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 .1
Status of Claims
Claims 1-11, 13-17, 20, 23 and 28-34 are pending. Claim 23 is withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on Sept 25 2025 and Dec 17 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment of claim 23, filed September 26, 2025 with respect to the objection of claim 23 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claim 23 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed September 26, 2025 to rebut the obviousness rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-15,17, 19-22, 28, 29, and 31-35 over Labaf in view of Machmüller and Kreuzer; the species of claims 3, 4 and 16 over Labaf in view of Machmüller and Kreuzer further in view of WO 925; the species of claim 30 over Labaf in view of Machmüller and Kreuzer further in view of Flores-Santiago, as modified by the cancellation of claims 12, 18-19, 21-22, 24027 and 35 are detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-15, 17, 20, 28-29, and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over WO2022232876 (Labaf) in view of Machmüller and Kreuzer, Methane suppression by coconut oil and associated effects on nutrient and energy balance in sheep Can. J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 79, No. 1 Mar. 1999 pp. 65-72. Labaf is found in the IDS, NPL Ref. 2, cited by the Examiner in previous office actions. Machmüller was previously cited by the Examiner.
Claim 1 recites a preamble of a consumable water-based composition for methane reduction in a ruminant, the composition comprising:
(i) bromoform, in an amount of about 0.01 wt% to about 20 wt%;
(ii) a medium chain triglyceride (MCT), in an amount of about 1 wt% to about 33 wt%;
(iii) a thickening agent; and
(iv) an aqueous phase,
wherein the aqueous phase comprises water and wherein the composition comprises about 40% to about 80% water;
wherein the bromoform is not derived from a biomass.
With regard to the limitation of “wherein the bromoform is not derived from a biomass,” it is considered to be directed to a product-by-process limitation (see MPEP §2113). Absent a clear showing of criticality, the manner in which the claimed bromoform composition is prepared, it is not considered to contribute to the overall patentability of the claimed composition.
Regarding claim 1 and the preamble of an aqueous bromoform composition and reduction of methane production in a ruminant, Labaf discloses a liquid feed formulation for reducing methane production in a ruminant, comprising a liquid nutrient, oil (lipid component) and thickening agent such as xanthan gum. See paragraph 119, Example 1, Table 1; claim 1 and abstract.
Labaf discloses the anti-methanogenic agent (bromoform) in amounts of about 100 mg/kg to about 700 mg/kg, where the about can be imputed to a concentration range, i.e., about 0.01 to about 0.07 wt %, overlapping with the range of claim 1, “about 0.1% wt” . See paragraphs 17-18; and claims 7-8 and 28-29. See MPEP 2144.05.
With regard to the claim 1 limitation, wherein the aqueous phase comprises water and wherein the composition comprises about 40% to about 80% water, Labaf teaches similar ranges, if not overlapping ranges as follows. Note the claim 1 limitation of about 40%, is interpreted to be a prima facie similar range to the teaching of about 35 % from the Labaf reference. See MPEP 2144.05.
Labaf teaches “In one embodiment, the water is present in the liquid feed formulation in an amount from about 10% to about 35% by weight.” See paragraph 20.
See also paragraphs 0033, 0035, 0055, etc., where the liquid nutrient comprises preferably: (a) about 10% to about 35% by weight of water.
Labaf teaches about 0.01% to about 0.5% by weight of an edible (canola) oil, see paragraph 33.
While Labaf teaches a water based composition administered to a ruminant in the claimed percentages of the anti-methane (bromoform) compound, wt% of water with a lipid compound, oil and thickening agent (xanthan gum and molasses) in the amounts claimed, it does not necessarily exemplify bromoform per se in its examples or expressly disclose the claimed lipid medium chain triglycerides (MCTs) as the lipid component of claim 1.
However, a PHOSITA would arrive at bromoform as the anti-methane component and choice of medium chain triglycerides (palm or coconut oils) with a reasonable expectation of success as presently claimed. Initially, it is pointed out, Labaf specifically teaches a choice of bromoform as an anti-methagenoic. See paragraph 17 and claim 28.
