The invention is a method and composition to treat a medical condition — a CIP with 20 claims initially. The examiner has required election between the method and composition claims, and election between six species (A-F). I will choose the method claims without traverse and species A with traverse. The broadest method claim reads like the following:
- A method for treating (a specific disease) in a subject, comprising: (a) supplying a promoter of A; (b) supplying a promoter of B; and (c) supplying a promoter of C; whereby (specific things happen and the disease is reversed).
There is nothing patentable about A, B, or C individually, but these three elements work together. A by itself does not treat the disease permanently, but it does with B, and C doubles the response. No one previously knew how A actually worked, so the combination was never made. But as A, B and C are each listed as Markush groups in the dependent claims, some with substantially different chemical properties, the examiner is apparently now entitled to require restriction. But how she could determine patentability based on examining only one element is beyond me. I thought of adding a new independent claim that will eliminate the Markush groups—
- (New) A method for treating (a specific disease) in a subject, comprising: (a) supplying a [specific promoter of A]; and (b) supplying a [specific moiety of B]; whereby (specific things happen and the disease is reversed).
Adding specificity and eliminating one element. I had not done this before as this claim without (c) exists in the parent application, and has languished for more than 2 years with no examiner assigned to it. But does this get me anything? It would certainly simplify the searching.