A Final Rejection isn't necessarily final since they have 3...

A Final Rejection isn't necessarily final since they have 3 months to respond. So we'll find out in June if the USPTO decide to reconsider the amendments or not. The only real counter to the "obviousness" argument is that of "unpredictability", so it'll be interesting to see what PAR have up their sleeve. After a quick read it appears PAR are trying to get the patent amended for improvements to pain and function, while the patent office is arguing that pain and function are intrinsically linked. My guess is PAR's next move is to consult a specialist to argue that pain and function may appear to be intrinsically linked based on short-term treatment effects but not long-term treatment effects. So PARs argument will have to be around the durability of the effect, which was not noted in Ghosh since it was not known.

It needs to be noted that PAR currently do have patent protections for treatments of BME in OA. This application (as well as others) are trying to extend the patent life by making various other claims, which will only increase as we generate more data from 008, 002 and 003.