Further, Machmüller discloses feed formulations comprising supplemented with 3.5 and 7% coconut oil (a known source of MCT) of 3.5 and 7% suppressed (P < 0.001) methane production by 28 and 73%, respectively, as related to the unsupplemented diet, see abstract, where such concentrations 3.5 and 7% of coconut (MCT) oil fall within the claimed range (about 0.5% to about 10% wt).
Prior to the filing of the present patent application, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) following the teachings of the primary reference Labaf teaching a composition comprising a form of bromoform, water, lipid, oil and thickening agent in view of the secondary reference to disclose the claimed lipid MCT with bromoform.
The PHOSITA would have had a reasonable expectation of success because both Labaf and Machmüller are directed to anti-methagenoic compositions for ruminants. It is noted that the Labaf is directed to a liquid formulation, where Machmüller is noted to be for solid dry feeds. To address this, Labaf teaches its liquid feed formulation is suitable for mixture into solid feedstock (dry animal fodder see paragraphs 44, 49 and 149; claim 34) and similarly the claimed liquid formulation of claim 1 is also intended to be mixed with dry animal feed as per claims 17 and 31. Further, the claimed invention and Labaf and Machmüller are in the same field of endeavor, reduction of methane in ruminants. Accordingly, a PHOSITA would have the rationale to combine the teachings of cited prior art according to known methods to yield predictable results, i.e. with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 2’s emulsifier limitation, Labaf teaches emulsifiers. See claims 21, 56, and Table 1.
Regarding claims 5, 10 and 15 wherein a ratio of the bromoform to the MCT is about 1 :99 to about 1:1, Labaf Table 1 teaches the anti-methane compound A. taxiformis at 7.0% wt and the lipid compound from 0.1 % wt., or a ratio approximating 70 : 1, that falls within the claimed range between 99:1 to 1:1. As discussed above, it is obvious to note bromoform per se as the anti-methane compound, rather than A. Taxiformis source, and to exchange palm oil (a source of MCT as claimed) for the plant (canola) oils of Labaf.
Regarding claim 6 and 9, and the claimed ratios of thickening agent to bromo from 1:10 to about 1:5, or 1:10 to about 1:5; claim 19 of Labaf teaches a thickener in amounts from about 0.01 about 0.5% by weight. See also Labaf, starting at paragraph 119, where Example 1 teaches a composition comprising the thickening agent xanthan gum (0.04 % wt).
Labaf discloses the anti-methanogenic agent is bromoform in amounts of about 100 mg/kg to about 700 mg/kg, which is about 0.01 to about 0.07 wt %. See paragraphs 17-18 and claims 7-8 and 28-29. Accordingly, a ratio of thickening agent xanthan gum 0.04 % wt : bromoform: (about 0.10 to about 0.07% wt) falls within the claimed value of 1:1, or 1:10 to 1:5 would be routine to optimize based on the claimed ranges.
Regarding claims 7-8 and the claimed bromoform : MCT ratio limitation, for example 1:2, Labaf teaches bromoform in amounts of about 100 mg/kg to about 700 mg/kg, which is about 0.01 to about 0.07 wt %. See above. Labaf teaches edible oil (aka a MCT) is from about 0.01% to about 0.5% by weight. See claim 16. Adjustment of the ratio of bromoform: MCT ratio, such as 1:2 would be routine to optimize by one of ordinary skill in the art based on the ranges of Labaf.
Regarding claim 11 and the limitation of a concentrate, it is noted that Labaf teaches its formulation is a concentrate, where the liquid formulation concentrate is mixed with animal feed. See paragraph 47.
Regarding claim 13 wherein the composition is a liquid, Labaf discloses liquid compositions throughout itself, for example see Table 1, Example 1, the claims starting with claim 1, etc.
Regarding claim 14 wherein the semi-solid is a gel or jelly, Labaf discloses its viscosity of between about 1200 cP and 2200 cP at 23 degrees C, where notice is taken, viscosity over 2000 cP at room temperature will result in a gel composition. See abstract; paragraphs 11, 35 etc.; claims 1 and 25.
