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, 2, 4-7, 15, 16, 20, 22-24, 27, 32, 33, 36, 41, 46, 48, and 52, are pending and under examination.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is 14 words and does not describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. Further, the abstract recites “the technology describes” which is a phrase which can be implied. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
The examiner best understands the limitation of wherein the anion is a carboxylic acid to refer to the carboxylate of the carboxylic acid, where it appears that the skilled artisan would reasonably recognize the limitation to refer to the carboxylate anion, rather than the carboxylic acid as a whole, which would have a neutral charge. Accordingly, ionic liquids comprising the carboxylate of the carboxylic acids are interpreted as meeting the claimed limitations. For example, lactate is interpreted to meet the limitation of lactic acid anion.
Claim Objections
Claim 27 is objected to because of the following informalities: “GLP-1 polypeptide or mimetic or analog thereof” should read “GLP-1 polypeptide, mimetic, or analog thereof” in order to remove the unnecessary “or”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 16, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (Adv Sci, 2021, 8, 2003995, pp. 1-9, and supporting information).
Chen et al disclose ionic liquids comprising acetylcholine paired carboxylate-co-ions, specifically butyrate, hexanoate, and octanoate (2.2 1st ¶). 1 mol of the desired carboxylic acid was combined with 1 mol acetylcholine chloride to from acetylcholine carboxylate ionic liquids (see supporting information, Synthesis of AcH Carboxylate Ionic Liquids). As evidenced by the instant specification octanoic acid has a pKa of 4.895 and a logP of 3.01 (see Table 3 of the instant specification).
Regarding claims 1, 2, and 7, Chen discloses embodiments comprising an ionic liquid comprising acetylcholine cation and the carboxylic acid octanoic acid, which corresponds to the carboxylate ion octanoate, thereby meeting the claimed limitations.
Regarding claim 16, where 1 mol of acetylcholine was combined with 1 mol of carboxylic acid, it appears that the ratio of cation to anion is 1:1, falling within the claimed range.
Claims 1 and 2, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al (Green Chem, 2019, 21(3): 567-577), as evidenced by Millipore Sigma (Valeric Acid, retrieved 2026).
Zhao et al disclose acetylcholine based ionic liquids with carboxylate anions, including acetylcholine valerate (pg 568 2nd col last ¶, scheme 1). As evidenced by Millipore Sigma, valeric acid is synonymous with pentanoic acid (synonyms). As evidenced by the instant specification, pentanoic acid has a logP of 1.39 and a pKa of 4.84 (see Table 3 of the instant specification)
Where Zhao et al disclose an embodiment comprising an ionic liquid comprising acetylcholine (cation) and valerate (anion corresponding to pentanoic acid), the limitations are met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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, 2, 4, 5, 7, 16, 20, 22-24, 27, 32, 33, 36, 41, 46, 48, and 52, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitragotri et al (US 20200289421 A1, hereinafter “Mitragotri”), in view of Rogers et al (US 20120046244 A1, hereinafter “Rogers”), as evidenced by PubChem (Malonic Acid, 2026).
Mitragotri teaches compositions comprising ionic liquids comprising at least one anionic and at least one cationic component (abs, ¶ 90). The anion includes hexanoate, geranate, malonate, etc., and the cation includes choline (¶¶ 5, 19, 91, 450). As evidenced by the instant specification, malonic acid is a carboxylic acid which is not a fatty acid and has a LogP of -0.81 and a pKa of 2.8 (see table 1 of the instant specification). As evidenced by PubChem, malonic acid comprises 3 carbon atoms. The cation:anion molar ratios include but are not limited to 2:1, 1:1, etc., and ranges between the ratios (¶ 90). The compositions further comprise at least one active compound including a polypeptide, antibodies, antibody reagents, insulin, a GLP-1 polypeptide or mimic/analogue thereof, nucleic acids including inhibitory nucleic acids, siRNA, plasmid DNA, mRNA, etc. (¶¶ 11, 106, 205, 206, 595, claims 16, 21, 22, 29). The ionic liquid is at a concentration of at least 0.1% w/v (¶¶ 9, 16, 29, 93, claim 9). The compositions can be formulated for administration transdermally, to a mucus membrane, orally, subcutaneously, intradermally, parenterally, intratumorally, or intravenously (¶¶ 20, 121, 149, 343). The compositions further include a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier (¶¶ 7, 114, claim 37). The composition may be provided in a degradable capsule, in an admixture, etc. (¶¶ 9, 13, claim 41). The administration is administration to a subject (¶ 23). The ionic liquids contain at least one anionic and at least one cationic component (¶ 90).
