CTNF 18/642,665 CTNF 79521 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-fti AIA The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Priority and Status of the Claims 1. This application is a CON of 17341343 06/07/2021 PAT 11963964, which is a CON of 16/074,766 08/01/2018 PAT 11026952, which is a 371 of PCT/US2017/016099 02/01/2017, which is a CIP of 15/012,656 02/01/2016 PAT 9782417, which is a CIP of 14/126,716 06/13/2014 PAT 9248185, which is a 371 of PCT/US2012/042964 06/18/2012, which claims benefit of 61/497,708 06/16/2011. 2 . Claims 16-30 are pending in the application. Double Patenting 15-24-06 AIA 3 . 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. See 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); and 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b). Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 16, 24 and 27 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable independently over claims 1, 3 and 5 of Rubin et al. US 9,782,417, and over claims 1, 3 and 5 of Rubin et al. US 9,248,185. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other and reasons are as follows. Applicants claim a method of increasing cell proliferation, the method comprising: contacting a cell expressing Pax7 and Myf5 with a kinase inhibitor, wherein the kinase inhibitor is selected from the group consisting of Lestaurtinib (i.e., CEP-701), SU 11652, Sunitinib, Bosutinib and Jask inhibitor VI, and the contact is in vivo in a subject, where the subject is in need of treatment for damaged muscle tissue, see claims 16, 24 and 27. Rubin et al. ‘417 claims a method of increasing satellite cell proliferation, the method comprising: contacting a satellite cell with a compound, wherein the compound is selected from the group consisting of SU11652, Sunitinib, Bosutinib, Jak3 Inhibitor V, and combinations thereof, and the contact is in vivo in a subject, where the subject is in need of treatment for damaged muscle tissue, see claims 1, 3 and 5 in columns 85-87. Rubin et al. ‘185 claims a method of increasing satellite cell proliferation in a subject in need thereof, the method comprising contacting a satellite cell of the subject with a compound and thereby increasing satellite cell proliferation, wherein the compound is CEP-701(i.e., Lestaurtinib), and the contact is in vivo in a subject, where the subject is in need of treatment for damaged muscle tissue, see claims 1,3 and 5 in column 76. The difference between instant claims and Rubin et al. ‘417 and ‘185 is that the instant claims are embraced within the scope of Rubin et al. ‘417 and ‘185. It is noted that the instant claims have a broader scope of cell proliferation. One having ordinary skill in the art would find the claims 16, 24 and 27 prima facie obvious because one would be motivated to employ the methods of use of Rubin et al. ‘417 and ‘185 to obtain instant invention. The motivation to make the claimed methods of use derived from the known methods of use of Rubin et al. ‘417 and ‘185would possess similar activity to that which is claimed in the reference. Claim Objections 4 . Claims 17-23, 25-26 and 28-30 are objected to as being dependent on rejected claim 16. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REI TSANG SHIAO whose telephone number is (571)272-0707. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30 am-5:00 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, Renee Claytor can be reached on 571-272-8394. 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. /REI TSANG SHIAO/ Rei-tsang Shiao, Ph.D.Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691 June 01, 2026 Application/Control Number: 18/642,665 Page 2 Art Unit: 1691 Application/Control Number: 18/642,665 Page 3 Art Unit: 1691 Application/Control Number: 18/642,665 Page 4 Art Unit: 1691 Application/Control Number: 18/642,665 Page 5 Art Unit: 1691
Prosecution Insights