Details for Patent: 3,862,332

Summary for Patent: 3,862,332

Title:	Method of lowering serum cholesterol
Abstract:	Methods useful for lowering serum cholesterol in animals comprising administration to the animal of a hypocholesteremic amount of a bis(dialkylphenol) ketone mercaptole compound or a bis(dialkylphenol) mercaptal compound, preferably bis(3,5-ditert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) acetone mercaptole, and compositions to be employed in practicing the method.
Inventor(s):	James W Barnhart, Philip J Shea
Assignee:	Dow Chemical Co
Application Number:	US878256A
Patent Claim Types: see list of patent claims

United States Patent 3,862,332 Scope and Claim-Chart Analysis: “Mercaptole” Substituted Ketones for Serum Cholesterol Lowering

US Drug Patent 3,862,332 claims a chemical class of “substituted ketone mercaptole” compounds and compositions for lowering serum cholesterol levels in animals, with explicit dependence on specific substituent patterns (notably tert-butyl and defined aromatic substitution) and specified dosage/administration formats.

---

What does US Patent 3,862,332 claim: method claims vs composition claims?

Executive answer

The patent contains two core claim buckets:

1. Method of use claims covering administration of specific substituted ketone mercaptole compounds to animals (including oral administration).
2. Composition claims covering pharmaceutical carriers and dosage unit formulations for the same cholesterol-lowering purpose, with explicit loading ranges (wt% in composition; mg to g per dosage unit) and optional dispersing agent.

How the claims are structured

From the claim text provided, the claims you quoted show a typical dependent-claim ladder:

• Claim 2 depends on claim 1 by defining a substituent identity: “R represents tertiary butyl.”
• Claims 3-7 further depend on claim 1 by specifying administration route and six specific compound embodiments.
• Claims 8-10 are composition claims defined by composition-level wt% and optional dispersing agent.
• Claims 11-16 narrow to dosage unit form, dosing range, and oral-administration adaptation, plus an example substituent definition and explicit compound embodiments.

This indicates the patent is built to protect both:

• the active chemical embodiments (as claimed by formula + substituent definitions), and
• practical formulation/delivery used to administer those actives for the cholesterol-lowering effect.

---

What is the chemical scope: which mercaptole structures are explicitly protected?

Executive answer

The provided claim set explicitly protects at least six named/defined “substituted ketone mercaptole” embodiments, each built around a bis(aryl) ketone mercaptole scaffold with tert-butyl-substituted phenols. The claims also permit coverage across different aromatic substitution patterns via dependent claims.

Explicit compound embodiments in the dependent claims

Based on claims 4-7 and 10 and 14, the patent directly names the following active compounds:

Claim	Explicit compound embodiment (as written)	Key structural notes implied by claim text
4	bis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) acetone mercaptole	3,5-di-tert-butyl + 4-hydroxy; “acetone” ketone mercaptole
5	bis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) butanone mercaptole	3,5-di-tert-butyl + 4-hydroxy; “butanone” ketone mercaptole
6	bis(3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-5-isopropylphenyl) acetone mercaptole	tert-butyl + isopropyl + 4-hydroxy substitution pattern
7	bis(3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-5-methylphenyl) acetone mercaptole	tert-butyl + methyl + 4-hydroxy substitution pattern
10	bis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) acetone mercaptole	repetition in composition claim context
14	bis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) acetone mercaptole	repetition in dosage unit context

What the “formula corresponding to the formula” clause implies

Claims 8 and 11 refer to “a compound corresponding to the formula” but the base formula is not included in your excerpt. However, the dependent claims strongly indicate:

• a defined aromatic substitution scheme (tert-butyl, hydroxy, and specific positions),
• a defined connection to a ketone backbone (acetone mercaptole vs butanone mercaptole),
• a mercaptole (thiol/mercaptane-type) functional group as part of the protected chemical class.

From an enforcement perspective, the dependent claim language narrows protection to the specific substituent patterns listed, while leaving claim 1 (not provided) likely broader via variables like R and R2.

---

How broad is “R represents tertiary butyl” coverage in claim 2?

Executive answer

Claim 2 locks one variable substituent to tert-butyl, which likely functions as a critical steric/electronic component of the phenolic ring system. It narrows claim 1 coverage rather than expanding beyond what claim 1 already allows.

Practical claim impact

• If claim 1 allows multiple alkyl/aryl substitutions at the corresponding position, claim 2 offers a “specific embodiment” fallback.
• If claim 1 already restricts tert-butyl, claim 2 adds little incremental scope and mainly reinforces written coverage for this substitution pattern in case of interpretation disputes.

Either way, claim 2 supports a narrative that tert-butyl is a key required element in at least one protected species under the overall class.

---

What does the patent protect on administration: oral vs generic animal dosing?

Executive answer

The method and composition claims both contain route/administration limitations. At least one method claim and at least one composition claim explicitly require oral administration “to animals.”

Oral administration dependence

• Claim 3: method claim wherein the compound “is administered orally.”
• Claim 12 and claim 15: composition claims where the dosage unit is adapted for oral administration to animals.

Enforcement consequence

If a competitor’s regulatory filing or product labeling targets non-oral routes (parenteral, topical, sustained-release implanted delivery), infringement risk may be reduced for those dependent claims that require “adapted for oral administration,” while still leaving the possibility that other independent claims (not provided) cover broader administration routes.

---

What does the cholesterol-lowering composition scope cover: wt% and dosage-unit ranges?

Executive answer

Claims 8-16 create a numerical formulation envelope:

• 0.02% to 90% by weight of the active mercaptole compound in the composition
• 100 mg to 5 g per dosage unit
• optional presence of a surface-active dispersing agent

This structure is typical of patents seeking to block “formulation workarounds” where the active loading and excipient function are variable.

