Ernie, I am no patent attorney or expert in patents in any way. I have been reading the documents on the USPTO website to try to get a handle on what the issues are. A non-final rejection was issued on patent 11666276. The rejection is based on the concept of enablement (the ability of someone trained in the art to manufacture the invention). This was also an issue with 11666320 (the patent that LWLG is working hardest to get issued). A document was filed by Terry Turpin providing a detailed description of the synthesis process. They may have to do this again for 11666276. There is also back and forth with the examiner forcing LWLG to be more specific about the structure of the molecules involved. It seems that LWLG is trying to make the patents as broad as possible, covering many variations, while the examiner is trying to make them more specific so he can better define the materials. The examiner did find that there was no prior art, which is positive.
There was also a filing by LWLG on 11666319, responding to a request to better define the molecule involved in that application.
Non-final rejections are just that - not final. Even final rejections can be responded to and the review process continued, so these 2 recent actions appear to be normal give and take with the examiners.
My concern is regarding 11666320, which I think is the Perkamine material currently being tested by outside parties. LWLG met with the examiner to clear the air, but their followup response was declared non-responsive. A revised response was filed, including the 29 page declaration by Turpin of how to synthesize the stuff, along with amended claims. There is a lot of information in these documents and I haven't perused them yet, so I can't comment, but the idea is that they satisfy the examiner's concerns. The quick response by LWLG (15 days after the notice of non-responsiveness)indicates that LWLG is anxious to get this patent issued.
IMO, none of the recent activity indicates major problems, but again, I am no expert. |
