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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 and 22-27 are pending.
Priority
Instant application 17/971,542, filed 10/21/2022 claims priority as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
71
663
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Information Disclosure Statement
All references from IDS(s) received 12/02/2025 have been considered unless marked with a strikethrough.
Response to Amendment
The amendment 12/02/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 12-13, and 22-25 have been amended. Claims 26 and 27 are new. Claims 16-21 are canceled.
Claim 1 was previously objected to. In view of the amendment filed 12/02/2025, applicant has overcome the objection. Therefore, the previous objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 20-25 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. In view of the amendment filed 12/02/2025, applicant has overcome the rejection. Therefore, the previous rejection under section 112(b) is withdrawn.
Claims 20-21were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Claims 20-21 have been canceled, rendering the rejection moot. Therefore, the previous rejection under section 112(a) is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) - New
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 8-13, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
MPEP § 2163 states that, “[n]ew or amended claims which introduce elements or limitations which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure violate the written description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967, 169 USPQ 795 (CCPA 1971) (subgenus range was not supported by generic disclosure and specific example within the subgenus range); In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389,1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) (a subgenus is not necessarily described by a genus encompassing it and a species upon which it reads).” Further, the MPEP states, “[w]hile there is no in haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure.”
Here, the amendments to claims 1 and 9 which remove the phrase “tributyrin derivative” and adds the phrase “butyrate with ester linkages capable of releasing one or more butyrate molecules when acted upon by an esterase” is not expressly, implicitly or inherently disclosed in the original claims or specification. Stated differently, the original claims and specification as-filed do not disclose, either expressly or implicitly, administering any butyrate ester capable of releasing one or more butyrate molecules when acted upon by an esterase to a subject.
Applicant cited paragraphs [0026]-[0027] of the original specification as support for the amendments to claims 1 and 9. Please note that the cited paragraphs disclose a composition comprising tributyrin or a tributyrin derivative. The cited paragraphs further state that tributyrin is a triglyceride, essentially 3 butyrate molecules attached to a glycerol chain. When consumed orally, it is acted upon by esterases thereby releasing butyrate. The cited paragraphs continue to explain that a tributyrin derivative may be used as a source of butyrate. Where the tributyrin derivative comprises less than three butyrate molecules (e.g., a butyrate di-ester), the dosage level of the derivative should be increased.
The cited paragraphs do not contemplate the use of any butyrate ester capable of releasing one or more butyrate molecules when acted upon by an esterase (such as, for example, ethyl butyrate, resveratrol butyrate, phorbol 12,13-dibutyrate, etc.). Instead, the cited paragraphs contemplate only the specific butyrate ester tributyrin, and “tributyrin derivatives”, an ambiguous term which appears to include butyrate glycerides having fewer than three butyrate moieties (i.e., mono- or di-butyrin).
Applicant stated the following in the Remarks filed 07/09/2025 (page 5, 3rd para.):
PNG
media_image2.png
107
615
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Please note that the above remarks are directed to the term “tributyrin derivative”, whereas the instant claims require written description support for the phrase “butyrate with ester linkages capable of releasing one or more butyrate molecules when acted upon by an esterase”.
A finding of written description support is not similar to obviousness analysis where one can assume applicant intended to recite the new limitation of instant claims 1 and 9 when they filed the application based solely on the administration of tributyrin or a “tributyrin derivative”. Applicants must actually have support for all limitations of the claims in the original disclosure. In this case, the methods of claims 1 and 9 lack written description support in the original disclosure and therefore contain new matter.
Claims 2-5, 8, 10-13, and 22-25 depend from claim 1 or claim 9 and do not resolve the issues identified above. Therefore, claims 2-5, 8, 10-13, and 22-25 are also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) - New
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 refers to a “tributyrin derivative”. The term “tributyrin derivative” in claim 8 is indefinite for the reasons previously identified in the non-final rejection mailed 06/02/2025. Additionally, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “tributyrin derivative” in claim 8. Claim 8 depends from claim 1, which has been amended to replace the term “tributyrin derivative” with “butyrate with ester linkages capable of releasing one or more butyrate molecules when acted upon by an esterase”.
Therefore claim 8 is rejected as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d) - New
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 8 fails to further limit claim 1 from which it depends. Claim 1, as amended, already recites administering an amount sufficient to release a first and a second portion of butyrate in the small intestine and colon. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-15, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titlow (US 20200384043 A1; cited in IDS) in view of Wannissorn (Blog | Healus, 18 Mar. 2020) and Shi (Journal of Food Science, vol. 85, no. 10, Oct. 2020, pp. 2986–93).
