DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
The Examiner acknowledges receipt of the amendments filed on 9/16/2025 wherein claims 13 and 18 have been amended and claims 18 and 30 have been cancelled.
Claims 13 and 18 are presented for examination on the merits. The following rejections are made.
Response to Applicants’ Arguments
Applicant’s amendments filed 9/16/2025 overcomes the rejection of claims 13 and 14 made by the Examiner under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Ohkawa (US 2003/0211132), evidenced by Palm et al. (J Undergraduate Chemistry Reearch, 2010, 9(2), 69-74). This rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s approved terminal disclaimers filed 9/16/2025 overcomes the nonstatutory double patenting rejections over US 9861659, 11484550, 18/677559. These rejections have been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is allowed.
New Rejections, Necessitated by Amendment
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 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.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bad’in et al. (RU2101982; of record, translation provided) in view of Sole et al. (US 6080788).
Bad’in is directed to a curative food material comprising at least one component enriched by adding light stable isotopes such as Cu-63, Ca-40, Ni-58, etc. (see page 5). The light isotope may be presented as a metal salt such as citrate (i.e. pharmaceutically acceptable) (see page 5). Methods of administering the light isotope compositions are envisaged such as by administering as a food (see page 2). Consumption of the light isotope enriched food product is described as preventative nutrition and are intended to treat certain diseases which may benefit from administration of light isotopes (see pages 1 and 3). For instance, it is taught that the copper light isotope increases the efficiency of the enzymes based on it and thus affects the improvement of the body’s vital functions (see page 3).
Bad’in fails to teach the method as being used to treat a neurodegenerative disease.
Sole is cited to demonstrate that nutritional products and supplements are commonly used in methods of improving health conditions and for the treatment of various diseases such as neurodegenerative disease (see claim 12). Sole teaches that their composition is to contain vitamins and trace elements which are important for protection against free radical injury. It would have been obvious to combine Bad’in and Sole together to yield a method that together provided important nutritional supplementation wherein the selection of light isotopes would increase the activity of enzymes and hormones, increase the efficiency of the use of vitamins and more actively effect activators and inhibitors of biochemical reactions which would all result in an improvement in the life of the body. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) which states that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results is indicative of obviousness. Such a rationale is applicable in the current case.
Therefore, the invention as a whole is prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed, as evidenced by the references, especially in absence of evidence to the contrary.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE A PURDY whose telephone number is (571)270-3504. The examiner can normally be reached from 9AM to 5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Bethany Barham, can be reached on 571-272-6175. 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).
/KYLE A PURDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1611
Prosecution Insights