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 Status
Claims 1-27 were filed in a preliminary amendment on 07/31/2024. Claims 1-12 have been cancelled.
Claims 13-27 are currently pending and under examination.
Priority
Applicant claims benefit to U.S. application no. 63/623933 filed on 01/23/2024. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120,121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant filed divisional application no. 18/790366 on 07/31/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/21/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 14-15, 19-20, and 26-27 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.
Claims 14-15, 19-20, and 26-27 all recite “wherein the cannabidiolic cocrystal is selected from the group comprising” in the preamble of each respective claim followed by a listing of cannabidiolic cocrystal alternatives. A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim (see MPEP 2173.05(h)). In the instant case, it is unclear what other cannabidiolic cocrystals alternatives are intended to be encompassed due to the transitional phrase of the group being “comprising”. Therefore, the scope of the claims is indefinite.
For purposes of applying prior art, the groups of cannabidiolic acid cocrystals of claims 14-15, 19-20, and 26-27 will be interpreted as closed groups which only encompass the recited cannabidiolic acid cocrystal alternatives.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yarger et al. (WO2023225403A2, published 11/23/2023, IDS dated 02/21/2025).
Yager et al. recites a crystalline form of cannabidiolic acid (CBDa) comprising the structure of CBDa (see claim 1, shown below). Yarger et al. also recites wherein the crystalline form comprises a single component crystalline form or a multicomponent crystalline form (see claim 2). Yarger et al. also recites wherein the multicomponent crystalline form comprises a co-crystal or a salt (see claim 3). Lastly, Yarger et al. recites wherein the crystalline form further comprises a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier or an editable
PNG
media_image1.png
172
224
media_image1.png
Greyscale
carrier (see claim 62).
Regarding instant claim 13, Yarger et al. recites a crystalline form of cannabidiolic acid (CBDa) wherein the crystalline form comprises a multicomponent crystalline form and wherein the multicomponent crystalline form comprises a co-crystal, corresponding to the instant cannabidiolic acid cocrystal. Yarger et al. further recites the crystalline form further comprises a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, corresponding to the instant pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
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 (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 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.
Claims 13-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Yarger et al. (WO2023225403A2, published 11/23/2023, IDS dated 02/21/2025).
The teachings of Yarger et al. were discussed above. Furthermore Yarger et al. teaches a 1:1 CBDa-caffeine cocrystal (see Fig 58). Yarger et al. teaches compositions, such as pharmaceutical compositions, comprising the crystalline compounds described (see 00199). In making the compositions, the active ingredient is mixed with an excipient, diluted by an excipient, or enclosed within such a carrier which can be in the form of a capsule, sachet, paper or other container. When the excipient serves as a diluent, it can be a solid, semi-solid, or liquid material, which acts as a vehicle, carrier, or medium for the active ingredient (see 00203). The compositions can be formulated in a unit dosage form, each dosage containing a therapeutically effective amount of the active ingredients (see 00208). Unit dosage forms comprise capsules, troches, cachets, lozenges, tablets, ampules and vials, which can comprise a composition in a freeze-dried or lyophilized state (see 00209). The oral liquid dosage forms of the compositions comprise tinctures, drops, emulsions, syrups, elixirs, suspensions, and solutions, and the like. These oral liquid dosage forms can be formulated with any pharmaceutically acceptable excipient known to those of skill in the art for the preparation of liquid dosage forms, and with solvents, diluents, carriers, excipients, and the like chosen as appropriate to the solubility and other properties of the active agents and other ingredients (see 00230). The pharmaceutical compositions comprise a therapeutically effective amount or an effective amount of the compound, such as for administration to a subject (see 00249). The terms “subject,” can refer to any mammal, including murines, simians, mammalian farm animals, mammalian sport animals, and mammalian pets, and humans (see 00275). The pharmaceutical composition comprising the composition can be present in an amount so that a single dose is (in a milligram dosage amount calculated based on the kilogram weight of the patient), e.g., 0.25 mg/kg or less (including a dose of 0.005 mg/kg or less) or at least 3.0 mg/kg, as well as within these ranges (see 00251). The composition comprising the crystalline compounds can be present in pharmaceutical compositions in doses from 0.0005 mg or less and at least 2000 mg, as well as amounts within these ranges (see 00253). The crystalline forms are used to treat a condition, such as a disease or a disorder (see 00276). The compounds or pharmaceutical compositions comprising the crystalline forms are administered to a subject by one or more routes of administration. When administered through one or more of such routes, the compound(s) and the compositions and formulations comprising them are useful in methods for treating a patient in need of such treatment (see 00277). Yarger et al. further teaches cocrystals of THCa (THCa shown below and see claim 18). A 1:1 THCa : Proline cocrystal was produced (see 00103 and Fig
PNG
media_image2.png
154
208
media_image2.png
Greyscale
76).
