Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Final Rejection IS NOT FINAL. https://ptslaw.com/2016/04/a-final-rejection-is-not-the-end/
During prosecution of a US patent application, a second or subsequent Office Action can be made final by the examiner. “Final” is a misnomer, however, because a final rejection does not mean that prosecution of the patent application is over. In fact, there are several procedural options available to a patent applicant after receiving a final rejection.
A first option is to file a Request for Continued Examination (RCE). An RCE reopens prosecution and causes the examiner to take another look at the application based on amendments or arguments in a Preliminary Amendment submitted with the RCE. While an RCE and Preliminary Amendment may be a good strategic option in many circumstances, it can be an expensive one: the US Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) charges large entities a fee of $1,200 for a first RCE filed in an application and $1,700 for a second or subsequent RCE in that application. These fees are discounted 50% for small entities and 75% for micro entities.
A second option is to file an Amendment After Final (AAF). AAFs do not require any USPTO fees, but examiners are given a limited amount of time to consider them. Therefore, they can be most effective when straightforward arguments or amendments can be presented to overcome rejections or when the remaining issues are relatively simple (e.g., claim amendments as to form in order to resolve rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112).
A relatively new option in US after-final practice is the After Final Consideration Pilot 2.0 (AFCP) program. An AFCP request can be filed with an AAF and gives an examiner some additional, though still limited, time to consider the AAF. In order to file an AFCP request, the application must be finally rejected, an AAF must be filed, and the AAF must include an amendment to at least one independent claim, with that amendment not broadening the claim in any way. The applicant or its representative must also agree to be available for a telephone interview with the examiner. Though interviews are not always held as part of the AFCP program, they can be very helpful for better understanding the issues and the examiner’s current position in the case.
If an AAF is not successful at resolving the remaining issues, the examiner will issue an Advisory Action. Advisory Actions sometimes include only basic information (e.g., the examiner considers the AAF to raise new issues requiring further search and/or consideration, such that the application is not in condition for allowance), though oftentimes the examiner will include some additional information about their review of the AAF or any prior art they think might apply, whether new or already on the record. Though there are several options available at this point, including abandoning the application with or without filing a new continuation application, it is common to file an RCE and Preliminary Amendment in order to reopen and continue prosecution.
Another option after receiving a final rejection—or following an Advisory Action if an AAF was filed—is to file an appeal. An appeal is initiated by filing a Notice of Appeal and eventually sends the application for review by the USPTO’s Patent Trial & Appeal Board (PTAB). It can be a time-consuming endeavor, with most appealed applications waiting in queue for two years or more before being considered by the PTAB. It is also more expensive than the other options, requiring at least $2,800 in USPTO fees.
An optional step in the appeal process is filing a Pre-Appeal Brief Request for Review with the Notice of Appeal. This pre-appeal process does not require any USPTO fees and is requested by filing a five-page brief of the issues. The brief is then considered by a panel of three examiners, one of whom is the examiner primarily responsible for the application, and the panel can either send the application back to the examiner for further prosecution, allow it to continue in the appeal process, or pass the application to allowance. This third scenario is unusual, with most applications continuing to appeal or being sent back to the examiner.
The time and costs for these and other after-final options can vary widely, and the most appropriate option in any case can depend on a variety of different circumstances. Therefore, if you receive a final rejection, know that the rejection does not mean that the end of prosecution, and discuss the available options with your attorney in order to determine the best strategic option.
it is verified by the Clinical Trials website: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03936907?term=one+world+cannabis&cntry=IL&rank=1
It also shows the preliminary completion date of July 2019!
iGlow please keep telling lies...one day you might actually start believing them
Please do not try to sway others in believing your lies. There is no such thing called "Letter of Rejection". It is either a Final Office Action or a Non-Final Office Action. Trying to make others believe your lies with using "Rejection" is unethical but I wouldn't expect any less from a person with your sorted past.
Its called NON FINAL OFFICE ACTION, not Non-final rejection! Please see the legal definition. IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE REVISIONS.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/non-final-office-action-rejection/
Non-final Office action is an Office action made by the examiner where the applicant is entitled to reply and request reconsideration or further examination, with or without making an amendment. The examiner is required to make a thorough study of the application and of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention before taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding. This examination should be complete with respect to:
1. Compliance of the application or patent under reexamination with the applicable statutes and rules;
2. The patentability of the invention according to the claim; and
3. Matters of form, unless otherwise indicated.
Mine shows the MM for other stocks I watch but not for OWCP. It just shows numbers 1,2,3 or 4....its weird. Oh well.
