DETAILED ACTI ON 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 the Claims Claims 1-10 are pending. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant’s amendments filed 12/29/2023. Priority This application is a 371 of PCT/US2022/082646 , filed 12/30/2022. Claim Objections Claim s 5-10 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim . See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claims have not been further treated on the merits. Claim s 1- 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “Process for…” which should read “ A process for…”. Claim s 2 -4 each recite the phrase “Process according to … ” which should read “ The process according to … ”. Claim 3 recites the phrase “ in which said magnesium activating agent is selected from iodine, dichloroethane, dibromoethane, trimethylsilyl chloride ” which should read “ in which said magnesium activating agent is selected from iodine, dichloroethane, dibromoethane, and trimethylsilyl chloride ”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 112(b) 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 2 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. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 2 recites the broad recitation amount between 1.0 and 10.0 molar equivalents, and the claim also recites between 5.0 and 7.0 molar equivalents which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. For the purposes of applying prior art, the claimed range will be interpreted as being between 1.0 and 10.0 molar equivalents of magnesium. 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. Claim s FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1- 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Couladouros ( WO 2005/035490 A2 ) in view of Rosini (US 5,663,389 A1) , Tamura ( J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1971, 93, 6, 1485–1487 ), and Ashenhurst ( “What Makes a Good Leaving Group?”) , as evidenced by CAS (“p-Toluenesulfonic acid” , Registry Number 104-15-4 , CAS Common Chemistry ) . Regarding instant claim 1 , Couladouros teaches a process of forming a d-tocotrienol comprising c) displacing Q in a (2S) protected chroman sulfonate of formula (II): by reacting with a farnesyl-magnesium halide to form a protected d -tocotrienol of formula (III) : and d) replacing P with a hydrogen atom to form a d -tocotrienol product of formula (I V ): where in : P is a protecting group selected from many of the same as in instant claim 1, including acetate which reads on instantly claimed acetyl (claim 1) ; R 3 is methyl, and R 1 and R 2 can be methyl or hydrogen (claim 9 ) ); and Q is p-tolyl sulfonate (claim 4) . Q is also referred to as a leaving group (p. 8 , line 7 ). Couladouros teaches a farnesyl-magnesium halide, also called a Grignard reagent , prepared from a farnesyl halide having the structure (3) : wherein X is selected from iodine, bromine or chlorine (X is defined on p. 10, lines 12-14). Furthermore , Couladouros teaches a specific embodiment reacting farnesyl bromide with magnesium in the presence of “a small crystal of iodine ” (p. 19, lines 27-30). Although Couladouros does not teach iodine as a magnesium activating agent, the use of a small crystal of iodine reads on a magnesium activating agent recited in instant claim 3. Couladouros does not teach Q , which corresponds to instantly claimed variable X, is one of the instantly claimed halogens. Rosini teaches a benzopyranic structure of general formula (I) , shown below. Rosini teaches that R can be acetyl (claim 1). This compound is equivalent to a compound taught by Couladouros, where P is an acetyl protecting group, but with iodine as a leaving group in place of the sulfonate Q. Rosini teaches this compound is useful as an intermediat e in the synthesis of vitamin E (abstract), known also as α-tocopherol (col 1, line 6): Tamura teaches that Grignard reagents can be coupled with alkyl halides (p. 303, col. 2; first scheme in the section “Cross-Coupling” ), scheme depicted below . Ashenhurst teaches the following general reaction scheme, wherein a leaving group is displaced by a nucleophile: Ashenhurst notes that “reactions are more likely to take place when you can displace a good leaving group” ( p. 1, para. 3) . Ashenhurst teaches that iodine and p-tolyl sulfonate are both excellent leaving groups (see pKa table on p. 3), and that iodine is a stronger leaving group than p-tolyl sulfonate because stronger acids (more negative pKa) have weaker conjugate bases, which are thus better leaving groups. (p. 2, para. 5). As evidenced by CAS (Registry number 104-15-4), the conjugate base of ‘tosic acid’ as taught by Ashenhurst is the same compound as the ‘p-tolyl sulfonate’ taught as a leaving group by Couladouros. It would have been prima facie obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the reaction as taught by Couladouros with the chroman compound containing an iodine leaving group and acetyl protecting group as taught by Rosini. One would have been motivated to modify the reaction of Couladouros with a reasonable expectation of success given that Rosini teaches a structurally similar compound having an iodine leaving group is useful as an intermediate in the synthesis of α-tocopherol , which is structurally similar to d -tocotrienol ; Tamura teaches that Grignard reagents can couple with alkyl hal ides ; and Ashenhurst teaches that iodine and sulfonate are both excellent leaving groups and that reactions are more likely to take place when a good leaving group is displaced . Regarding claim 2 , Couladouros further teaches wherein the magnesium is added at 1.0 molar equivalents to the compound of the chroman compound ( 0.005 mol chroman compound (p. 19, line 18) to 0.005 mol magnesium (p. 19, line 29)). MPEP 2144.05 states: In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Peterson , 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Regarding claim 3 , the use of a small crystal of iodine in conjunction with magnesium to form the Grignard reagent reads on wherein the magnesium activating agent is iodine. Taken together, all this would result in the method of claims 1-3 with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Couladouros (WO 2005/035490 A2) in view of Rosini (US 5,663,389 A1), Tamura (J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1971, 93, 6, 1485–1487), and Ashenhurst (“What Makes a Good Leaving Group?”) as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" s 1-3 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Tilstam ( Organic Process Research & Development 2002, 6, 906-910 ) . Couladouros, Rosini, Tamura, and Ashenhurst teach all the limitations of claim 4 (see above 103), except there is no mention of the ratio of magnesium activating agent to chroman compound . However, Tilstam teaches that the Grignard reaction has a step of activating the magnesium metal for the formation of the Grignard agent (p. 906, left col., para. 2, lines 8-12). Tilstam teaches that iodine (p. 906, right col., para. 2, lines 1-2) and 1,2-dibromomethane (p. 906, right col., para. 2, lines 11-14) are standard activating agents. Tilstam also teaches addition of 0.05 molar equivalents (5 mol%) of 1,2-dibromomethane relative to magnesium to activate the magnesium (p. 906, right col., para. 3, lines 4-5). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to utilize the amount of magnesium activating agent relative to the chroman compound taught by Tilstam as a starting point for optimizing the amount of magnesium activating agent in the reaction as suggested by Couladouros, Rosini, Tamura, and Ashenhurst because the ratio of reagents is a result-effective variable , i.e. a variable that achieves a recognized result. Therefore, the determination of the optimum or workable dosages would have been well within the practice of routine experimentation by the skilled artisan. Furthermore, absent any evidence demonstrating a patentable difference between the compositions and the criticality of the claimed ratio of magnesium to the chroman compound, the determination of the optimum or workable dosing regimen given the guidance of the prior art would have been generally prima facie obvious to the skilled artisan. Please see MPEP 2144.05 [R-2](II)(A) and In re Aller, 220 F. 2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). ("[W]here the general conditions of claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). Conclusion No claims are allowed. Claims 1-4 are rejected over the prior art, and claims 5-10 were not treated on the merits in this Office action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT OLIVER D. HEES whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9840 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT AMY L. CLARK can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1310 . 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. /OLIVER D HEES/ Examiner, Art Unit 1628 /Rayna Rodriguez/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1628