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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-10 are pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Instant application claims priority of foreign application TW111145277, filed 11/25/2022. Therefore, the effective filing date is 11/25/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/31/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Objections – Drawings
37 C.F.R. 1.84:
(p) Numbers, letters, and reference characters.
(1) Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. They must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. Reference characters should be arranged to follow the profile of the object depicted.
The drawings are objected to because the sheet numbers and view numbers for FIG. 3A, FIG. 4A, FIG. 4B, FIG. 7A, FIG. 11A, FIG. 12A, and FIG. 13 are not oriented in the same direction.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 9 read “…wherein the USP 24 inhibitor composition comprises carbonyl-substituted phenyl compound…” and should read “…wherein the USP 24 inhibitor composition comprises a carbonyl-substituted phenyl compound…”.
Claim 1 reads “…n1 represents…” and should read “…n1 represents…”.
Claim 1 reads “…and the salts of said carbonyl-substituted phenyl compound are selected from a group consisting of oxalates, phosphates, sulfates, and hydrochlorides…”. In order to be in the singular form, this should instead read “…and the salt of said carbonyl-substituted phenyl compound is selected from a group consisting of oxalate, phosphate, sulfate, and hydrochloride…”.
Claims 1 and 6 teach that “X1 represents a single bond”, then states “wherein when X1 represents the single bond, …”. The limitations could be more succinct if claims 1 and 6 instead read “…as shown in formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
248
461
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in formula (I), X2 represents a hydrogen atom or a hydroxyl group, and the salts of said carbonyl-substituted phenyl compound are selected from the group consisting of oxalates, phosphates, sulfates, and hydrochlorides…”. This includes all the limitations taught in claims 1 and 6, since formulas (I-1), (I-2), and n1, are defined in claims 1 and 6 when X1 is a single bond, and X1 is defined as always being a single bond.
The word “claim” should not be capitalized in claims 2-5, 7, 8, and 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-3, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: the administration of the USP 24 inhibitor composition. The claims recite a method of inhibiting with no associated step of administration to a subject or individual.
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)(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.
(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.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hӧrlein et al. (DE 1120451 B).
Hӧrlein et al. teaches, in column 1 line 5, the following formula, wherein A is an alkyl group and Ac is an acyl group.
PNG
media_image2.png
223
297
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hӧrlein et al. teaches, in Example 4, the compound shown below, which reads on the compounds of instant claims 1, 2, and 6. This compound was taught, in column 4 lines 28-32, to be administered subcutaneously to mice as a sedative and antiemetic at 2.5, 5, 10, and 20 mg/kg, as in instant claims 3, 6, and 8.
PNG
media_image3.png
267
407
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding instant claims 1 and 6, the prior art is silent regarding using the composition to inhibit lipogenesis and hepatic lipid accumulation. However: “inhibiting lipogenesis” and “inhibiting hepatic lipid accumulation” will inevitably flow from the teachings of the prior art (see above rejection), since the same composition (the compound shown above) is being administered to the same subjects (a mouse). In other words, products of identical or similar composition cannot exert mutually exclusive properties when administered under the same or similar circumstances.
Even though the prior art is silent regarding “inhibiting lipogenesis” and “inhibiting hepatic lipid accumulation”, by practicing the method taught by the prior art, administration of the composition will also be “inhibiting lipogenesis” and “inhibiting hepatic lipid accumulation”, even though the prior art was not aware of it.
MPEP 2112 I states: “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.” Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).”
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hung (US 20220025375 A1), with an effective filing date of 07/27/2020, hereinafter referred to as reference ‘375.
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Reference ‘375 teaches, in claims 8 and 32, a method of inhibiting USP 24 comprising administering a pharmaceutical composition comprising formula (I-3), shown below, at 12.5 mg/kg of body weight, which reads on instant claims 1-3 and 6.
PNG
media_image4.png
333
397
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The composition was administered to mice, as in instant claim 8.
Regarding instant claims 1 and 6, the prior art is silent regarding using the composition to inhibit lipogenesis and hepatic lipid accumulation. However: “inhibiting lipogenesis” and “inhibiting hepatic lipid accumulation” will inevitably flow from the teachings of the prior art (see above rejection), since the same composition (the compound shown above) is being administered to the same subjects (a mouse). See above rejection and MPEP 2112.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hung (US 20220024887 A1), with an effective filing date of 02/05/2021, hereinafter referred to as reference ‘887.
The applied reference has a common inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Reference ‘887 teaches, in claims 15 and 19, a method comprising administering a USP24 inhibitor composition of formula (I-3-1), shown below, at 12.5 mg/kg of body weight, as in instant claims 1-3, 6, and 9.
PNG
media_image5.png
179
249
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It is taught, in paragraph [0106] that the composition was administered to mice (which contain 3T3-L1 cells), as in instant claims 8 and 10.
Regarding instant claims 1, 6, and 9, the prior art is silent regarding using the composition to inhibit lipogenesis, hepatic lipid accumulation, and PPAR-γ expression. However: inhibiting lipogenesis, hepatic lipid accumulation, and PPAR-γ expression will inevitably flow from the teachings of the prior art (see above rejection), since the same composition (the compound shown above) is being administered to the same subjects (a mouse, which has 3T3-L1 cells). See above rejection and MPEP 2112.
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.
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 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hӧrlein et al. (DE 1120451 B) as applied to claims 1-3, 6, and 8 above.
Hӧrlein et al. teaches a method of administering compounds of the following formula to mice as a sedative and antiemetic.
PNG
media_image2.png
223
297
media_image2.png
Greyscale
A specific compound taught to be administered to the mice is the compound shown below.
PNG
media_image3.png
267
407
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This compound differs from the compound of instant claim 9 in that the alkyl chain is a propyl group rather than an ethyl group.
However, Hӧrlein et al. teaches that the alkyl chain may be varied, as shown in the formula above, and also teaches other compounds (e.g., Examples 1, 5, and 8) where the alkyl chain is ethyl. Additionally, the CCPA has defined a homologous series as a family of chemically related compounds, the composition of which varies from member to member by a -CH2 (one atom of carbon and two hydrogen). In re Coes, Jr. (CCPA 1949) 173 F2d 1012, 81 USPQ 369. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia applied a broader definition and defined a homolog (homologue) as a member of a series of compounds in which each member differs from the next member by a constant number of atoms. Carr. Pats.v. Deutsche Gold-und-Sllber, etc. (CADC 1968) 397 F2d 656,157 USPQ 549.
The "Hass-Henze Doctrine" evolved from three CCPA cases, viz., In re Hass et al. (CCPA 1944) 141 F2d 122 and 127, 60 USPQ 544 and 548; and In re Henze (CCPA 1950) 181 F2d 198, 85 USPQ 261. In the Henze decision, the Court said:
"The nature of homologues and the close relationship the physical and chemical properties of one member of a series bears to adjacent members is such that a presumption of unpatentability arises against a claim directed to a composition of matter, the adjacent homologue of which is old in the art. The burden is on the applicant to rebut that presumption by a showing that the claimed compound possesses unobvious or unexpected beneficial properties not actually possessed by the prior art homologue. It is immaterial that the prior art homologue may not be recognized or known to be useful for the same purpose or to possess the same properties as the claimed compound. The CCPA concluded that because the characteristics normally possessed by members of a homologous series are principally the same, varying gradually from member to member, chemists knowing the properties of one member of a series would in general know what to expect in adjacent members so that a mere difference in degree is not the marked superiority which will ordinarily remove the unpatentability of adjacent homologues of old substances. Contra, where no use for the prior art compound is known. In m Stemniski (CCPA 1971) 444 F2d 581, 170 USPQ 343, and cases cited therein. Whether a compound is patentable over a prior art homologue or isomer is a question to be decided in each case. In re Hass et al., supra."
