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. Priority Acknowledgments are made that this application claims the priority to the following: . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609. Accordingly, they have been placed in the application file and the information therein has been considered as to the merits. 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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co. , 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drucker ( US 5,789,379 ) in view of Parsons (US 2015/0359816 A1) , Escobar-Chavez (J.Pharm.Pharmaceuti.Sci, 2006, 9(3), 339-358) , Chen (Scientific Reports, 2016, 6:31593, 1-13) , Moradi (Chem.Sci., 2016, 7, 2492-2500) and Henriksen (US 2002/0037836 A1) . For claims 1-3 : Drucker teaches a pharmaceutical composition or formulation comprising effective amount of GLP-2 [see Abstract; line 35, col.9 to line 24, col.10; Example 2; and claims 1- 7, 14 and its dependent claim(s) , wherein GLP-2 of the invention may also be formulated as a slow release implantation device for extended and sustained administration of GLP-2. Examples of such sustained release formulation s include composites of biocompatible polymers, such as poly(lactic acid), poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), methylcellulose, hyaluronic acid, collagen, and the like [see line 65, col.9 to line 24, col.10 ]. Drucker further teaches sequences of GLP-2 [see SEQ ID NO: 2 and 5 ] , which are identical to applicants SEQ ID NOs:1 and 2. SEQ ID NO:2 and 5 of Drucker also read applicants SEQ ID NO:3, when X1, X2 and X36 and X37 are absent. Drucker further teaches that N-terminal amino acid can be acylated and carboxy terminal can be amidated [col.4, lines 26-62; col.5, lines 31-55]. Differences between Drucker and instant claims are as follows: (i) Drucker is silent on thermoreversible gelling agent; (ii) Drucker is silent on glycosylated GLP-2. With regard to (i) of above, it is not clear from the disclosure of Drucker or known art that the cited gelling agents in the disclosure of Drucker are activatable or not , or thermoreversible gelling agents etc [applicants comment on this will be appreciated] . Accordingly, the teachings of Drucker is interpreted as ‘ Drucker is silent on activatable gelling agent or thermoreversible gelling agents’. This can be cured by the following art: Parsons teaches applicants cited gelling agents , specifically thermoreversible gelling agents, and their advantages [see 0087]. Escobar-Chavez teaches t he use of high viscosity hydromiscible vehicles such as hydrophilic gels, is one of various approaches for controlled drug delivery, and represents an important area of pharmaceutical research and development. Of these systems, Pluronic F-127 (PF-127) provides the pharmacist with an excellent drug delivery system for a number of routes of administration and is compatible with many different substances. Gels containing penetration enhancers have proven to be especially popular for administering anti-inflammatory medications since they are relatively easy to prepare and very efficacious. [See abstract, for ex a mple]. Chen also teaches advantages of thermogelling polymers in delivery of liraglutide . The thermogelling polymers were presented by poly(ε-caprolactone-co-glycolic acid)-poly(ethylene glycol)-poly(ε-caprolactone-co-glycolic acid) (PCGA-PEG-PCGA) and poly(lactic acid-co-glycolic acid)-poly(ethylene glycol)-poly(lactic acid-co glycolic acid) (PLGA-PEG-PLGA). Particularly, the liraglutide loaded PCGA-PEG-PCGA thermogel formulation exhibited a sustained drug release manner over one week in both in vitro and in vivo tests. A single subcutaneous injection of this formulation showed a remarkably improved glucose tolerance of mice for one week. [See Abstract]. Therefore, a skilled person in the art would be motivated to incorporate thermoreversible gelling agent in the formulations of GLP-2 peptides in the teachings of Drucker and arrive at applicants claimed method. Also, there is a reasonable expectation of success in light of shown data for the thermoreversible gelling agents with liraglutide, which is structurally closely related to GLP-2. With regard to (ii) of above, glycosylation of peptides or proteins and their advantages are known in the art. For example, Moradi teaches that glycosylation is an effective strategy to improve bioavailability of therapeutic peptides [see whole document], and further teaches glycosylation of GLP-1 and its advantages [see left column in page 2496 and Fig.8]. Therefore, it is obvious to glycosylate GLP-2 in light of its advantages and also it is proven to work in its closely and structurally related GLP-1. For claim 4 : Drucker is also silent on additional therapeutic agents in their formulations. However, formulations of GLP-2 with additional therapeutic agents are known in the art. For example, Henriksen teaches formulations of GLP-2 and another therapeutic agent [see claims 1-12], wherein therapeutic agent is steroid hormone, such as glucocorticoid, which plays crucial role in reducing inflammation. Therefore, it is obvious to incorporate additional therapeutic agents in the formulations of GLP-2 , since such formulations are known to effective to treat additional conditions, as evidenced from the known art. Based on the above established facts from the cited prior art, it appears that all the claimed elements, i.e, applicants individual components in the composition and their advantages , were known in the prior art, and one skilled person in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known relationships, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. M otivation to combine the art can arise from the expectation that the prior art elements will perform their expected functions to achieve their expected results when combined for their common known purpose. See MPEP 2144.07. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by taking the advantage of the teaching of the above cited reference and to make the instantly claimed formulation with a reasonable expectation of success. The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). In the instant case, incorporating the gelling agent and additional therapeutic agent the composition of Drucker . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SUDHAKAR KATAKAM whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9929 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30 am to 5 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Melissa Fisher can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7430 . 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. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT SUDHAKAR KATAKAM Primary Examiner Art Unit 1658 /SUDHAKAR KATAKAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1658