The teachings of Yarger et al. differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that Yarger et al. does not exemplify the instant pharmaceutical composition comprising a cannabidiolic acid cocrystal and a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. Furthermore, Yarger et al. does not exemplify wherein the coformer of the CBDa cocrystal is selected from the group consisting of L-phenylalanine, vanillin, betaine, ethyl maltol, L-proline, or D-proline.
Regarding the limitation of the pharmaceutical composition , it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the cannabidiolic acid (CBDa) caffeine cocrystal to a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the CBDa cocrystal to a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier because, as taught by Yarger et al., the crystalline form can further comprise a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Yarger et al. explicitly teaches that the crystalline forms, including the CBDa-caffeine cocrystal can be formulated with a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
Regarding the limitation of coformer, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the caffeine coformer in the CBDa : caffeine cocrystal for proline to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the caffeine coformer for proline because, as taught by Yarger et al., proline can be used as a coformer for THCa which is structurally similar to CBDa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because CBDa and THCa are constitutional (structural) isomers with the same molecular weight and functional groups which would be expected to exhibit similar chemical behavior.
Regarding instant claim 13, Yarger et al. teaches a CBDa-caffeine cocrystal, corresponding to the instant cannabidiolic acid cocrystal (see Fig 58 and shown below). This is combined with the teaching of Yarger et al. that the crystalline form can further comprise a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, corresponding to the instant pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (see claim 62).
Regarding instant claims 14 and 15, Yarger et al. teaches a 1:1 CBDa cocrystal with caffeine as the coformer which is substituted with proline, corresponding to the instant cannabidiolic acid cocrystal being 1:1 cannabidiolic acid L-proline and 1:1 cannabidiolic acid D-proline.
Regarding instant claim 16, Yarger et al. teaches the compositions can be formulated in a unit dosage form, each dosage containing a therapeutically effective amount of the active ingredients, corresponding to the instant pharmaceutical composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of the cannabidiolic acid cocrystal (see 00208).
Regarding instant claims 17 and 23, Yarger et al. teaches the composition can be present in an amount of 0.25 mg/kg or less (including a dose of 0.005 mg/kg or less) or at least 3.0 mg/kg, as well as within these ranges, corresponding to the instant therapeutically effective amount of the cannabidiolic acid cocrystal being about 0.01 mg/kg, 0.02 mg/kg, 0.05 mg/kg, 0.1 mg/kg, 0.2 mg/kg, 0.5 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, 2 mg/kg, 5 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, 20 mg/kg, 50 mg/kg, 100 mg/kg, 200 mg/kg, or 500 mg/kg (see 00251). Yarger et al. further teaches the composition comprising the crystalline compounds can be present in pharmaceutical compositions in doses from 0.0005 mg or less and at least 2000 mg, as well as amounts within these ranges, corresponding to the instant pharmaceutical composition wherein the therapeutically effective amount of the cannabidiolic acid cocrystal is about 50 mg, 100 mg, 250 mg, 500 mg, 750 mg, 1000 mg, 1500 mg, 2000 mg, about 50 to 1500 mg, about 100 to 1000 mg, or about 250 to 750 mg (see 00253). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding instant claim 18, Yarger et al. teaches the crystalline forms are used to treat a condition, such as a disease or a disorder (see 00276), corresponding to the instant method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition. Yarger et al. further teaches the pharmaceutical compositions, corresponding to the instant pharmaceutical composition of cannabidiolic acid cocrystal, comprise a therapeutically effective amount of the compound, corresponding to the instant therapeutically effective amount, such as for administration to a subject, corresponding to the instant step of administering to the patient the pharmaceutical composition (see 00249).
Regarding instant claims 19 and 20, Yarger et al. teaches a 1:1 CBDa cocrystal with caffeine as the coformer which is substituted with proline, corresponding to the instant cannabidiolic acid cocrystal being 1:1 cannabidiolic acid L-proline and 1:1 cannabidiolic acid D-proline.
Regarding instant claims 21 and 22, Yarger et al. teaches the subject is any mammal, corresponding to the instant patient being an animal, and this includes humans, corresponding to the instant patient being human (see 00275).