Level 2 NOT showing Market Makers name anymore for OWCP
It may be due to putting their time, effort, expertise and finances towards the Sativex trials and/or into the MM patent. I do not see prioritizing as "pushing out", I see it as making the best decision for the company.
Its called NON FINAL OFFICE ACTION, not Non-final rejection! Please see the legal definition. IT IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE REVISIONS.
https://definitions.uslegal.com/n/non-final-office-action-rejection/
Non-final Office action is an Office action made by the examiner where the applicant is entitled to reply and request reconsideration or further examination, with or without making an amendment. The examiner is required to make a thorough study of the application and of the available prior art relating to the subject matter of the claimed invention before taking up an application for examination or a patent in a reexamination proceeding. This examination should be complete with respect to:
1. Compliance of the application or patent under reexamination with the applicable statutes and rules;
2. The patentability of the invention according to the claim; and
3. Matters of form, unless otherwise indicated.
I have read the entire Non-Final Office Action, I decided to allow the investors to read the amendments and remarks made by OWCP patent attorneys.
Please read for yourself:
Link to amendements by OWCP Patent Attorneys
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A2e67b7c0-8c07-44ad-a185-5fbc8f706bfd
Looks to me like they did a damn good job, whatcha think?
Link to remakrs by OWCP Patent Attorneys
https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3Aef16f1d4-0d63-4bd3-b882-4a92d69257a2
I love the last paragraph from OWCP patent attorney. She seems very confident!
You are incorrect about the Non final Office action letter. If you look at your pdf, your poorly edited version still shows the Non-Final office Action box checked even though you bolded Final Office Action. LOL
You are incorrect about the Non final Office action letter. If you look at your pdf, your poorly edited version still shows the Non-Final office Action box checked even though you bolded Final Office Action. LOL
I usually don't reply to you but I will this one time. The "rejection letter" you speak of is actually called a "Non final office action" which is no more than a list of objections whereas the applicant then amends the application through their patent attorney.
http://piersonpatentlaw.com/what-are-the-differences-between-a-non-final-and-a-final-office-action/
As the above shows you there is something called a Final Office action which OWCP has never received and after reading their amendments, I doubt they ever will. Nice try buddy!
Moxa....a "non final rejection" is just the patent examiners way of asking for clarification on different issues he/she has. OWCP Patent attorney then has 3 months to reply. Every patent application unless perfectly written and substantiated will receive a "non-final rejection". Hope this helps.
From what I have read (and I am far from any expert) I was under the impression that the US Patent for MM was in the last step.
Please see the following:
https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/patent-process-overview#step1
According to this, the last step (Step 7) is the patent office issuing a "Notice of Allowance" which if you look at OWC patent attorneys filing she states under the conclusion section.....
"Applicant believes the claims are in allowable condition. A notice of allowance for this application is solicited earnestly. If the Examiner is of the opinion that all claims currently pending or not allowable, Applicant's counsel respectfully requests a telephone interview to resolve any outstanding issues and the Examiner is invited to call Applicant's agent at the number listed below. "
Hope I am reading this correctly. Please advise.
I believe providing verifiable DD to all investors is pertinent at any point prior to the vote on 4/4/19 because everyone needs to make a educated decision based on facts not fear. It is my belief that OWCP and management are making the right decisions and are making the best out of what has been handed to them. I have 300k shares at over $165k invested. I voted YES to the RS as voting NO would show that I do not believe in the company. If i do not believe in the company than I should not of invested in it or sold. In voting NO, I believe we are binding managements hands to do what they know is in the best interest of the company or at least how to keep the doors from closing.
OWCP MM Patent looks to be one step closer. I cant copy and paste the complete link to the patent attorneys answer but just follow these instructions:
- go to: https://portal.uspto.gov/pair/PublicPair
- Type in 15580718 in the box asking you to enter application number
- notice the status date was yesterday 03/27/19
- Click on the Image File Wrapper tab at top of page
- Click on the Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment link
- Read the complete text or just the last page (Conclusion). It seems this may be the last hurdle before approval or at least that is how I interpreted what their patent attorney states.
Id like to hear what anyone else may think about this.
The date is written/typed as mm/dd/yy here. In the us but in Israel it is dd/mm/yy....
Next question anyone?
From MJMilo / Howie Email from Dr. Hirsch 2.5 weeks ago to Howie
From: Stanley Hirsch [mailto:stanley.hirsch@owcpharma.com]
Sent: March-04-19 8:31 AM
To: Howyk; Mordechai Bignitz; Miri Chen
Subject: RE: greeting
Dear Howard,
We were very happy to welcome you to view the company and to meet our team. We invested a great deal of time to show you that the work we are doing is strategically guided and well executed. I hoped that this would have also convinced you of the capability of the management team.
