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
Claims 59-78 submitted on 1/8/2025 are pending.
Claims 59-78 are for examination and hereby have been examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/8/2025 and 07/9/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the examiner has considered the IDS statements.
Claim Objection
Claim 59 is objected in reciting “ min-Cog”. Mini-Cog is an abbreviated term. It should be spelled out as what Cog is meant clearly for. Correction is required.
Claim Rejection
Claim Rejections: 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claim 61, 63, 65 , 66 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
Claim 61 is indefinite in reciting “a MoCA” because of it lacks antecedent basis. Claim 61 depends on claim 60. Claim 60 recite a MoCA. The “a MoCA” of claim 61 is same “a MoCA” of claim 60 or other type of MoCA. Correction is required.
Claim 63 is indefinite in reciting “a MMSE” because of it lacks antecedent basis. Claim 63 depends on claim 60. Claim 60 recite a MMSE. The “a MMSE” of claim 63 is same “a MMSE” of claim 60 or other type of MMSE. Correction is required.
Claim 65 is indefinite in reciting “a Mini-Cog” because of it lacks antecedent basis. Claim 65 depends on claim 60. Claim 60 recite a Mini-Cog. The “a Mini-Cog” of claim 65 is same “a Mini-Cog” of claim 60 or other type of a Mini-Cog. Correction is required.
Claim 66 is indefinite in reciting “Mini-Cog score of the subject in need thereof is 3, 4, or 5” make the claims indefinite; indefiniteness arises as the claim includes a broad range and a narrow range within the same claim (e.g., " 3, 4, or 5” "). The claim may be considered indefinite if it is unclear whether the narrower range is merely exemplary or a required feature of the claim.
Double Patenting Rejection
The no statutory 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 no statutory 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).
The instant Claims 59-78 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 36-60 of US PAT Application NO: 19014125. US PAT Application NO: 19014125 is CON of the parent application of 18/606664 and instant application is div of said parent application. An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim not is patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined 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). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claims 59-78 of instant application directed to method for improving memory function in a subject in need thereof, comprising administering a dietary supplement comprising Candida rugosa lipase (CRL) to the subject The claims 1-6, 36-60 of US PAT Application NO: 19014125 are directed treating, managing, or reducing the severity of a neurodegenerative disorder in a patient in need thereof, comprising administering a pharmaceutical composition comprising a therapeutically effective amount of Candida rugosa lipase (CRL) to the patient or A method for improving memory function in a subject in need thereof, comprising administering a dietary supplement comprising Candida rugosa lipase (CRL) to the subject. ( claim 36). . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select this specific embodiment of the specification that teach the genera of a dietary supplement comprising Candida rugosa lipase (CRL) that practiced for the method the claims of that patent Application NO: 19014125 to use for the method of instant claims.
Therefore claims 59-78 of instant application are obvious over claims 1-6, 36-60 of US PAT Application NO: 19014125.
Td submission will overcome the above rejections.
Conclusion
Claims 59-78 are rejected. No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Mohammad Meah whose telephone number is 571-272-
1261. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Robert Mondesi can be reached on 4089187584. 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.
/MOHAMMAD Y MEAH/Examiner, Art Unit 1652