Regarding instant claim 24, Yarger et al. teaches the composition, corresponding to the instant pharmaceutical composition comprising cannabidiolic acid cocrystal, can be a solid, semi-solid, or liquid material, corresponding to the instant step of administering the cannabidiolic cocrystal as a solid, a semi-solid, or a liquid dosage form. Yarger et al. further teaches the composition, corresponding to the instant pharmaceutical composition, can be in a freeze-dried or lyophilized state, corresponding to the instant step of administration of the cannabidiolic cocrystal as a lyophilized powder.
Regarding instant claim 25, Yarger et al. teaches the oral liquid dosage forms of the compositions, corresponding to the instant cannabidiolic acid cocrystal, can be formulated with any pharmaceutically acceptable excipient known to those of skill in the art for the preparation of liquid dosage forms, and with solvents, corresponding to the instant step of dissolving the cannabidiolic acid cocrystal in a pharmaceutically acceptable solvent (see 00230).
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 13-15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,649 B1 (‘649, published 06/03/2025, PTO-892).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘649 recites a composition comprising: a cannabidiolic acid cocrystal, wherein the cannabidiolic acid cocrystal is selected from the group consisting of: a 1:1 cannabidiolic acid L-phenylalanine cocrystal, a 1:1 cannabidiolic acid vanillin cocrystal, a 1:1 cannabidiolic acid betaine cocrystal, a 1:1 cannabidiolic acid ethyl maltol cocrystal, a 1:1 cannabidiolic acid L-proline cocrystal, and a 1:1 cannabidiolic acid D-proline cocrystal (see claim 1). The composition comprising: the cannabidiolic acid cocrystal of claim 1 and an excipient (see claim 8).
Instant claims 13-15 are anticipated by claims 1 and 8 of ‘649.
Regarding instant claim 13, ‘649 recites a composition comprising: a cannabidiolic acid cocrystal, corresponding to the instant cannabidiolic acid cocrystal, in claim 1 and further recites the cannabidiolic acid cocrystal of claim 1 and an excipient, corresponding to the instant pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
Regarding instant claims 14 and 15, ‘649 recites wherein the cannabidiolic acid cocrystal is selected from the group consisting of: a 1:1 cannabidiolic acid L-phenylalanine cocrystal, corresponding to the instant a cannabidiolic acid L-phenylalanine cocrystal, as required by instant claim 14, and being 1:1, as required by instant claim 15, a 1:1 cannabidiolic acid vanillin cocrystal, corresponding to the instant a cannabidiolic acid vanillin cocrystal, as required by instant claim 14, and being 1:1, as required by instant claim 15, a 1:1 cannabidiolic acid betaine cocrystal, corresponding to the instant a cannabidiolic acid betaine cocrystal, as required by instant claim 14, and being 1:1, as required by instant claim 15, a 1:1 cannabidiolic acid ethyl maltol cocrystal, corresponding to the instant a cannabidiolic acid ethyl maltol cocrystal, as required by instant claim 14, and being 1:1, as required by instant claim 15, a 1:1 cannabidiolic acid L-proline cocrystal, corresponding to the instant a cannabidiolic acid L-proline cocrystal, as required by instant claim 14, and being 1:1, as required by instant claim 15, and a 1:1 cannabidiolic acid D-proline cocrystal, corresponding to the instant a cannabidiolic acid D-proline cocrystal, as required by instant claim 14, and being 1:1, as required by instant claim 15. ‘649 further recites the composition comprising: the cannabidiolic acid cocrystal of claim 1 and an excipient, the excipient corresponding to the instant pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, as required by instant claims 14-15.
Claims 16-27 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,319,649 B1 (‘649, published 06/03/2025, PTO-892), as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Yarger et al. (WO2023225403A2, published 11/23/2023, IDS dated 02/21/2025).
The claims of ‘649 were discussed above.
The claims of ‘649 differ from that of the instantly claimed invention in that ‘649 does not recite the composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of a cannabidiolic acid cocrystal, as required by instant claims 16 and 17, a method of treating a disease, disorder, or condition, as required by instant claims 18-24, and a method of preparing a liquid pharmaceutical composition, as required by instant claims 25-27.
The teachings of Yarger et al. were discussed above. Specifically, Yarger et al. teaches pharmaceutical compositions, the characteristics of the compositions, and uses of the compositions comprising a CBDa caffeine cocrystal.
