1. Pre-Grant Opposition under Section 25.(1) of Indian Patent Act 1970

TKDL Pre-Grant Opposition under Section 25.(1) brought to the notice of examination division the prior art references on the use of Asparagus racemosus (Shatavari) for the treatment of Arthritis, Osteoarthiritis, Inflammation of tendons and ligaments, Fracture, Diminution of bone tissue, Gout, Rheumatism and Dislocation from the books – Khazaain-al-Advia, Vol. I by Mohammad Najmul Ghani Khan (Unani, Exhibit 1), Bayaaz-e-Kabir, Vol. II by Mohammad Kabiruddin (Unani, Exhibit 2), Brhat Nighantau Ratnakara (Ayurveda, Exhibit 3 & 8), Gadanigrahah by Sodhala (Ayurveda, Exhibit 4), Vangasena by Vangasena (Ayurveda, Exhibit 5), Bharata Bhaisajya Ratnakara (Ayurveda, Exhibit 6), Rasatantrasarah Evam Siddhaprayogasamgrahah (Ayurveda, Exhibit 7) and Sahastrayoga by Govt of India (Ayurveda, Exhibit 9).

2. Relevant Extract of CGPDTM Examination report

CGPDTM Patent Examiner(s) took cognizance of TKDL references. Extract of examination report at Para 5 & 6 are reproduced below.



“Claims 1-16 are not patentable u/S 3(p) of the Act as they pertain to traditional knowledge. Use of Asparagus racemosus for treatment of osteoporosis, osteoarthritis and bone related disorders is traditionally known. Refer enclosed TKDL documents NA2/347H, AK10/385, MA3/89.
Claims lack novelty/inventive step in view of D1: DATABASE WPI Week 200382 Derwent Publications Ltd., London, GB; AN 2003-878047 & CN 1 155 430, D2: WO 03/080067, D3: EP 1640016, D4: NA2/347H, D5: AK10/385, D6: MA3/89.
         Claims 1-14 lack inventive step u/S 2(1)( ja) in view of cited documents D4-D6. The use of organic solvent and aqueous extracts of Asparagus racemosus for treating osteoporosis would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art from the teachings of the cited prior art documents. If the subject-matter as claimed relates to extracts/alkaloids and/or isolation of active ingredients of plants, which are naturally/inherently present in plants, such claims cannot be considered as novel and/or inventive when use of such plants is pre-known as part of teachings of Traditional Knowledge (TK). When the subject-matter of claims relate to extracts of plant materials containing undefined active ingredients, such claims cannot be said to be novel if the use of such plants or plant materials is pre-known as a part of teaching of TK. However, if the claims relate to alkaloids and/or active principles obtained from the plant materials and structures of the said alkaloids and/or active principles are characterized, which do not form the part of the prior art, such claims cannot be said to involve an inventive step, since the use of said plant materials and their therapeutic effects are known from the teaching of TK..”

Full examination report can be referred at 1198-CHE-2006.pdf

3. Outcomes of Pre-Grant Opposition & Examination Report.

As the outcome of TKDL references and other documents cited in examination report, the Application is Abandoned U/S 21(1).