The 'Hass-Henze Doctrine" stands for the proposition that, "If that which appears at first blush to be obvious though new is shown by evidence not to be obvious then the evidence prevails over surmise or unsupported contention and rejection based on obviousness must fail." In re Papesch (CCPA 1963) 315 F2d 381, 137 USPQ 43, 48. The presumption that homologues are unpatentably obvious is an inference of fact, viz., that adjacent homologs are expected to have similar properties which places a 'burden of persuasion' on the applicant who asserted a contrary fact. In re Mills (CCPA 1960) 281 F2d 218, 126 USPQ 513.
Compounds that differ only by the presence of an extra methyl group are homologs. Homologs are of such close structural similarity that the disclosure of a compound renders prima facie obvious its homolog. The homolog is expected to be capable of preparation by the same method and to have the same properties. This expectation is then deemed the motivation for preparing homologs. Homologs are obvious even in the absence of a specific teaching to methylate, In re Wood 199 USPQ 137; In re Hoke 195 USPQ 148; In re Lohr 137 USPQ 548; In re Magerlein 202 USPQ 473; In re Wiechert 152 USPQ 249; Ex parte Henkel 130 USPQ 474; In re Fauque 121 USPQ 425; In re Druey 138 USPQ 39. In all of these cases, the close structural similarity of two compounds differing by only one (or two) methyl groups sufficed; no specific teaching to methylate was present or required. None of these cases has been overruled and indeed the examiner is unaware of any post Lohr case in which motivation is required to put a methyl group on an old compound.
Therefore, it would be prima facie obvious to administer a homolog of the above compound to a mouse as a sedative or antiemetic, as taught in the prior art.
Regarding instant claims 9 and 10, the prior art is silent regarding using the composition to inhibit PPAR-γ expression. However: inhibiting PPAR-γ expression will inevitably flow from the teachings of the prior art (see above rejection), since the same composition (the homolog of the compound shown above) is being administered to the same subjects (a mouse, which has 3T3-L1 cells). In other words, products of identical or similar composition cannot exert mutually exclusive properties when administered under the same or similar circumstances. See above rejection and MPEP 2112.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hung (US 20220025375 A1), with an effective filing date of 07/27/2020, hereinafter referred to as reference ‘375, as applied to claims 1-3, 6, and 8 above.
Reference ‘375 teaches, in claims 8 and 32, a method of inhibiting USP 24 comprising administering a pharmaceutical composition comprising formula (I-3), shown below, to mice at 12.5 mg/kg of body weight, which reads on instant claims 1-3 and 6. See above rejection.
PNG
media_image4.png
333
397
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Reference ‘375 fails to teach the administration of the compound of instant claim 9, which differs from the above compound in that it contains an ethyl linker rather than an n-butyl linker.
However, compounds that differ only by the presence of an extra methyl group are homologs. Homologs are of such close structural similarity that the disclosure of a compound renders prima facie obvious its homolog. The homolog is expected to be capable of preparation by the same method and to have the same properties. This expectation is then deemed the motivation for preparing homologs. Homologs are obvious even in the absence of a specific teaching to methylate, In re Wood 199 USPQ 137; In re Hoke 195 USPQ 148; In re Lohr 137 USPQ 548; In re Magerlein 202 USPQ 473; In re Wiechert 152 USPQ 249; Ex parte Henkel 130 USPQ 474; In re Fauque 121 USPQ 425; In re Druey 138 USPQ 39. In all of these cases, the close structural similarity of two compounds differing by only one (or two) methyl groups sufficed; no specific teaching to methylate was present or required. None of these cases has been overruled and indeed the examiner is unaware of any post Lohr case in which motivation is required to put a methyl group on an old compound.