Applicant’s Invention
The instant claims are drawn to methods of improving mood, coping with stress, metabolism, or immune system function comprising administering tributyrin or a tributyrin derivative to a subject. As disclosed in the Background section of the specification, tributyrin when consumed orally releases butyrate, a short chain fatty acid (SFCA) primarily produced by gut microbiota which provides beneficial effects, such as anti-inflammatory effects (see specification, para. 0005). In particular, the gut bacterium Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (F. prausnitzii) is discussed because it is a butyrate-producing strain and exerts strong anti-inflammatory activity in the intestinal environment (see specification, para. 0006).
With respect to the positive benefits of tributyrin administration claimed by Applicant, para. 0043 of the specification discusses underlying mechanisms by which mood benefits, immune health benefits, and metabolic benefits arise. In particular, it is noted that for mood benefits and immune health benefits, an increase F. prausnitzii is discussed as an underlying cause.
Additionally, with respect to the claim amendments filed 05/21/2025, the specification notes that metabolites produced by microbes, such as tryptophan and indole derivatives (i.e. indole-3-acetic acid), are linked to positive benefits (see para. [0034] – [0037]).
Teachings of Titlow
Titlow is drawn to tributyrin compositions and their use in increasing levels of beneficial bacteria in the gut to improve gut health (see abstract and para. 0002). In particular, Titlow discloses a method of increasing levels of Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (F. prausnitzii) in the gut comprising administering a tributyrin-containing composition at a dosage of between 50 to 1000 mg of tributyrin or a tributyrin derivative (see claims 1-5). Additional dosage amounts are disclosed in para. 0030. Titlow further teaches that increasing F. prausnitzii in the gut is advantageous and can provide relief in patients with irritable bowel disease and Crohn’s disease (see para. 0028).
Titlow does not explicitly discuss improving at least one of mood, coping with stress, metabolism, and immune system function with tributyrin supplementation as recited in the instant claims.
Teachings of Wannissorn
Wannissorn is drawn to the health benefits of tributyrin and butyrate. In particular, Wannisorn discusses multiple health benefits of butyrate including promoting a balanced immune response (i.e. improving immune system function; see pages 4-5); supporting healthy metabolic health (i.e. improving metabolism; see pages 7-8); and supporting brain and cognitive health (i.e. improving mood). Wannisorn also discloses the challenges associated with delivering butyrate to the intestine, and promotes tributyrin as a prodrug of butyrate with more favorable pharmacokinetics (see page 11, para. 1-3). Additionally, Wannisorn discloses that intestinal lipases will cleave tributyrin to release butyrate into the small intestine (see page 11, para. 5).
Teachings of Shi
Shi is drawn to formulations of tributyrin encapsulated by cyclodextrin (CD) and their ability to release butyrate in the ileum (small intestine) and colon (see abstract). In particular, Shi demonstrates that samples comprising CD-encapsulated tributyrin release butyrate in both the small intestine (ileum) and in the ascending colon (see page 2991, Tables 3 and 4):
PNG
media_image3.png
519
1335
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
418
1336
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In Table 4, the amount of butyrate released in the ileum averages approximately 64% for the 3 doses administered. In the ascending colon, a higher percentage (averaging ~100% for the 3 doses) of butyrate was observed. The authors attribute the higher butyrate release in the ascending colon (AC) to both release from TB and fermentation of the CD by bacteria in the colon (see page 2990, col. 2, para. 2):
PNG
media_image5.png
56
657
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
147
661
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, Shi provides a teaching of butyrate release from tributyrin in the small intestine and large intestines.
Finding of prima facie obviousness
The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. See MPEP 2143.
Examples of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Applying KSR exemplary rationale (A), it would have been prima facie obvious to apply the method comprising administering tributyrin disclosed by Titlow to patient populations interested in improving mood, metabolism, or immune system function as taught by Wannissorn. A skilled artisan would have reasonably predicted that administering tributyrin to such a subject would successfully achieve improved mood, metabolism, and immune system function because these outcomes were already associated with tributyrin supplementation in the prior art. Additionally, Titlow clearly teaches that administering tributyrin increases levels of F. prausnitzii, which Applicant admits in the Background section of the specification was known to provide beneficial effects, such as anti-inflammatory effects and improved metabolism (see para. 0006). Further, Shi discloses that administering tributyrin results in release of butyrate to the small intestine and to the colon, and thus a skilled artisan would predict that administering tributyrin at a dose disclosed in Titlow would be sufficient to release a portion of butyrate from the administered amount in the small intestine and the colon.
With respect to claims 1-2, 4-5, 8-10, and 12-13, Titlow in view of Wannissorn and Shi teaches administering tributyrin to a subject to release butyrate in the small intestine and colon and improve mood, metabolism, and immune system function. Titlow teaches daily dosing of tributyrin (see para. 0030). Titlow teaches administering tributyrin in a dose of between 50 mg to 1000 mg, or most typically at a dose of 300 mg per day, which reads on the “sufficient” amount recited by claims 1 and 9.