Regarding claim 17 wherein the composition comprises a feed, the Labaf teaches its liquid feed formulation is mixed with animal feed. See Labaf paragraph 47.
Regarding claim 20 and its plant based gum thickening agent limitation, Labaf Table 1 discloses xanthan gum, known to be sourced from plant sources such as corn, soy, etc. See above Tables 3-5.
Regarding claim 28 and the emulsifier concentration of about 0.005 wt% to about 3 wt%, Labaf discloses emulsifiers are used in 0.25% wt in bromoform liquid formulations at Examples 3-5. See Tables 3, 4, 5; respectively paragraphs 138-139, 141-142 and 144-145.
Regarding claim 29’s limitation of plant based gum thickener (i.e. xanthan gum), Labaf, starting at paragraph 119, Example 1, teaches a composition comprising the thickening agent xanthan gum (0.04 % wt).
Regarding claim 31 and feed ration limitation, Labaf teaches its liquid feed formulation is used as part of a mixed feed ration. See paragraphs 137, 140 and “Feed Ration” section starting at paragraph 146.
Claims 32-33 recites functional descriptive limitations of the invention as follows;
the composition reduces methane production by at least 90%,
a shelf-life of at least 6 months when stored at a temperature of about 0° C. to about 50° C.
These limitations describe functions of the claimed invention that would be present in the prior art teaching the claimed inventive bromoform composition. Therefore, these limitations are inherently present. See MPEP 2112.01 II. 2
Regarding claim 34 and limitation of bromoform concentration sufficient to reduce volume of methane expelled from a ruminant by at least 30%, because the prior art teaches the claimed invention, the property of methane reduction expelled would be necessarily present in the known composition in the known bromoform concentration.
Claims 1-11, 13-17, 20, 28-29 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Labaf, WO2022232876, in view of Machmüller and Kreuzer Methane suppression by coconut oil and associated effects on nutrient and energy balance in sheep Can. J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 79, No. 1 Mar 1999 pp. 65-72 in view of WO 2022/221925 (WO 925). WO 925 is cited on the IDS dated Nov 1 2024.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-15, 17, 20, 28-29 and 31-34 are obvious over Labaf in view of Machmüller as detailed above.
It is noted that Labaf in view of Machmüller does not teach the limitations of claims 3, 4 and 16 regarding polysorbate emulsifiers with the claimed emulsifier to bromoform ratio. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would predictably arrive at the invention as follows.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 16, Labaf teaches using an emulsifier with its liquid feed methane reducing formulations. See Tables 3, 4, 5; respectively paragraphs 138-139, 141-142 and 144-145. Labaf does not each polysorbate as the emulsifier of choice. However one of ordinary skill in the art would predictably choose polysorbate emulsifiers with a reasonable expectation of success based on the prior art. WO 925 teaches compositions known to reduce methane production in a ruminant animal. See paragraph 25. The composition can be a blend of essential oils, (Id.), which by their nature would immiscible with water but for an emulsifier.
WO 925 teaches a water soluble methane reducer [composition], where if a substance is not water soluble, emulsifying agents can be incorporated. See paragraph 26. Emulsifying agents taught include polyoxymethylene fatty acid derivatives of sorbitan esters (aka Tween where official notice is taken tween is known as a polysorbate emulsifier as claimed).
Regarding claim 4 and the claimed ratio of emulsifier to MCT, Labaf discloses emulsifiers are used in 0.25% wt in bromoform liquid formulations at Examples 3-5. See Tables 3, 4, 5; respectively paragraphs 138-139, 141-142 and 144-145. Labaf teaches canola oil (aka a MCT) is present in the liquid feed formulation in an amount from about 0.01% to about 0.5% by weight. See claim 16. Accordingly, the 1:1 ratio of emulsifier (0.25%) to MCT (0.01 to 0.5%) is obvious.
