1. Relevant Extract of USPTO Examination Report

USPTO Patent Examiner(s) took cognizance of TKDL references. Extract of examination report are reproduced below:

Examination Report Dated: 14th November 2011

“Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jivantayadi Ghrta (U), in view of Kan Kumari Patru (V).

Jivantayadi Ghrta teaches a composition for treating cataracts comprising water, Foeniculum vulgare in an amount of 12 grams, triphala in an amount of 12 grams (triphala contains: Terminalaia chebula in an amount of 4 grams, Terminalia bellirica in an amount of 4 grams and Emblica officianalis

(Phyllanthus emblica) in am amount of 4 grams (which comes to 12 grams total)) (which reads on a water extract of Foeniculum vulgare and triphala, since adding the herbs to water would provide a water extract. Further, Jivantaudi Ghrta teaches the method of extracting the herbs in water) and rock salt/Indian rock salt(which is synonymous with sodium chloride, and reads on the limitations of claim 4, wherein the pharmaceutically acceptable excipient is an osmolarity adjusting agent). Jivantayadie Ghrta further teaches that the composition can be combined with milk. Please note that although Jivantayadie Ghrta teaches the composition can be taken internally, internal compositions would be considered to be safe to apply topically. Therefore, the formulation could be topically applied.

Kan Kumari Patru teaches a composition for treating cataracts comprising Murraya koenigii in an amount of 1 part, Phyllanthus emblica (Emblica officianlis) in an amount of 1 part and Terminalia chebula in an amount of 1 part. Kan Kumari Patru further teaches that the composition is prepared as a liquid drug by first combining with aloe, processing and grinding the herbs (which reads on an extract) . Kan Kumari Patru further teaches that the composition is formulated as a pasty application (which reads on cream and ointments, as claimed in claim 5) and ground with human milk for external application around the eye.

It would have been obvious to modify the composition used in the method taught by Jivantayadi Ghrta by combining Foeniculum vulgare and triphala with Murraya koenigii because at the time the invention was made, it was known that Foeniculum vulgare, triphala and Murraya koenigii were all useful ingredients that could be applied administered for treating cataracts as clearly taught by Jivnatayadi Ghrta and Kan Kumari Patru.

It is well known that it is prima facie obvious to combine two o r more ingredients each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to form a third composition which is useful for the same purpose. The idea for combining them flows logically from their having been used individually in the prior art. Based on the disclosure by these references that Foeniculum vulgare, triphala and Murraya koenigii were all useful ingredients that could be applied administered for treating cataracts, the artisan would have been motivated to combine the claimed ingredients into a single composition. No Patentable invention resides in combining old ingredients of known properties where the results obtained thereby are no more than the additive effect of the ingredients.

Thus, an artisan of ordinary skill would reasonably expect that combining Foeniculum vulgare, triphala and Murraya koenigii would provide and even more effective composition for treating cataracts, since these ingredients were well known to be useful for treating cataracts. This reasonable expectation of success would motivate the artisan to use Foeniculum vulgare, triphala and Murraya koenigii in a composition for treating cataracts based upon the teachings of Jivantayadi Ghrta and Kan Kumari Patru.”

Examination Report Dated: 20th April 2012

“Claims 1, 3 and 4 and newly added claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.G 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kohi Barae Nuzool-al-Maa ( W), in view of Srinivas et al. (N, abstract only) , Triphalcgh’tam (X) (newly applied as necessitated by amendment).

Kohi Barae Nuzool-al-Maa teaches a therapeutic composition for ocular administration for treating cataracts comprising an extract of Foeniculum vulgare.

Triphalcgh’tam teaches a therapeutic composition for treating cataracts comprising extracts o f Terminalia chebula, Terminalia bellirica and Phyllanthus emblica in equal parts for medicinal application to the eye, eye irrigation with special drops or unctuous irrigation of the eye.

It would have been obvious to modify the composition taught by Kohi Barae Nuzool-al-Maa combining an extract of Foeniculum vulgare with an extract of curry leaves and extracts of Terminalia chebula, Terminalia bellirica and Phyllanthus emblica because at the time the invention was made, it was known that Foeniculum vulgare, an extract of curry leaves and extracts of Terminalia chebula, Terminalia bellirica and Phyllanthus emblica were all useful ingredients that could be applied to eyes for treating cataracts as clearly taught by the above references.

It is well known that it is prima facie obvious to combine two or more ingredients each of which is taught by the prior art to be useful for the same purpose in order to from a third composition which is useful for the same purpose. The idea for combining them flows logically from their having been used individually in the prior art. Based on the disclosure by these references that an extract of Foeniculum vulgare with an extract of curry leaves and extracts of Terminalia chebula, Terminalia bellirica and Phyllanthus emblica are useful ingredients for treating cataracts by administering the composition to eyes, the artisan would have been motivated to combine the claimed ingredients into a single composition. No patentable invention resides in combining old ingredients of known properties where the results obtained thereby an no more than the additive effect of the ingredients.”

Full examination report can be referred at 20100203178.pdf

2. Outcomes of Examination Report.

As the outcome of TKDL references and other documents cited in examination report, the Applicant Suresh Kumar Gupta, New Delhi, India decided to amend the claims on 19th July 2012. The application was abandoned on 15th November 2012 as the Applicant failed to response to an office action.