Mitragotri does not teach a cation which is a quaternary ammonium comprising an ester group.
Rogers teaches ionic liquid compositions comprising active pharmaceutical compounds comprising an anion and a cation, where it was known to include quaternary ammonium compounds as cations (abs, ¶¶ 76, 104). Any compound that contains a quaternary nitrogen atom or a nitrogen atom that can be converted into a quaternary nitrogen atom can be a suitable cation for the disclosed ionic liquid compositions (¶ 104). A suitable group of quaternary ammonium cations are those that have been prepared by esterifying a compound containing a carboxylic acid moiety with a choline moiety; such choline esters can be biofriendly permanent ions and can be used to increase the solubility and bioavailability of many neutral compounds (¶ 135). One or more ions of the ionic liquid compositions can be pharmaceutical actives including pharmaceutical compounds existing as salts which are converted to an ion and then combined with a suitable counterion to prepare the ionic liquids (¶ 146). Specific examples of pharmaceutical actives that are ionic or can be made ionic and then combined with other ions to form the ionic liquids along with their typical pharmaceutical use include choline chloride, acetylcholine chloride, etc. (¶¶ 147, 148, 242).
Regarding the cation of claim 1, it would have been obvious to modify the ionic liquid composition of Mitragotri by substituting other known quaternary ammonium compounds known to be suitable for ionic liquid compositions comprising active pharmaceutical compounds for the choline of Mitragotri, including quaternary ammonium compounds comprising an ester group, such as acetylcholine chloride as taught by Rogers, depending on the desired pharmaceutical properties for desired use.
Regarding the anion of claims 1 and 7, it would have been obvious to select among those suitable anions taught by Mitragotri, including geranate and malonate. The examiner notes that geranate and malonate are the specific anions corresponding to geranic acid (pKa 5.26, LogP 2.72, see Table 3 of the instant specification) and malonic acid (LogP -0.81, pKa 2.8, see Table 1 of the instant specification).
Regarding claim 2, it would have been obvious to substitute acetylcholine chloride for the choline of Mitragotri, for the same reasons discussed above, which appears to read on the cation acetylcholine. Purely arguendo, if somehow acetylcholine chloride does not meet the limitation of comprising the cation acetylcholine, it would have been obvious to convert the salt form of acetylcholine to an ion (i.e., the free cation acetylcholine) to prepare the ionic liquids, as taught by Rogers.
Regarding claim 4, it would have been obvious to select from malonate as the anion, as taught by Mitragotri.
Regarding claim 5, malonic acid is made obvious above and is evidenced above as comprising 3 carbon atoms, thereby meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 16, it would have been obvious to formulate the ionic liquid made obvious above with a ratio of cation to anion from 2:1, 1:1, and ranges between, as taught to be suitable by Mitragotri. 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 claim 20, where Mitragotri teaches the ionic liquids contain at least one anionic and at least one cationic component, it would have been obvious to include additional anionic and cationic components, thereby appearing to read on an additional ionic liquid.
Regarding claims 22-24, 27, 32, and 33, it would have been obvious to include at least one active compound in combination with the ionic liquid, including polypeptide, antibodies, antibody reagents, insulin, a GLP-1 polypeptide or mimic/analogue thereof, nucleic acids including inhibitory nucleic acids, siRNA, plasmid DNA, mRNA, etc., as taught by Mitragotri.
Regarding claim 36, it would have been obvious to include the ionic liquid made obvious above at a concentration of at least 0.1% w/v, as taught by Mitragotri.
Regarding claim 41, it would have been obvious to formulate the compositions in forms that are capable of being administered transdermally, to a mucus membrane, orally, subcutaneously, intradermally, parenterally, intratumorally, or intravenously, as taught by Mitragotri.
Regarding claim 46, it would have been obvious to further include a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, as motivated by Mitragotri.
Regarding claim 48, it would have been obvious to formulate the compositions made obvious above in a degradable capsule, admixture, etc., as taught by Mitragotri.
Regarding claim 52, it would have been obvious to use the composition made obvious above for the method of administering at least one active compound to a subject comprising administering the composition, as taught by Mitragotri.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitragotri et al (US 20200289421 A1, hereinafter “Mitragotri”) and Rogers et al (US 20120046244 A1, hereinafter “Rogers”), and further in view of Zhang (CN 109464661 A, cited on IDS dated 04/02/2024), as evidenced by NIST (Lactic Acid, retrieved 2026).