Claims 1-2, 5-11, 13-15, 17, 20, 28-29 and 30-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Labaf, WO2022232876, in view of Machmüller and Kreuzer Methane suppression by coconut oil and associated effects on nutrient and energy balance in sheep Can. J. Anim. Sci. Vol. 79, No. 1 Mar. 1999 pp. 65-72, in view of Flores-Santiago et al. “Reduction of Enteric Methane Emissions in Heifers Fed Tropical Grass-Based Rations Supplemented with Palm Oil,” Fermentation 25 July 2022, 8, 349. Flores-Santiago was already cited by the Examiner.
Claims 1-2,5-11,13-15,17,20,28-29 and 31-34 are obvious over Labaf in view of Machmüller as detailed above.
It is noted that Labaf as in view of Machmüller does not teach the limitations of claim 30 regarding an alkyl chain an MCT is between 6-12 carbons, for example lauric acid. However as evidenced below, one of ordinary skill in the arti would predictably arrive at claim 30.
Regarding claim 30 limiting the alkyl chain of the MCT to comprise 6 to 12 carbon atoms, Flores-Santiago discloses lauric acid, a 12 carbon fatty acid, see Table 3. One of ordinary skill in the art would look towards the teachings of Flores-Santiago in combination with Labaf as it is similarly directed to compositions and methods to reduce ruminant methane gas. See abstract.
RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY ARGUMENTS:
Paraphrasing the Attorney response, citing to MPEP 2143.01, the combination of prior art elements rely upon aspects separate from their established functions, negating a finding of obviousness, and there is no reasonable expectation of success to modify for an ordinarily skilled artisan. The response states Labaf is limited to a concentration of 0.01% to 0.07% bromoform, where the invention claims about 0.1 % to about 20% bromoform.
In response, it is pointed out that Labaf similarly relies upon the term “about” with reference to the amount of bromoform available, “about 100mg/kg to about 700 mg/kg.” See paragraph 18. Accordingly, Labaf teaches an overlapping amount of bromoform, where the claimed amount is about 0.07% and where the “about” of 100mg/kg to 700 mg/kg, can be imputed with a reasonable expectation of success by a PHOSITA to encompass about 0.01%, i.e., about 0.07% approximates about 0.10 % claimed. See MPEP 2144.05.
Similar to the above reasoning, the Attorney response states claim 1 recites about 40% wt water. As detailed above, Labaf teaches “about 35%” with regard to water content, which the term “about” for 35% taught by Labaf, and 40% claimed, is prima facie obvious.
The Attorney response argues that Labaf is silent with regard to medium chain triglycerides (MCT). Labaf teaches an amount of about 0.01% to about 0.5% by weight of an edible (canola) oil, see paragraph 33. Similarly, in addressing the MCT, Machmüller teaches MCT amounts (3.5 to 7%) that overlap the claimed range (about 0.5 % or about 1% to about 10%). In the field of animal feeds, as per US 6534104, (column 3, lines 43-47), including ruminants (see column 3, lines 19-20), useful fat sources include canola oil (as per Labaf) as well as coconut oil (known to be comprised of MCTs), see column 3, lines 49-53. Accordingly, a PHOSITA would have a rationale to simply substitute one known element (fats/oils substituted for one another in animal feeds) for another to obtain predictable results.
The Attorney response argues that the bromoform referenced from Labaf is derived from a stabilized biomass (Asparagopsis species of seaweed), where the reference is entirely silent on the use and stabilization of synthetic bromoform that is not derived from a biomass (isolated and synthetic). The Attorney response states a “person of ordinary skill would not reasonably expect that methods of stabilizing a biomass which inherently includes additional components other than highly bromoform that may exert some effect on stabilizing the compound, would function to also stabilize an isolated and synthetic form of the compound.”
In response, it is pointed out that the invention is directed to a composition comprising the compound bromoform (CH-Br3) per se. Regardless of how or where the bromoform is sourced, the claim is directed to a composition comprising bromoform per se. While Applicant argues that naturally sourced bromoform inherently contains additional components, it is pointed out that the invention claims bromoform the compound, which by its very nature as the chemical compound of formula CH-Br3, does not contain any additional components. Therefore, bromoform per se, whether sourced naturally isolated and created synthetically, are one and the same. 3
The Attorney response argues Machmüller fails to remedy the deficiencies of Labaf (a solid feed compound lacking volatile compounds, bromoform), i.e. nonanalogous art MPEP 2141.01(a). Similarly, the Attorney response argues that WO 925 and Flores-Santiago fail to remedy the deficiencies of Labaf and Machmüller.