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Titlow teaches administering tributyrin in a dose of between 50 mg to 1000 mg, or most typically at a dose of 300 mg per day, which falls within the recited range (see para. 0030). Titlow is directed to administering tributyrin in humans (see claim 1).
With respect to claims 7 and 15, Titlow teaches administering tributyrin as a supplement. See para. 0032 of Titlow:
PNG
media_image7.png
135
420
media_image7.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 26 and 27, Titlow teaches administering tributyrin in doses between 50 mg to 1000 mg per day; and teaches multiple forms and formulations of the tributyrin-containing composition in para. 0032 (including capsules). It would have therefore been obvious to administer tributyrin at a dose of 1000 mg per day.
Please also note Applicant’s admission in the Remarks filed 05/21/2025 (see page 17) that:
“The Application does not describe anything other than tributyrin in a capsule. Nothing else is necessary to describe what was tested. It was butyrate release from tributyrin that was measured and calculated as a percentage, which is applicable to any amount of human dose of tributyrin.”
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4-10, 12-15, and 26-27 are rejected.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titlow in view of Wannissorn and Shi as applied to claims above, and further in view of Hao (Psychoneuroendocrinology, vol. 104, June 2019, pp. 132–42).
The teachings of Titlow in view of Wannissorn and Shi are disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated herein by reference and applied to claims 3 and 11. Titlow in view of Wannissorn and Shi teaches administering tributyrin to a subject to release butyrate in the small intestine and colon and improve mood, metabolism, and immune system function.
Titlow, Wannissorn, and Shi do not explicitly teach improving “coping with stress” as recited in instant claims 3 and 11.
However, it was known in the prior art before the effective filing date of the invention that F. prausnitzii has anxiolytic and anti-depressant effects in rats. For example, Hao discloses that the administration of F. prausnitzii had preventive and therapeutic effects on chronic unpredictable mild stress (CUMS)-induced depression-like and anxiety-like behavior (see abstract and conclusions).
Applying KSR exemplary rationale (G), it would have been prima facie obvious to apply the method of increasing levels of F. prausnitzii comprising administering tributyrin taught by Titlow in view of Wannissorn and Shi to patient populations interested in coping with stress as taught by Hao. A skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the method of Titlow to patients with stress and anxiety because, as taught by Hao, increasing levels of F. prausnitzii in a subject has anxiolytic and antidepressant-like effects.
Therefore, claims 3 and 11 are rejected.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titlow (US 20200384043 A1; cited in IDS) in view of Wannissorn (Blog | Healus, 18 Mar. 2020) and Shi (Journal of Food Science, vol. 85, no. 10, Oct. 2020, pp. 2986–93) applied to claims above, as evidenced by Roshanravan (Journal of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Research, vol. 9, no. 4, 2017, pp. 183–90).
The teachings of Titlow in view of Wannissorn and Shi are disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated herein by reference and applied to claims 22 and 23. Titlow in view of Wannissorn and Shi teaches administering tributyrin to a subject to release butyrate in the small intestine and colon and improving mood, metabolism, and immune system function by increasing levels of beneficial colonic bacteria and metabolites.
Titlow, Wannissorn, and Shi do not explicitly disclose that administering tributyrin increases levels of the bacteria Akkermansia muciniphila, Parabacteroides distasonis, and Parabacteroides goldsteinii.
However, increasing levels of the aforementioned bacteria was a known effect of butyrate supplementation in a subject. For example, see Roshanravan, which discloses that an effect of sodium butyrate supplementation is the promotion of Akkermansia muciniphila abundance (see entire document, particularly title and abstract). In particular, Roshanravan discloses that administering 600 mg/day of sodium butyrate to patients group A resulted in a significant increase in levels of Akkermansia muciniphila (see Table 2). Therefore, a person having ordinary skill would have recognized that the method taught by Titlow, Wannissorn, and Shi, which comprises butyrate supplementation to increase beneficial gut bacteria, would necessarily result in an increase in Akkermansia muciniphila.
Therefore claims 22 and 23 are rejected.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Titlow (US 20200384043 A1; cited in IDS) in view of Wannissorn (Blog | Healus, 18 Mar. 2020) and Shi (Journal of Food Science, vol. 85, no. 10, Oct. 2020, pp. 2986–93) applied to claims above, as evidenced by Russell (Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, vol. 57, no. 3, Mar. 2013, pp. 523–35).