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious to test homologs of a prior art composition for the same purpose, even in the absence of a specific teaching to methylate, since compounds of such close structural similarity are expected to produce the same results.
Regarding instant claims 9 and 10, the prior art is silent regarding using the composition to inhibit PPAR-γ expression. However: inhibiting PPAR-γ expression will inevitably flow from the teachings of the prior art (see above rejection), since the same composition (the homolog of the compound shown above) is being administered to the same subjects (a mouse, which has 3T3-L1 cells). In other words, products of identical or similar composition cannot exert mutually exclusive properties when administered under the same or similar circumstances. See above rejection and MPEP 2112.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,827,611 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Patent ‘611 teaches a medicinal composition comprising a USP24 inhibitor of formula (I-3-1) shown below, which reads on the compounds of instant claims 1-3, 6, and 9, wherein the composition delays or reverses multidrug resistance in a cancer cell.
PNG
media_image6.png
182
250
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding instant claims 1, 6, and 9, the prior art is silent regarding using the composition to inhibit lipogenesis, hepatic lipid accumulation, and PPAR-γ expression. However: inhibiting lipogenesis, hepatic lipid accumulation, and PPAR-γ expression will inevitably flow from the teachings of the prior art (see above rejection), since the same composition (the compound shown above) is being administered to the same subjects (a test cell). See above rejection and MPEP 2112.
Claims 1-3, 6, and 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,993,775 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Reference ‘775 teaches, in claim 1, a method for inhibiting USP24 comprising administering a compound of formula (I-3), shown below, which reads on the compounds of instant claims 1-3 and 6.
PNG
media_image7.png
210
247
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Reference ‘775 fails to teach the administration of the compound of instant claim 9, which differs from the above compound in that it contains an ethyl linker rather than an n-butyl linker.
However, compounds that differ only by the presence of an extra methyl group are homologs. Homologs are of such close structural similarity that the disclosure of a compound renders prima facie obvious its homolog. The homolog is expected to be capable of preparation by the same method and to have the same properties. This expectation is then deemed the motivation for preparing homologs. Homologs are obvious even in the absence of a specific teaching to methylate, In re Wood 199 USPQ 137; In re Hoke 195 USPQ 148; In re Lohr 137 USPQ 548; In re Magerlein 202 USPQ 473; In re Wiechert 152 USPQ 249; Ex parte Henkel 130 USPQ 474; In re Fauque 121 USPQ 425; In re Druey 138 USPQ 39. In all of these cases, the close structural similarity of two compounds differing by only one (or two) methyl groups sufficed; no specific teaching to methylate was present or required. None of these cases has been overruled and indeed the examiner is unaware of any post Lohr case in which motivation is required to put a methyl group on an old compound.
Therefore, it is prima facie obvious to test homologs of a prior art composition for the same purpose, even in the absence of a specific teaching to methylate, since compounds of such close structural similarity are expected to produce the same results.
Regarding instant claims 1, 6, and 9, the prior art is silent regarding using the composition to inhibit lipogenesis, hepatic lipid accumulation, and PPAR-γ expression. However: inhibiting lipogenesis, hepatic lipid accumulation, and PPAR-γ expression will inevitably flow from the teachings of the prior art (see above rejection), since the same composition (the compound shown above) is being administered to the same subjects (a test cell). See above rejection and MPEP 2112.
Advisory Notice
Claims 4, 5, and 7 appear allowable if rewritten in independent form. The prior art does not teach or suggest the administration of these compositions to fat cells, pre-fat cells, and/or adipocyte-like cells, or to an individual with hyperlipidemia.
Conclusion
Claims 1-3, 6, and 8-10 are rejected.
Claims 4, 5, and 7 are objected to.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RILLA M SAMSELL whose telephone number is (703)756-5841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7-3.
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, Jeffrey Murray can be reached at (571) 272-9023. 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.
/R.M.S./Examiner, Art Unit 1624
/JEFFREY H MURRAY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1624