Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant's Remarks/Amendment after Non-Final Rejection, filed Nov. 25, 2025. As filed, claims 1-4, 7-14, 29, and 30 are pending of which claims 1, 3, 4 are amended; claim 30 is new. Claims 7-14 and 29 are currently withdrawn. Claims 5,6, 15-28 are cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 30 are examined herein.
A complete response to this Office Action should include cancellation of non-elected subject matter or other appropriate action.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicants' information disclosure statements (IDS) filed on 11/25/2025 have been considered except where lined through. Please refer to Applicants' copy of the 1449 submitted herewith.
Rejections Withdrawn
Applicants’ amendment, have been fully considered and are entered. The status for each rejection and/or objection in the previous Office Action is set out below.
1. The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in view of amendments to claims to specify the chemical structure of the disulfide compound.
2. The rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is moot per cancellation of said claims.
3. The rejection of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 4,614,821 by Kihara et al, 1986i s withdrawn per claim amendments.
The following are modified or new grounds of rejections necessitated by Applicants’ amendment, filed on 11/25/2025 wherein the limitations in pending claims as amended now have been changed. The limitations in the amended claims have been changed and the breadth and scope of those claims have been changed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)91) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Banerjee e-EROS Encyclopedia for reagents of Org. Synthesis, 20027, 1-3 (cited by Applicant in IDS).
The article by Banerjee teaches synthesis of trisulfide compound by reacting S-ethyl ethylthiosulfoxide with dimethyl sulfide sulfur source to give the trisulfide product.
Shown below is the reaction of the prior art as displayed in the Casreact data bases
PNG
media_image1.png
209
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding instant claims 1 and 30, the dimethyl disulfide corresponds to claimed formula R1-S-S-R2 in which R1 and R2 are each alkyl group (e.g. methyl) and the dimethyl trisulfide corresponds to trisulfide product of claimed method (page 1, left column).
Regarding the limitation of claim “oxidizing disulfide with oxidizing agent to obtain a sulfoxide compound” the reference teaches on page 1 left column oxidation of ethyl dimethyl to ethylthiosulfoxide mediated by mCPBA (m-chloropeoxybenzoic acid) as oxidizing reagent.
Therefore, the prior art meets the limitations of instant claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee e-EROS Encyclopedia for reagents of Org. Synthesis, 20027, 1-3 cited by Applicant in IDS) and further in view of US 6,187,960 by Shaw et al, 2001 (“the 960 patent”; cited in the PTO-892 attached herewith) and US 4,614,821 by Kihara et al, 1986 (“the 821 patent”; cited in the PTO-892 mailed 9/29/2025).
The article by Banerjee teaches synthesis of trisulfide compound by reacting S-ethyl ethylthiosulfoxide with dimethyl sulfide sulfur source to give the trisulfide product.
Shown below is the reaction of the prior art as displayed in the Casreact data bases
PNG
media_image1.png
209
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding instant claims 1 and 30, the dimethyl disulfide corresponds to claimed formula R1-S-S-R2 in which R1 and R2 are each alkyl group (e.g. methyl) and the dimethyl trisulfide corresponds to trisulfide product of claimed method (page 1, left column).
Regarding the limitation of claim “oxidizing disulfide with oxidizing agent to obtain a sulfoxide compound” the reference teaches on page 1 left column oxidation of ethyl dimethyl to ethylthiosulfoxide mediated by mCPBA (m-chloropeoxybenzoic acid) as oxidizing reagent.
The difference between the process of producing trisulfide product of the ‘ Banerjee and the instantly claimed process for producing trisulfide is that the process of prior art does not teach on pot reaction and the oxidant an sulfur source are different that the list in claims 3- 4.
These limitations are addressed in the ‘960 patent and the ‘821 patent.
The ‘960 patent teaches a method for producing an organic polysulfide
compounds which comprises contacting, in the presence of a catalyst, an organic disulfide with sulfur under conditions sufficient to produce an organic polysulfide
wherein the organic disulfide, sulfur, and catalyst are each present in an amount effective to produce an organic polysulfide.
PNG
media_image2.png
164
456
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding instant claims 1 and 30, the ‘ 960 patent teaches reacting dimethyl disulfide which corresponds to disulfide of formula R1-S-S-R2 in which R1 and R2 are each alkyl group (e.g. methyl)
Regarding instant claim 2, the ‘960 patent teaches one pot reaction – example III on col 6- continuing on col 7.
Regarding instant claim 4, the ‘960 patent teaches sodium hydrosulfide as sulfur source (example III on col 6- continuing on col 7).
Regarding insta claims 3-4, the ‘821 patent teaches preparing trisulfide by reacting disulfide with hydrogen peroxide (instant claim 3) to sulfoxide intermediate, followed by reaction of sulfoxide with Na2S as a sulfur source (instant claim 4) to yield 1,2,3-trithiane product (see claim 1 of the cited reference, scheme on col 2 below; col 1-2, col 4 lines 20-29; examples).
"Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results ". See MPEP § 2143 . Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made the skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of cited references to arrive at instant invention with reasonable expectation of success, because the prior art teaches that the trisulfide can be produced in one-step reaction, by oxidation of disulfide to sulfoxide with oxidants such as hydrogen peroxide as alternative oxidant and with Na2S or sodium hydrosulfide as sulfur source.
Consequently, absent a showing of unexpected results, the instant claims are obvious over the combined teachings of the prior art.
Conclusion
In view of the rejections to the pending claims set forth above, no claim is allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Telephone Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to:
Ana Muresan
(571) 270-7587 (phone)
(571)270-8587 (fax)
Ana.Muresan@uspto.gov
The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9:00AM - 5:30PM).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scarlett Goon can be reached at 571-270-5241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANA Z MURESAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692