Mitragotri and Rogers are discussed above but do not appear to teach an embodiment as claimed wherein the carboxylic acid which is not a fatty acid comprises only one carboxylic acid group.
Zhang teaches it was known to formulate choline ion containing ionic liquids with an anion such as lactate ion (¶¶ 15, 21, 22). As evidenced by NIST, lactic acid comprises only one carboxylic acid group.
It would have been obvious to modify the ionic liquid of Mitragotri and Rogers by selecting from other known anionic compounds suitable for forming ionic liquids with choline containing cations, such as lactate ion, the anion of lactic acid. The skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success where Mitragotri, Rogers, and Zhang are all directed to the same field of ionic liquids comprising an anion and cation that are capable of being used as pharmaceutical compositions.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitragotri et al (US 20200289421 A1, hereinafter “Mitragotri”) and Rogers et al (US 20120046244 A1, hereinafter “Rogers”), and further in view of Tanner et al (Adv Mater, 2019, 31, 1901103, pp. 1-10, hereinafter “Tanner”, cited on IDS dated 04/02/2024).
Mitragotri and Rogers are discussed above but do not specifically teach wherein the anion is hexenoic acid.
Tanner teaches ionic liquids for transdermal drug delivery where it was known to include hexenoic acid as the anion component (abs, tables 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to modify the combination above by selecting from other known anions suitable for ionic liquid compositions for drug delivery, including hexenoic acid, as taught by Tanner.
Claims 20 and 46, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mitragotri et al (US 20200289421 A1, hereinafter “Mitragotri”) and Rogers et al (US 20120046244 A1, hereinafter “Rogers”), and further in view of Mitragotri et al (WO 2020180534 A1, hereinafter “Mitragotri ‘534”, cited on IDS dated 04/02/2024).
Mitragotri and Rogers are discussed above, and purely arguendo, if the teaching of at least one anionic and cationic compound does not reasonably suggest a second ionic liquid, the following applies.
Mitragotri ‘534 teaches methods and compositions for drug delivery comprising an ionic liquid and a non-ionic surfactant, where it was known to formulate compositions comprising at least one ionic liquid (abs, ¶ 20). The combination of ionic liquid and non-ionic surfactant were advantageous, providing both excellent drug delivery characteristics and superior stability (¶¶ 20, 62).
Regarding claim 20, where Mitragotri suggests that multiple cationic and anionic compounds can be included, it would have been obvious to modify the composition made obvious above by including a second ionic liquid, where Mitragotri ‘534 teaches it was known to formulate ionic liquid compositions for active agent delivery with multiple ionic liquids, as a matter of combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Regarding claim 46, it would have been obvious to modify the composition made obvious above by further including a non-ionic surfactant in order to improve the drug delivery characteristics and stability, as taught by Mitragotri ‘534.
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, 2, 4-7, 15, 16, 20, 22-24, 27, 32, 33, 36, 41, 46, 48, and 52, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 19/177,686 (reference application), hereinafter ‘686, in view of Mitragotri et al (US 20200289421 A1, hereinafter “Mitragotri”), Rogers et al (US 20120046244 A1, hereinafter “Rogers”), Tanner et al (Adv Mater, 2019, 31, 1901103, pp. 1-10, hereinafter “Tanner”), Zhang (CN 109464661 A), and Mitragotri et al (WO 2020180534 A1, hereinafter “Mitragotri ‘534”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘686 disclose methods of immunizing a subject and compositions comprising an ionic liquid comprising an anion. The ionic liquid comprises a quaternary ammonium cation, including a choline cation. The anion is an organic acid anion, including a carboxylic acid anion. The cation:anion molar ratio is from 4:1 to 1:4. Administration is by injection, subcutaneous injection, or mucosal administration. The compositions further comprise an antigen. The concentration of ionic liquid is from 1-50% w/v.
The claims of ‘686 do not disclose a cation which is a quaternary ammonium comprising an ester group, the anions of claims 3-7, and 15, an additional ionic liquid, the active compounds of claims 27, 32, and 33, the surfactant or carrier of claim 46, nor the form of claim 48.
It would have been obvious to substitute acetylcholine for choline cation, for the same reasons discussed above by Rogers.
It would have been obvious to select from other known anions suitable for ionic liquid compositions, including those taught by Mitragotri, Tanner, and Zhang for the same reasons discussed above.
It would have been obvious to further include a second ionic liquid, where ionic liquids with multiple cationic and anionic components were known from Mitragotri, and where Mitragotri ‘534 teaches ionic liquids with more than one ionic liquid were known for the same purpose, for the same reasons discussed above.