It would have been obvious to combine ‘649 with the teachings of Yarger et al. by using the CBDa cocrystal compositions, as taught by ‘649, in a therapeutically effective amount of a cannabidiolic acid (CBDa) cocrystal, as taught by Yarger et al., using the composition, as taught by ‘649, to treat a disease, disorder, or condition, as taught by Yarger et al., and using the composition, as taught by ‘649, to make a liquid pharmaceutical composition, as taught by Yarger et al., to arrive at the instantly claimed invention. It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to include a therapeutically effective amount of CBDa cocrystal in a composition, using the composition to treat a disease, disorder, or condition, and using the composition to make a liquid pharmaceutical composition because, as taught by Yarger et al., CBDa cocrystals can be used in pharmaceutical compositions which comprise therapeutically effective amounts of CBDa cocrystal and the pharmaceutical compositions which can be used to treat a condition, such as a disease or a disorder, and can also be in the form of a liquid formulation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success because Yarger et al. explicitly teaches CBDa cocrystals are used in pharmaceutical compositions in therapeutically effective amounts and can be made into liquid formulations.
Regarding instant claim 16, ‘649 recites a group of cannabidiolic acid (CBDa) cocrystals and an excipient which is used in combination with the teachings of Yarger et al. to include a therapeutically effective amount of the CBDa cocrystal (see 00208).
Regarding instant claims 17 and 23, ‘649 recites a group of cannabidiolic acid (CBDa) cocrystals and an excipient which is used in combination with the teachings of Yarger et al. to be present in an amount of 0.25 mg/kg or less (including a dose of 0.005 mg/kg or less) or at least 3.0 mg/kg, as well as within these ranges, corresponding to the instant therapeutically effective amount of the cannabidiolic acid cocrystal being about 0.01 mg/kg, 0.02 mg/kg, 0.05 mg/kg, 0.1 mg/kg, 0.2 mg/kg, 0.5 mg/kg, 1 mg/kg, 2 mg/kg, 5 mg/kg, 10 mg/kg, 20 mg/kg, 50 mg/kg, 100 mg/kg, 200 mg/kg, or 500 mg/kg (see 00251). Yarger et al. further teaches the composition comprising the crystalline compounds can be present in pharmaceutical compositions in doses from 0.0005 mg or less and at least 2000 mg, as well as amounts within these ranges, corresponding to the instant pharmaceutical composition wherein the therapeutically effective amount of the cannabidiolic acid cocrystal is about 50 mg, 100 mg, 250 mg, 500 mg, 750 mg, 1000 mg, 1500 mg, 2000 mg, about 50 to 1500 mg, about 100 to 1000 mg, or about 250 to 750 mg (see 00253). In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding instant claims 18-20, ‘649 recites a group of cannabidiolic acid (CBDa) cocrystals and an excipient, corresponding to the instant CBDa cocrystals of instant claims 19 and 20, which is used in combination with the teachings of Yarger et al. to make the pharmaceutical compositions comprising a therapeutically effective amount of the compound, corresponding to the instant therapeutically effective amount, such as for administration to a subject, corresponding to the instant step of administering to the patient the pharmaceutical composition (see 00249).
Regarding instant claims 21 and 22, Yarger et al. teaches the subject is any mammal, corresponding to the instant patient being an animal, and this includes humans, corresponding to the instant patient being human (see 00275).
Regarding instant claim 24, Yarger et al. teaches the composition, corresponding to the instant pharmaceutical composition comprising cannabidiolic acid cocrystal, can be a solid, semi-solid, or liquid material, corresponding to the instant step of administering the cannabidiolic cocrystal as a solid, a semi-solid, or a liquid dosage form. Yarger et al. further teaches the composition, corresponding to the instant pharmaceutical composition, can be in a freeze-dried or lyophilized state, corresponding to the instant step of administration of the cannabidiolic cocrystal as a lyophilized powder.
Regarding instant claim 25-27, ‘649 recites a group of cannabidiolic acid (CBDa) cocrystals and an excipient, corresponding to the instant CBDa cocrystals of instant claims 26 and 27, which is combined with the teachings of Yarger et al. which teaches the oral liquid dosage forms of the compositions, corresponding to the instant cannabidiolic acid cocrystal, can be formulated with any pharmaceutically acceptable excipient known to those of skill in the art for the preparation of liquid dosage forms, and with solvents, corresponding to the instant step of dissolving the cannabidiolic acid cocrystal in a pharmaceutically acceptable solvent (see 00230).
Conclusion
No claim is found allowable.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTEN WEEKS BRADY whose telephone number is (571)272-5906. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm.
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, Scarlett Goon can be reached at (571) 272-5960. 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.
/KRISTEN W BRADY/ Examiner, Art Unit 1692
/SCARLETT Y GOON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1693
Prosecution Insights