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 .
Detailed Action
This application is a national stage application of PCT/SG2023/050096, filed February 17, 2023, which claims benefit of foreign application SG10200001563, filed February 17, 2022. Claims 19-33 are pending in this application and examined on the merits herein. Applicant’s preliminary amendment submitted September 17, 2024, is acknowledged wherein claims 1-18 are canceled and new claims 19-33 are introduced.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 29 and 30 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.
These claims are directed to methods of treating a cell with a compound. The claims further describe contacting the cell with the compound at “various concentrations” and “various duration.” These relative terms are not defined in the claims or the specification and have no clear meaning, rendering the claims indefinite.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 20 depends form claim 19, and includes as its sole additional limitation the exact same listing of compounds already present in claim 19. Therefore claim 20 fails to further limit the base claim. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 19-23 and 26-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pitha et al. (US pre-grant publication 2006/0116330, cited in PTO-1449) as evidenced by Cohen et al. and Koubova et al. (both references included with PTO-892)
Independent claims 19 and 20 are directed to a method of extending the chronological lifespan of a cell comprising contacting the cell with a compound selected from a number of options including compounds having a formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
186
229
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Dependent claims 21-23 and 26-28 further define the structure of the compound in a manner that encompasses the compounds 2,5-anhydro-D-glucitol and 2,5-anhydro-D-mannitol.
Pitha et al. discloses a method comprising administering a glucose antimetabolite to an animal to enhance longevity in the animal, to alter utilization of glucose and mimic calorie restriction. (p. 1 paragraph 8) Glucose antimetabolites include 2,5-anhydro-D-glucitol and 2,5-anhydro-D-mannitol, which interfere with glucose utilization in cells. (p. 2 paragraph 18, p. 3 paragraph 27) Therefore Pitha discloses a method comprising contacting a cell with a compound of formula (I) which mimics the effects of caloric restriction. While Pitha does not specifically disclose that this method extends the chronological lifespan of cells in the subject, Koubova et al. discloses that caloric restriction can down-regulate apoptosis in some cell types. (p. 317 left column second paragraph – right column second paragraph) Furthermore Cohen et al. also discloses that caloric restriction decreases apoptosis in mammalian cells. Therefore it is reasonably concluded that mimicking the caloric restriction response by the methods described by Pitha et al. inherently extends the chronological lifespan of cells in the subject being treated by mimicking calorie restriction and inhibiting apoptosis of said cells, thereby anticipating the present claims.
Regarding claim 31, the subject treated by the method of Pitha is an animal. Regarding claim 32, Pitha describes enhancing longevity, which is treatment of an aging associated condition.
Claims 19-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jia et al. (US pre-grant publication 2018/0133192, cited in PTO-892) as evidenced by Piek et al. (References included with PTO-892)
Independent claims 19 and 20 are directed to a method of extending the chronological lifespan of a cell comprising contacting the cell with a compound selected from a number of options including compounds having a formula (I):
PNG
media_image1.png
186
229
media_image1.png
Greyscale
. Dependent claims 21-28 further define the structure of the compound in a manner that encompasses the compounds 2,5-anhydro-D-glucitol, 2,5-anhydro-D-mannitol, 2,5-anhydro-D-mannitol tetraacetate, and 1-amino-2,5-anhydro-D-glucitol.
Jia et al. discloses fructose analogs targeting glycolytic pathways that can target cancer cells while having minimal impact on normal cells. (pp. 1-3 paragraph 5) Compounds described as usable for this purpose include 2,5-D-anhydro-mannitol, 2,5-anhydroglucotol, 2,5-anhydro-D-mannitol tetraacetate, and 1-amino-2,5-anhydro-D-mannitol, which fall within the specific structures claimed in claims 19-30. In addition to cancer, Jia et al. further discloses administering these compounds to a subject to treat organ fibrosis such as liver fibrosis or myocardial fibrosis. (p. 3 paragraph 14)
While Jia does not specifically note that treating fibrosis as disclosed would involve extending the chronological lifespan of cells, Piek et al. discloses that fibrosis is a hallmark of pathological cardiac remodeling. (p. 200 left column second paragraph) Furthermore myocardial fibrosis leads to cell death and a vicious cycle of impaired function, fibrogenesis and further cell death. Therefore it is reasonably expected that administering the compounds described by Jia et al. to treat myocardial fibrosis would inherently prevent further cell death in the heart and extend the chronological lifespan of at least sone cells in the heart, thereby anticipating the present claims.
Regarding claim 31, the subject treated by the method of Jia is an animal. Regarding claim 32 Piek et al. discloses that hear failure and the resulting fibrosis are age-related conditions. (abstract)
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.
Claims 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pitha et al. (US pre-grant publication 2006/0116330, cited in PTO-1449) The disclosure of Pitha et al. is discussed above. Pitha et al. does not specifically disclose a method of treating one of the particular conditions recited in claim 33, such as cancer. However, Pitha does disclose that compounds having this same function would also inhibit tumor growth. (p. 3 paragraph 33) It would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to administer the same compounds for the purpose of inhibiting tumor growth, in view of the reasonable expectation that they would work for this purpose.
Therefore the invention taken as a whole is prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed in this action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREA OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-9051. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6am-3:00pm.
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, Scarlett Y Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. 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.
/ANDREA OLSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693 9/22/2026
Prosecution Insights