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. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “Sulphur” is capitalized in line 6 which should not have a capital letter. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim states the carbohydrate is optionally “poly saccharides” wherein the word should not have a space and should be “polysaccharides”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the word “Polysulphated” is capitalized in line 5 which should not have a capital letter. Appropriate correction is required. Specification The use of the term Adequan®, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term . Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-12 and 14-19 are 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 claims are drawn to compositions for use in the treatment of one of a disorder and a disease selected from mitochondrial activity related disease and disorder and from an adiponectin related disease and disorder , and methods of treating the same . However, it is unclear what would be embraced by a mitochondrial activity related disease and disorder and an adiponectin related disease and disorder. How must the diseases be related to these features to read on the claims? Claim 3 recites the limitation "the saccharide in the polysaccharide is" in the 4 th line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1, the claim from which this depends, does not provide support for and saccharide or polysaccharide as claim 1 provides for carbohydrates, which is much different than a polysaccharide. Changing the claim to depend on claim 2 would overcome this rejection. Regarding claim 3, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Are applicants claiming the whole scope before the “in particular”? Claim 15 provides the disease and disorder is selected from a metabolic disease, a fibrosis related disorder and disease, a cardiovascular disease, and a neurodegenerative disease. However, it is unclear what would be embraced by a fibrosis related disease and disorder . How must the diseases be related to fibrosis to read on the claims? Claim 12 contains the trademark/trade name Adequan®. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a polysulphated glycosaminoglycan and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. All claims which depend from an indefinite claim are also indefinite. Ex parte Cordova, 10 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1949, 1952 (P.T.O. Bd. App. 1989). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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. Claim(s) 1-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US2018/0344761 . ‘761 discloses compositions compr i sing at least one carbohydrate containing at least one sulphate in combination with a compound that can activate PPARγ synergistically activate a number of genes important for adipocyte formation (see [0164] and table II). The carbohydrates are taught to optionally be glycosaminoglycans (see [0068]) and are preferably polysulphated glycosaminoglycans (Adequan) and heparin like pentosan polysulphate ( Elmiron ) (see [0084]). The second part of the composition – the PPAR agonists are taught to be triglitazones (pioglitazone) or indomethacin (see [0085]). The carbohydrate compounds are shown to be used in combination such as A dequan ® and pentosan polysulphate in combination with the PPARγ activators such as indomethacin or pioglitazone – see figures 2-4 and [0153]. The compositions are taught to be useful for a pet or a mammal (see [0042]). The composition is taught to optionally have separate dosages forms for the individual pharmaceutical active agents (see [0044]). The amount of carbohydrate is preferably 0-10 wt% of the total composition and the amount of PPAR agonist is present in an amount of 0-10 wt%; thus the combination would be present in an amount of 0-20 wt% of the composition (see [0123]-[0124]). The compositions are taught to be in various forms such as nanospheres , and administered via various routes such as oral or local administration. The compositions are taught to be formulated with a carrier (see [0120]). The ratio of the two agents is taught to be 1:1 to 1:5, falling within the scope claimed herein (see [0125]. These compositions are shown to be used for treating obesity and other weight disorders such as coronary artery disease, atherosclerosis, metabolic syndrome, hypertension, stroke, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, and some cancers (see [0036], which reads on the present claims of at least metabolic, fibrosis related, and cardiovascular diseases ‘761 meets all of the structural limitations implied by the recited intended use of the claimed invention and is capable of being used according to the recited intended uses (see MPEP 2111.04). 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 1-1 2 and 14-1 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,792,303 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications are drawn to substantially overlapping compositions . ‘303 is drawn to compositions comprising a pentosan or polysulphated glycosaminoglycan and a compound that can activate PPAR selected from drugs including pioglitazone and indomethacin (see claim 1 and 13) in amounts of 1:1 to 1:5 (see claim 15) wherein the first and second agents are each present in amounts of 0.1-10 wt. % based on the weight of the composition(see claim 16). The compositions include a carrier (see claim 3); can be combined active agents or in separate dosage forms (see claims 4-5). The composition is also taught to be used for a pet or a mammal (see claim 11). The claims are also drawn to methods of treating obesity or disorders contributed by obesity – which would render obvious the present methods of treatment which embrace methods of treating metabolic diseases as obesity is a metabolic disease. A skilled artisan would see the compositions and methods claimed in ‘303 would anticipate and render obvious the pre s ent claims. Regarding present claim 7 – while the salt form is limited herein, the salt form is not required to be administered, thus still being obvious over ‘303. Likewise, the use as set fo r in ‘303 would meet the limitations of present claim 8 as the composition therein could be used for the same manner claimed herein, thus meeting the claim’s limitations. Regarding present claim 12 requiring all four active agents, this would be prima facia obvious over ‘303 as they claim all of these agents to be used in combinations, forming a combination of all 4 would be prima facia obvious. Likewise, it is noted that in the present application, applicants did not make any compositions with all four agents as claimed in claim 12 herein. Regarding present claims 18-19 and the dosage amounts – these too would be obvious in view of ‘303 as they teach the same drugs, in the same rations, in the same total amounts based on wt%, to treat the same populations. Claims 1-12 and 14-19 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, and 9-12 of copending Application No. 17/995,823. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘823 recites the use of the same pharmaceutical composition of the instant application comprising one compound such as pentosan polysul ph ate and another compound such as indomethacin or pioglitazone in weight ratio of 1:1 to 10:1 (see claim 1 of ‘823). The method is for treating various conditions such as lung fibrosis (which reads on the present compositions and methods of treating fibrosis related diseases). Claim 6 provides the composition comprises a carrier and the dosage is 1-10 mg active agent/kg body weight. As such, the present compositions would be prima facia obvious in view of the methods of using the same compositions in ‘823. Likewise, the methods of both applications are overlapping in treating the same fibrosis related diseases. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TRAVISS C MCINTOSH III whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0657 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 9AM-5:30PM EST . 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 Scarlett Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5241 . 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 TRAVISS C. MCINTOSH III Primary Examiner Art Unit 1693 /TRAVISS C MCINTOSH III/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693