be reached at 571-272-5541. 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.
KEVIN E. WEDDINGTON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1629
/KEVIN E WEDDINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1629
Prosecution Insights