1. Relevant Extract of USPTO Examination Report

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

“Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Uccatadyamodakah (In Vangasena; Shankar et aI., Eds.; Bombay, India, 1996; p. 236; cited as Exhibit 1 in the IDS of 29 March 2013), Van Der Glessen et aI. (US 2006/0165822, published 27 July 2006, cited in the IDS of 14 October 2011), Nilakamala Kanda Gunah (Kaiyadeva, Nilakamala Kanda Gunah. In aiyadevanighantau; Sharma et aI., Eds.; Varanasi, India, 1979; p. 268-269; cited as Exhibit 3 in the IDS of 29 March 2013), and Mukherjee et aI. (J. Pharm. PharmacoI. 2009, 61, 407 -422, cited in PTO-892 of 25 October 2013).

       Uccatadyamodakah teaches a method of stimulating in a subject a feeling of satiation with a therapeutic formulation comprising Mucuna pruriens (seeds), in an amount of 192 g, the seeds being dried and grounded in a mortar, with the addition of other ingredients and of water to make a soft paste, the formulation being administered as bolus like sweet pills in an amount of 48 grams (which reads on a therapeutically effective amount). Uccatadyamodakah teaches the administration is oral, in the evening, on empty stomach (before the subject eats a meal, as in claims 1, 11).

       Uccatadyamodakah does not teach a method of stimulating a feeling of having already eaten with a combination of an extract from Mucuna pruriens and Nelumbo nucifera.

       Uccatadyamodakah does not specifically teach that an extract of Mucuna pruriens contains L-Dopa.

       Nilakamala Kanda Gunah teaches a method of stimulating in a subject a feeling of satiation with a therapeutic formulation comprising Nelumbo Nucifera.

       Nilakamala Kanda Gunah does not specifically teach that an extract of Nelumbo nucifera contains an aporphine alkaloid such as nuciferine, nor does it teach that the amount of nuciferine in the formulation is 2 mg to 50 mg.

Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.c. 1 03(a) as being unpatentable over Uccatadyamodakah, Van Der Glessen, Nilakamala Kanda Gunah, and Mukherjee, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above.”

Full examination report can be referred at 20120115891-II.pdf

2. Outcomes of Examination Report.

As the outcome of TKDL references and other documents cited in examination report, the Examiner again rejected the claims 1 and 11-13 on 23-Apr-14.