It would have been obvious to further include a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, as taught by Mitragotri above and for the same reasons. Further, it would have been obvious to further include a non-ionic surfactant for the same reasons discussed above by Mitragotri ‘534 above.
It would have been obvious to formulate the ionic liquid composition made obvious above in known forms suitable for compositions containing ionic liquids for delivery of an active agent, such as those taught by Mitragotri above.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
The following are also rejected for the same reasons of comprising an ionic liquid comprising a cation and anion:
Copending Application No. 19/422,599, while disclosing combination of an active ingredient and an ionic liquid comprising choline and geranate at a concentration and ratio overlapping those instantly claimed, the claims do not disclose a quaternary ammonium cation comprising an ester group, the anions of claims 4-6, and 15, a second ionic liquid, nor the active agents of claims 32 and 33 of an active agent as claimed. It would have been obvious to modify the claims for the same reasons discussed above in view of Mitragotri, Rogers, Tanner, Zhang, and Mitragotri ‘534, as applied to each claim limitation.
Copending Application No. 18/101,220, while disclosing a composition and methods of treating a subject comprising at least one ionic liquid comprising a quaternary ammonium cation; and an undecanoic acid anion, with ratios overlapping those instantly claimed, the claims do not disclose a quaternary ammonium cation comprising an ester group, the anions of claims 4-7, and 15, the active agents as instantly claimed, a non-ionic surfactant or carrier, nor the form of claim 48. It would have been obvious to modify the claims for the same reasons discussed above in view of Mitragotri, Rogers, Tanner, Zhang, and Mitragotri ‘534, as applied to each claim limitation.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 15, 16, 20, 22-24, 27, 32, 33, 36, 41, 46, 48, and 52, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 17/777,478 (reference application), hereinafter ‘478, in view of Mitragotri et al (US 20200289421 A1, hereinafter “Mitragotri”), Rogers et al (US 20120046244 A1, hereinafter “Rogers”), and Tanner et al (Adv Mater, 2019, 31, 1901103, pp. 1-10, hereinafter “Tanner”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘478 disclose a composition comprising at least one ionic liquid comprising a cation comprising a quaternary ammonium compound and an anion consisting of lactic acid, and an active agent comprising a polypeptide. The cation is choline. The ratio of cation:anion is about 2:1 to about 1:1. The second ionic liquid comprises overlapping anions of instant claim 7. The polypeptide is an antibody or antibody reagent. The concentration of ionic liquid is at least 0.1 % w/v. The composition has forms and administration routes meeting claims 41 and 48. The composition further comprises at least one non-ionic surfactant and/or a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier.
The claims of ‘478 do not disclose a quaternary ammonium cation comprising an ester group, hexanoic acid, nor the active agents of claims 27, 32, 33.
It would have been obvious to substitute acetylcholine for choline cation, for the same reasons discussed above by Rogers.
It would have been obvious to select from other known anions suitable for ionic liquid compositions, including hexenoic acid as taught by Tanner for the same reasons discussed above.
It would have been obvious to include known active agents suitable for compositions comprising ionic liquids for active agent delivery, including those of Mitragotri above and for the same reasons.
It would have been obvious to administer the composition to a subject, where the composition made obvious above may be administered via administration routes meeting claims 41 and 48.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 15, 16, 20, 22-24, 27, 32, 33, 36, 41, 46, 48, and 52, are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over the claims of copending Application No. 17/600,305 (reference application), hereinafter ‘305, in view of Mitragotri et al (US 20200289421 A1, hereinafter “Mitragotri”), Rogers et al (US 20120046244 A1, hereinafter “Rogers”), Tanner et al (Adv Mater, 2019, 31, 1901103, pp. 1-10, hereinafter “Tanner”), and Zhang (CN 109464661 A). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘305 disclose a composition and methods of administering a composition comprising at least one ionic liquid comprising an anion comprising a carboxylic acid with a logP and pKa overlapping the claimed ranges, and a cation comprising a quaternary ammonium. The ionic liquid has a concentration of greater than 1%, and is formulated for oral, subcutaneous, parenteral, intratumoral, etc., administration. The ratio of cation:anion ranges from about 2:1 to about 1:10. The compositions further comprise an active agent, including a polypeptide, an antibody or an antibody reagent, GLP-1 polypeptide or mimic or analog thereof. The compositions further comprise a non-ionic surfactant, a pharmaceutically acceptable carrier, and is provided in the form of a degradable capsule, etc. The anion comprises citronellic acid, octanoic acid, octanoic acid, or decanoic acid.