In response, it is pointed out that Machmüller would be is the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, a composition directed to reduce methane emission in ruminants and its teachings, despite the lack of teaching bromoform and a dry solid, is reasonably pertinent to the claimed liquid formulation also directed to reducing methane emission in ruminants via an ingested product, either liquid or feed.
Further, Labaf teaches its liquid feed formulation is suitable for mixture into solid feedstock (dry animal fodder see paragraphs 44, 49 and 149; claim 34). Similarly the claimed liquid formulation of claim 1 is also intended to be mixed with dry animal feed as per claims 17 and 31. While the response states WO 925 and Flores-Santiago does not cure the deficiencies of Labaf and Machmüller, they are noted to be cited upon dependent claims once the prima facie case of obviousness is established by Labaf and Machmüller.
Despite the Attorney response arguing differences between Machmüller, Labaf, WO 925 and Flores-Santiago and the claimed invention, one of ordinary would have a rationale to combine the teachings of cited prior art so as to arrive at the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11, 13-17, 20 and 28-34 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 263-282 of copending Application No. 19053307 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the claimed invention and reference application are directed to the same invention and methods thereof, a bromoform composition comprising MCT and other excipients for the reduction of methane production by ruminants.
Claim 1 discloses a liquid bromoform (to about 3%) composition comprising MCT of about 0.5/1% to about 10%; thickening agent and an aqueous phase. Examined claims 2-4 recite a polysorbate emulsifier and ratio to MCT therein, about 1:1 to about 1:3, etc. Claims 5-10 recite ratios of bromoform to MCT or thickening agent therein, in ratios recited therein. Claims 11, 13-16 recites a concentrate (bromoform about 0.08% wt to about 3 wt%); liquids, gels or jelly. Claim 17 notes the composition further comprises a feed. Claim 20 is directed to plant based thickening gum. Claims 28-29 recite a bromoform concentration therein. Claim 30 requires an MCT of a 6-12 carbon length alkyl. Claims 31-34 recite functional descriptive limitations or properties regarding reduction of methane production and shelf-life.
The reference patent discloses a non-patentably distinct formulation at claim 263
PNG
media_image1.png
372
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 264-282 claim bromoform, in an amount about 0.00001 wt% to about 8%, MCT as a stabilizing agents such as capric acid in a ratio to haloalkane starting from about 1:99 to about 1:1; ratio of MCT to plant based oil is about 3:97 to about 10:90, to about 5:95; canola oil as a vegetable oil; essential oil, water, ratio of water to plant-based oil about 5:95; and the mixture is a concentrate, mixed with feed (pellets, mixed ration, saltlick or mineral mix).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
RESPONSE TO ATTORNEY ARGUMENTS;
The Attorney response states the claims of the instant application are patentably distinct from the claims of the co-pending application. In response, the previous rejection over claims 19-34, 108-119, 216-241 is withdrawn as these claims are canceled, and a new rejection of double patenting over new claims 264-282 is issued as detailed above..
Conclusion and Communications
In conclusion, no claims are 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Adam C. Milligan can be reached at (571) 270-7674. 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.
/WILLIAM Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 1623
/ADAM C MILLIGAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1623
1 This Application has priority to USSN 63/444,066 filed on 02/08/2023. Applicants’ Request for Track One status, filed 23 March 2023, was GRANTED on 08/14/2023.
2 MPEP 2112.01 II. COMPOSITION CLAIMS — IF THE COMPOSITION IS PHYSICALLY THE SAME, IT MUST HAVE THE SAME PROPERTIES
"Products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties." In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. Id.
3 The limitation of “wherein the bromoform is not derived from a biomass” is interpreted in essence as a product by process, where the process itself is said to exclude bromoform derived from a biomass. MPEP 2113, I. Product by Process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps, only the structure [i.e., the structure being the chemical formula CH-Br3] implied by the steps.