I am sure that you understand that we could not share with you confidential business plans. We are fully aware of the capital requirements in order to fulfill our plans. I hope that you were convinced that the team you met understands what is required in order to raise the necessary capital. Without divulging more than what we have announced in public, I can only say that we are going about this in an organized fashion. Management has to focus on what it believes can bring the highest return. We value shareholders bringing us suggestions, but I am sure that you understand that we cannot simply diverge from processes that we are developing and move after every proposal, no matter how serious.
We have announced a potential reverse split, but we have not put a definitive proposal to the shareholders yet. We have made this proposal as we believe that this is a sensible move in the rebuilding of the capital structure of the company. In the end, the company belongs to the shareholders. Management can put down plans. Shareholders can accept or reject these plans. If management does not get acceptance for a plan of action that they believe is important to the company and which shareholders believe is the wrong plan, then ultimately, conclusions need to be drawn by both groups.
No-one is asking anyone to write “blank cheques”. We have spent the last two years building a strong team, re-defining strategy and executing, step-by-step on this strategy. I do not need to remind you that certain external issues, unrelated to present management and its actions, caused serious harm to the value of the company at a critical time. Under the circumstances, management found the means to raise life-saving capital and to keep the company moving forward. We continue to adhere to the seriousness of our mission and all our actions are guided by this process.
I hope that we can enjoy your support as we move forward.
Best regards,
Stanley Hirsch for OWC Management
My favorite part......
According to the Israeli Company’s CEO, Mordechai Bignitz, “despite being young, the company is leading groundbreaking studies in the field of cannabis treatment for medical purposes, while keeping considerations of patient benefit and welfare at the forefront of its activity. Moreover, the company intends to expand its product portfolio while forming research and business collaborations with large companies in the pharma industry, and to launch its products in both the medical cannabis track and the FDA track.”
http://www.owcpharma.com/uncategorized/owc-pharmaceutical-research-corp/
Revenue Finally!!!!
"The salve is currently permitted and scheduled for marketing in the US and Canada, countries in which the use of cannabis for medical purposes has been legally permitted and approved."
http://www.owcpharma.com/uncategorized/owc-pharmaceutical-research-corp/
NEW WEBSITE OUT!!!
OWCP is now presenting at the ROTH conference as well as having 1 on 1 meetings.
https://roth.meetmax.com/sched/event_51941/__co-list_cp.html
Just type OWCP in the search bar....
Tuesday, March 19 at 03:30 PM
in GREEN - SALON 3
They are NOT presenting at the conference. They are going there for 1 on 1 meetings with institutional investors. Look up theirs name and you will see this.
Sheba plans to license OWCP IP. Look at #7 (MM) and #13 (Psoriasis). Sounds like OWCP to me. https://rnd.sheba.co.il/71834.pdf
It isnt a old article. Hirsch wasnt with OWCP 5 years ago...Its just bashers trying to misrepresent the truth.
Hirsch wasnt with OWCP in 2014 and he is listed in the article. Better luck next time:)
Milo is following his own DD and others have followed. His trip is his business and from what I gather, was positive but I am no one but a investor. I’m fully vested in this company and will support OWCP bc I know bc I Researched my investment. Do what is right for you....... I did and I feel great about it.
It should be obvious that all true long investors are no longer here bc its a waste of time, effort and energy. We know now more so than ever that we have invested in a true cannabis pharma company. We have moved on to associate with other like minded people.
Sigal Russo was NOT the CFO of Rosetta Genomics. She was a Director of Finance. HER BOSS was the CFO and his name is Ron Kalfus. She wasn't the cause of the company going bankrupt, she was only a employee of the company.
OWC PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH CORP. REPORTS POSITIVE SAFETY DATA FROM
PHASE 1 (SAFETY) CLINCIAL TRIAL FOR MEDICAL GRADE CANNABIS OINTMENT FOR TREATMENT OF SKIN DISEASES
8K OUT
Item 8.01 Other Events.