The teachings of Titlow in view of Wannissorn and Shi are disclosed above and at least those teachings are incorporated herein by reference and applied to claims 24 and 25. Titlow in view of Wannissorn and Shi teaches administering tributyrin to a subject to release butyrate in the small intestine and colon, increase levels of beneficial colonic bacteria (such as F. prausnitzii) and improve mood, metabolism, and immune system function. Increasing levels of colonic bacteria such as F. prausnitzii would necessarily result in an increase in metabolites produced by those bacteria.
Titlow, Wannissorn, and Shi do not explicitly disclose that the metabolites produced by F. prausnitzii include tryptophan and indole derivatives. However, the production of tryptophan and indole derivatives by F. prausnitzii was known in the prior art and is considered to necessarily result from increasing levels of F. prausnitzii in the gut as taught by Titlow.
Evidence of Russell
Russell is cited as evidence that microbes including F. prausnitzii produce tryptophan indole derivatives (title, abstract, Table 3). In Table 3, see the entries for Fp S3L/3 and Fp M21/2 and the tryptophan and indole derivatives produced by these microbes as evidence.
Accordingly, in view of the evidence of Russell, the limitations recited by claims 24-25 are considered to necessarily result from the method of claims 1 and 9 taught by Titlow, Wannissorn, and Shi.
Therefore, claims 24 and 25 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the combination of Wannissorn, Titlow, and Shi does not teach the present claims.
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
The instant claims are drawn to methods of improving mood, coping with stress, metabolism, or immune system function comprising administering tributyrin or a tributyrin derivative to a subject.
As disclosed in the Background section of the specification, tributyrin when consumed orally releases butyrate, a short chain fatty acid (SFCA) primarily produced by gut microbiota which provides beneficial effects, such as anti-inflammatory effects (see specification, para. 0005). In particular, the gut bacterium Faecalibacterium prausnitzii (F. prausnitzii) is discussed because it is a butyrate-producing strain and exerts strong anti-inflammatory activity in the intestinal environment (see specification, para. 0006).
With respect to the positive benefits of tributyrin administration claimed by Applicant, para. 0043 of the specification discusses underlying mechanisms by which mood benefits, immune health benefits, and metabolic benefits arise. In particular, it is noted that for mood benefits and immune health benefits, an increase F. prausnitzii is discussed as an underlying cause (see para. 0043).
Wannisorn discloses multiple health benefits of butyrate including promoting a balanced immune response (i.e. improving immune system function; see pages 4-5); supporting healthy metabolic health (i.e. improving metabolism; see pages 7-8); and supporting brain and cognitive health, including treatment for depression (i.e. improving mood; see pages 8-9). Wannisorn also discloses the challenges associated with delivering butyrate to the intestine, and promotes tributyrin as a prodrug of butyrate with more favorable pharmacokinetics (see page 11, para. 1-3). Additionally, Wannisorn discloses that intestinal lipases will cleave tributyrin to release butyrate into the small intestine (see page 11, para. 5).
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The basis for the rejection is that the combination of Titlow, Wannissorn, and Shi renders the instant claims obvious. In particular, Titlow and Wannissorn provide health benefits attributable to administering tributyrin. Shi is relied upon for teachings of butyrate release from tributyrin in the small and large intestines. Applicant has not disputed the rationale for combining the teachings of Titlow, Wannissorn, and Shi set forth in the 103 rejection.
Applicant continues to argue that Wannisorn has no discussion or link to metabolites including butyrate promoting healthy mood. Applicant asserts that a person having ordinary skill reading Wannisorn could conclude that butyrate promotes healthy mood.
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As noted previously, Wannisorn teaches that butyrate supports healthy levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factors, which promote healthy mood, learning, and neuronal repairs. Moreover, Wannisorn also teaches that several preclinical studies suggest that butyrate may be a promising treatment or adjunctive treatment for addictions, depression, autism spectrum disorders, and neurodegenerative diseases (Wannisorn, page 9, 2nd paragraph). Treatment of depression is being interpreted as reading on “improving mood”.
Applicant additionally argues that brain health benefits like improvement of mood and alleviation of stress are attributed to multiple factors including (i) increase in butyrate, (ii) increase in tryptophan, increase in levels of indole derivatives. The increase in butyrate, tryptophan, indole derivatives, etc. are all downstream benefits resulting from the active step of administering a tributyrin supplement (which is apparently just tributyrin in a capsule) to a human. They are not applicant’s invention, but instead are the biological consequence of tributyrin supplementation in the claimed patient population. They do not distinguish from the prior art because the prior art teaches the same active step(s) of tributyrin supplementation required to the same patient population.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing arguments the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Claims 1-15 and 22-27 are rejected.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Nottingham whose telephone number is (571)270-0640. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Clinton Brooks can be reached at (571) 270-7682. 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.
/K.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1621
/CLINTON A BROOKS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1621