The claims of ‘305 do not disclose a quaternary ammonium cation comprising an ester group, the anions of claims 4-6, and 15, nor the active agents of claims 32 and 33.
It would have been obvious to substitute acetylcholine for choline cation, for the same reasons discussed above by Rogers.
It would have been obvious to select from other known anions suitable for ionic liquid compositions, including those taught by Mitragotri, Tanner, and Zhang for the same reasons discussed above.
It would have been obvious to include known active agents suitable for compositions comprising ionic liquids for active agent delivery, including those of Mitragotri above and for the same reasons.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 15, 16, 20, 22-24, 27, 32, 33, 36, 41, 46, 48, and 52, are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12661404, hereinafter ‘404, in view of Mitragotri et al (US 20200289421 A1, hereinafter “Mitragotri”), Rogers et al (US 20120046244 A1, hereinafter “Rogers”), Tanner et al (Adv Mater, 2019, 31, 1901103, pp. 1-10, hereinafter “Tanner”), Zhang (CN 109464661 A), and Mitragotri et al (WO 2020180534 A1, hereinafter “Mitragotri ‘534”). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘404 disclose methods of administering compositions comprising an ionic liquid comprising choline and an anionic component comprising geranate at a ratio of 1:1 and a concentration of 10-90%. The compositions are administered intratumorally. The compositions may further comprise an aqueous solution (i.e., pharmaceutically acceptable carrier)
The claims of ‘404 do not disclose a quaternary ammonium cation comprising an ester group, the anions of claims 4-6, and 15, a second ionic liquid, the inclusion of an active agent as claimed, nor the form of claim 48.
It would have been obvious to substitute acetylcholine for choline cation, for the same reasons discussed above by Rogers.
It would have been obvious to select from other known anions suitable for ionic liquid compositions, including those taught by Mitragotri, Tanner, and Zhang for the same reasons discussed above.
It would have been obvious to further include a second ionic liquid, where ionic liquids with multiple cationic and anionic components were known from Mitragotri, and where Mitragotri ‘534 teaches ionic liquids with more than one ionic liquid were known for the same purpose, for the same reasons discussed above.
It would have been obvious to include known active agents suitable for compositions comprising ionic liquids for active agent delivery, including those of Mitragotri above and for the same reasons.
It would have been obvious to formulate the ionic liquid composition made obvious above in known forms suitable for compositions containing ionic liquids for delivery of an active agent, such as those taught by Mitragotri above.
The following are also rejected for the same reasons of comprising an ionic liquid comprising a cation and anion:
U.S. Patent No. 12533315, while disclosing a compositions and methods of administering compositions comprising and active agent comprising a polypeptide and an ionic liquid comprising choline and geranate at ratios and concentrations overlapping those claimed, the claims do not disclose a quaternary ammonium cation comprising an ester group, the anions of claims 4-6, and 15, a second ionic liquid, the active agents of claims 32 and 33, nor the form of claim 48. It would have been obvious to modify the claims for the same reasons discussed above in view of Mitragotri, Rogers, Tanner, Zhang, and Mitragotri ‘534, as applied to each claim limitation.
U.S. Patent No. 11684595, while disclosing a composition and methods of treating a subject comprising at least one ionic liquid comprising a quaternary ammonium cation; and an undecanoic acid anion, with ratios overlapping those instantly claimed, the claims do not disclose a quaternary ammonium cation comprising an ester group, the anions of claims 4-7, and 15, the active agents as instantly claimed, a non-ionic surfactant or carrier, nor the form of claim 48. It would have been obvious to modify the claims for the same reasons discussed above in view of Mitragotri, Rogers, Tanner, Zhang, and Mitragotri ‘534, as applied to each claim limitation.
U.S. Patent No. 11446253, while disclosing a composition comprising choline and geranate or geranic acid in combination with an active agent in ratios and concentrations overlapping those claimed, the claims do not disclose a quaternary ammonium cation comprising an ester group, the anions of claims 4-6, and 15, a second ionic liquid, the non-ionic surfactant or carrier specifically, nor the active agents of claims 32 and 33. It would have been obvious to modify the claims for the same reasons discussed above in view of Mitragotri, Rogers, Tanner, Zhang, and Mitragotri ‘534, as applied to each claim limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA A ATKINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0877. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM + Flex.
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, Sahana Kaup can be reached at 571-272-6897. 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.
/JOSHUA A ATKINSON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1612
/SAHANA S KAUP/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612
Prosecution Insights