OWC PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH CORP. REPORTS POSITIVE SAFETY DATA FROM
PHASE 1 (SAFETY) CLINCIAL TRIAL FOR MEDICAL GRADE CANNABIS OINTMENT FOR TREATMENT OF SKIN DISEASES
Ramat Gan, Israel, January 29, 2019 –OWC Pharmaceutical Research Corp. (OTCQB: OWCP), a developer of cannabinoid-based therapies targeting a variety of different medical conditions and disorders, today reported positive Phase 1 safety data for its medical grade cannabis MSG ointment for the treatment of skin diseases. No severe adverse events were observed in the trial. The Company is on track to initiate a Phase 2 trial of MSG ointment for the treatment of psoriasis during the third quarter 2019.
This Phase 1 trial was a single center, prospective, placebo-controlled, study to assess the safety and tolerability of topical MGC ointment (3% CBD, 3% THC) in healthy subjects. The study was conducted at Sheba Academic Medical Center in Israel between September 2017 when the first subject entered the study and January 2019 when the last subjected completed the study.
The Study was divided into two stages:
Stage I was designed to evaluate the safety and tolerability following a single dose application of MGC ointment in 26 healthy volunteers. Subjects were hospitalized and monitored for 24 hours. Stage 2 was designed to assess the safety and tolerability of repeated applications of MGC topical ointment in healthy volunteers over a six week period. A total of 20 healthy subjects (13 subjects that participated in stage I and 7 newly recruited subjects) participated in this stage. MSG ointment treatment was applied by the subjects themselves, at home, twice daily. Subjects were asked to apply MGC ointment (daily dose of 30 mg CBD: 30 mg THC) on one arm and a placebo ointment (vehicle only) on the other arm. Investigators were blinded as to the type of treatment that was applied to each arm.
No severe adverse events were observed in either stages of the study. Minor irritation was observed in one subject.
About OWC Pharmaceutical Research Corp
OWC Pharmaceutical Research Corp., through its wholly-owned Israeli subsidiary, One World Cannabis Ltd., (collectively ‘OWC’ or the ‘Company’) conducts medical research and clinical trials to develop cannabis-based pharmaceuticals and treatments for conditions including multiple myeloma, psoriasis, fibromyalgia, PTSD, and migraines.
OWCP is also developing unique and effective delivery systems and dosage forms of medical cannabis. All OWC research is conducted at leading Israeli hospitals and scientific institutions and led by internationally renowned investigators.
Contact: Mordechai Bignitz , Chief Executive Officer - OWC Pharmaceutical research crop,
info@owcpharma.com
Tel: +972-(72)-260-8004
SIGNATURES
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.
OWC Pharmaceutical Research Corp.
By: /s/ Mordechai Bignitz
Name: Mordechai Bignitz
Title: Chief Executive Officer
Date: January 29, 2019
Electronic Filing and Support
The SEC’s EDGAR electronic filing system remains operational and continues to accept submission of filings. Staff is available to act on filer requests for EDGAR access codes and answer emergency questions regarding EDGAR submissions. The electronic filing systems for investment advisers (IARD) and broker-dealers (Web CRD) also continue to operate.
https://www.sec.gov/page/statement-shutdown
Progress is progress..............seeing that The Czech Republic is a landlocked country in Central Europe, situated southeast of Germany and bordering Austria to the south, Poland to the north and Slovakia to the southeast. Including these countries, that is over 146 million viable customers/patients. Not to mention the other 20+ other European countries which do not need a passport to travel among each other thanks to the Schengen Agreement, which means you do not need a passport to travel between these countries: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland. I would say this is definitely a positive move for OWCP. This is just my opinion.
Thank you
Haven’t been on here in some time but I was wondering where is the announcement that OWCP is going to the JP Morgan conference?
Crabby..... with all do respect.......do u actually have a job or is posting on this site ur job? As a novice investor..... I’ve invested a substantial amount of money but do not bother posting very often because I have a real career and family to support. My investments are my concern but it seems you and certain others have nothing to do for approximately 8 hours a day minus lunch but discuss OWCP....... my opinion is it’s very suspect. IMHO......
According to page 28 of the S-1 filing from yesterday, there are 221 holders of shares.
The address is for their office in the BSR tower 2. See below from Wikipedia:
The BSR Towers are a complex of four towers, two built on opposite sides of Ben Gurion Road, dividing the cities of Bnei Brak and Ramat Gan near Tel Aviv in Israel, and a third building set to be completed in 2012 on Kinneret Street. Tower 1 is located in Ramat Gan and stands at 98 meters over 24 floors, whilst Tower 2 stands at 121 meters, thus being the tallest building in Bnei Brak with 27 floors. Both buildings were completed in 2004, and were designed by Mor Architects and Moore Yaski Sivan Architects. Towers 3 and 4 are inside Bnei Brak.
BSR Towers
BSR Towers 09042011.jpg