Composition wt% limits (claim 8)

Claim 8: composition for lowering serum cholesterol levels in animals comprising:

• a pharmaceutical carrier
• containing about 0.02 to about 90 percent by weight of the active compound corresponding to the formula

Practical scope: This is extremely broad on wt%. It covers:

• low-dose premixes (0.02 wt%)
• highly concentrated solid dosing systems (up to 90 wt%)

Surface-active dispersing agent add-on (claim 9)

Claim 9: claim 8 further comprising:

• a surface-active dispersing agent

This is narrower than claim 8 alone, but it matters if a competitor’s formulation uses surfactants to improve dispersion/bioavailability.

Dosage unit concentration and unit size (claims 11-16)

Claim 11: dosage unit adapted for animal administration, each dosage unit containing:

• from about 100 mg to about 5 g of the substituted ketone mercaptole compound

Claim 12 and 15 specify:

• dosage unit adapted for oral administration to animals

Claim 16 further specifies:

• pharmaceutical carrier comprises a surface-active dispersing agent

R2 methyl limitation (claim 13)

Claim 13: in the oral dosage unit claim context, R2 represents methyl.

This is likely a key variable in the substituted aromatic or ketone portion, depending on how R2 is defined in the unprovided formula. As drafted, it creates a “species-to-formulation” dependency: the dosage unit claim is limited to the R2=methyl embodiment.

---

Which dependent claim species are the likely infringement targets in product development?

Executive answer

The most enforcement-relevant species in your excerpt are the explicitly named compounds:

• bis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) acetone mercaptole
• bis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) butanone mercaptole
• bis(3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-5-isopropylphenyl) acetone mercaptole
• bis(3-tert-butyl-4-hydroxy-5-methylphenyl) acetone mercaptole

Why these matter

Because claims 10 and 14 specifically repeat bis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) acetone mercaptole in:

• a composition embodiment (claim 10), and
• a dosage-unit embodiment (claim 14),

they offer direct “active-by-formulation” protection. Many formulation designers can change excipients but are less likely to change active substructure once a development program has selected a lead molecule.

---

How strong is the claim coverage for typical “generic” or “follow-on” products?

Executive answer

The strength is driven by three features:

1. Defined chemical species (named compounds)
2. Route restriction (oral-adapted dosage units)
3. Numeric formulation ranges (wt% and mg-per-unit)

A typical design-around would require changing at least one of these dimensions: active species/substituent pattern, route of administration, or unit dosing/loading strategy.

Design-around vectors implied by the dependent claim set

• Active-species change: switch to a different ketone mercaptole substitution pattern not captured by the named embodiments or by the R/R2 variables.
• Route change: avoid oral-adapted dosage units so dependent oral claims do not read.
• Dispersing-agent avoidance: omit surface-active dispersing agent to steer away from claims 9 and 16 (if those are enforced).
• Loading outside numerical range: use dose forms that fall outside 0.02-90 wt% or 100 mg-5 g per unit.

In practice, the numerical ranges are so broad that loading-based design-around is less likely than substituent-species change or route avoidance.

---

What patent landscape factors matter beyond the excerpt: dependents suggest multiple layers, but you provided only partial claim text

Executive answer

Your claim excerpt is a dependent-claim segment and does not include:

• the full independent claim 1 text
• the full formula definition
• any method-of-treatment alternatives beyond the listed dependents
• claim numbering beyond 16

Because the scope and claims depend on the unprovided “formula corresponding to the formula” and on claim 1 and base definitions of R and R2, full landscape mapping (other patents, competitors, portfolio strength, expiration timelines, Paragraph IV or biosimilar risk) cannot be performed from the provided text alone.

---

Key Takeaways

• US Patent 3,862,332 protects substituted ketone mercaptole compounds for serum cholesterol lowering in animals, with explicit dependent embodiments tied to specific tert-butyl/hydroxy aromatic substitution patterns.
• The patent includes both method and composition protection.
• Dependent claims lock in oral administration and dosage unit adaptation for oral use.
• Composition coverage is broad by loading: 0.02% to 90% by weight active in a pharmaceutical carrier and 100 mg to 5 g per dosage unit.
• The most direct enforcement targets in your excerpt are formulations containing bis(3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxyphenyl) acetone mercaptole, because it appears in multiple composition and dosage-unit claims.

---

FAQs

1. Does US 3,862,332 cover non-oral administration for cholesterol lowering in animals?
   The excerpt explicitly includes oral administration dependents, so non-oral coverage depends on claim 1 (not provided).

2. What active ingredient species are explicitly named in the dependent claims?
   The excerpt names at least four specific bis(aryl) ketone mercaptole compounds, including acetone mercaptole and butanone mercaptole variants.

3. What formulation loading limits does the patent use?
   0.02% to 90% by weight in the composition and 100 mg to 5 g per dosage unit.

4. Do the composition claims require a surface-active dispersing agent?
   Only the dependent claims labeled with “further comprising a surface active dispersing agent” do.

5. What is the practical design-around lever for a competitor?
   Changing the active’s substitution pattern (R/R2 and scaffold variables) and/or avoiding oral-adapted dosage units are the most plausible routes, since the wt% and mg/unit ranges are wide.

Drugs Protected by US Patent 3,862,332

Applicant	Tradename	Generic Name	Dosage	NDA	Approval Date	TE	Type	RLD	RS	Patent No.	Patent Expiration	Product	Substance	Delist Req.	Patented / Exclusive Use	Submissiondate

International Family Members for US Patent 3,862,332

Country	Patent Number	Estimated Expiration	Supplementary Protection Certificate	SPC Country	SPC Expiration
Germany	1767443
France	8064
United Kingdom	1168193
Netherlands	154666
Netherlands	6806010