DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/10/2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Claim 1 has been amended. Claims 8-20 previously were withdrawn. Claims filed 1/14/2026 are the latest filed claims in the file wrapper, although it is noted that the document code is incorrect and does not separate claims and remarks; these amendments are entered upon filing of the RCE dated 2/10/2026. Claims 1-7 remain pending and under examination.
Withdrawn Rejections
The rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Randel in view of Swensen and Pan is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1/14/2026 (hereafter, Remarks) have been fully considered, entered upon entry with the RCE filed 2/10/2026, and are addressed as follows.
Regarding the previously issued rejection of claims 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Randel in view of Swensen and Pan, Applicant argues that the combination of references does not teach the newly narrowed range of free gossypol and therefore does not teach all claimed elements. Applicant’s calculations detailed at page 7 of Remarks are consistent with the examiner’s calculations and are accepted as reasonable and correct. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that Randel does not teach the newly claimed feature is persuasive, as is the argument that none of the secondary references cure this deficiency.
Regarding the double patenting rejections, Applicant states that Applicant will address this rejection under certain conditions. Applicant’s reply is considered non-responsive, and the rejection is maintained.
As to Applicant’s assertion of “no waiver” and associated commentary on page 9 of Remarks, Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Statutory Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-7 provisionally are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-7 of copending Application No. 17/722,120 (reference application). This is a provisional statutory double patenting rejection since the claims directed to the same invention have not in fact been patented. The claims are verbatim except that the instant claims recite an intended use “for a rodent”, and the copending claims recite an intended use “for a pig”. Nevertheless, the composition claimed and its structural components are the same, and an intended use does not differentiate one from another. The compositions claimed are therefore the same invention drawn to an identical composition comprising identical components.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUDREA B CONIGLIO whose telephone number is (571)270-1336. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:00 a.m. - 5:30 p.m..
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, Michael Hartley can be reached at 5712720616. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AUDREA B CONIGLIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1617