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
Election/Restrictions
Claims 19-42 are pending.
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 19-39, in the reply filed on 7/13/26 is acknowledged.
Claims 40-42 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 7/13/26.
Claims 19-39 are examined on the merits.
Foreign Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE (EPO) 21197484.5 09/17/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE (EPO) 21197484.5 09/17/2022 as required by 35 U.S.C. 119(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 20, 29 and 37 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections –35 USC § 112, 2nd
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 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 35 (at lines 2-3) recites parenthetical expression "(calculated taking the molar equivalent to the UMP amount)". The metes and bounds of Claim 35 are rendered vague and indefinite by the parenthetical recitation of "(including valvular pathology) because it is unclear as to whether the limitation is part of the instantly claimed subject matter.
Therefore, the metes and bounds of claims are rendered vague and indefinite. The lack of clarity renders the claims very confusing and ambiguous since the resulting claims do not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
All other cited claims depend directly or indirectly from rejected claims and are, therefore, also, rejected under U.S.C. 112, second paragraph for the reasons set forth above.
Claim Rejections –35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 19, 21-28, 30-36, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wurtman et al (US 20060241077 A1).
Wurtman et al teach in another embodiment, a composition of methods and compositions of the present invention is a nutritional supplement (in another embodiment, a drink) that comprises: TABLE-US-00001 UMP 0.5 g (thus claims 25-27, and 35 are met) choline 0.3 g fish oil 3.7 g carbohydrate 9.0 g milk protein 3 g [0179] (thus based on 100 g of the composition).
Wurtman et al teach in other embodiments, the solid (thus the claimed solid composition) oral formulations are tablets (thus claim 36 is met), capsules, pills, granules, pellets, or the like [0180] (thus food-approved components including salts).
Wurtman et al teach in another embodiment, the ratio of the sum of these fatty acids (DHA, DPA, and EPA) (thus claims 22-24 are met) to linoleic acid is greater than 0.5. [0176].
Wurtman et al teach in another embodiment, methods and compositions of the present invention comprise administration of choline. In another embodiment, the choline is a choline salt. In another embodiment, the salt is choline chloride. In another embodiment, the salt is choline bitartrate [0160] (thus claim 34 is met).
Wurtman et al teach in other embodiments, the compositions further comprises buffers (e.g., Tris-HCl., acetate, phosphate) of various pH and ionic strength, etc. [0190].
Wurtman et al the present invention is directed to methods of ameliorating hippocampal dysfunction and improving or inhibiting decline in intelligence or cognitive or hippocampal-dependent memory of a subject and of increasing synthesis and release of neurotransmitters, neurite outgrowth, and levels of neurofilament proteins in the brain (thus claim 39 is met) and CNS of a subject, comprising administering to the subject a uridine, an acyl derivative thereof, a uridine phosphate, uracil, or a salt thereof.
Wurtman et al do not teach the claimed amount of pH in claim 19, the claimed amounts of components in per serving in claims 30-33 or 35; or the claimed amount of components on dry matter in claim 38.
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use pH in the range of 5-8 since Wurtman et al teach the compositions further comprises buffers (e.g., Tris-HCl., acetate, phosphate) of various pH.
Regarding the claimed amounts of components in per serving in claims 30-33 or 35; or the claimed amount of components on dry matter in claim 38, determining an appropriate amount of the components per serving or on dry matter is deemed merely a matter of judicious selection and routine optimization which is well within the purview of the skilled artisan.
From the teachings of the references, it is apparent that one of the ordinary skills in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in producing the claimed invention.
Thus, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious over the references, especially in the absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QIUWEN MI whose telephone number is (571)272-5984. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anand 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.
/Qiuwen Mi/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights