DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The amendment filed March 31, 2026 has been received and entered.
3. Claims 1-6 and 11-21 are currently pending.
Election/Restrictions
4. Applicant’s election of treating or preventing enteritis, in particular inflammatory bowel disease, for species A and chicken egg for species B in the reply filed on March 31, 2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
5. Claims 4, 5, 14, 17-19 and 21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
6. Claims 1-3, 6, 11-13, 15, 16 and 20 are examined on the merits in regards to the elected species.
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.
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.
7. Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 11-13, 15, 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Qian (CN 110857434 – English translation) in view of Wang (Current Opinion in Pharmacology (2009), vol. 9, pp. 668-696).
Qian teaches a pharmaceutical composition comprising amniotic fluid from chicken egg with an embryonic age of 5-12 days, 6-11 days, 7-9 days, or 7-8 days. The reference teaches that the composition is useful for treating damaged intestinal tissue and inflammation where the damage can caused by a disease (see page 3 of the translation). The reference does not specifically teach using the composition to treat inflammatory bowel disease.
However, Wang teaches that compositions that treat inflammation and repair damaged intestinal tissue are useful for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease (see pages 688-689). Thus, an artisan of oridnary skill would reasonably expect that the amniotic fluid composition taught by Qian would be useful in treating inflammatory bowel disease because Qian teaches that the composition is able to treat inflammation and to repair intestinal tissue. Given this reasonable expectation of success, an artisan would have been motivated to modify Qian to include the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease with the amniotic fluid composition. Therefore, applicant’s invention is considered to be an obvious modification of what was known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention.
8. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Susan Hoffman whose telephone number is (571)272-0963. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Anand Desai can be reached at 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 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.
/SUSAN HOFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1655
Prosecution Insights