DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The amendment filed June 24, 2025, has been received and entered.
Claims 3-5, 10, 15, and 17 are canceled. Claim 24 is new.
Claims 1, 2, 6-14, 16, and 18-24 are pending. Claims 8, 9, 11-14, 16, and 18-23 are withdrawn.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, and 24 are examined on the merits.
Drawings
The drawings were received on June 24, 2025. These drawings are acceptable.
Duplicate Claim Warning
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 10 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 24 are objected to because the term “Saccharomyces cerevisiae” should be italicized. See line 3 of claim 1 and lines 1-2 of claim 24. Since claim 1 is objected to, then its dependent claims, claims 2 and 24, are objected to. Note: Claims 6 and 7 depend from a canceled claim, not claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 6 and 7 are 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.
Claims 6 and 7 are indefinite as being both incomplete, by their dependence on a cancelled claim; and for lack of antecedent basis for its limitation (“The glutathione-rich Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain…”) which is not present in cancelled base claim 5. For the purpose of applying prior art, claim 6 is being interpreted as reciting “The glutathione-rich Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain as in claim 1…” (thus, claim 7 depends from claims 1 and 6).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 10, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a natural phenomenon without significantly more.
The claims have been analyzed for eligibility in accordance with their broadest reasonable interpretation. The claims are directed to a statutory category, i.e. a composition of matter (Step 1: YES).
Claims 1 and 10: Claims 1 and 10 each recites a glutathione-rich Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain (i.e. yeast from a glutathione-rich Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain) deposited under accession number CNCM I-5404. According to the specification, “Yeast in accordance with the present disclosure is a natural (e.g., not genetically modified using recombinant DNA/RNA technology) yeast strain mutant which has been obtained using classical mutagenesis/selection techniques available to the skilled person in the art” (page 7, first paragraph). Therefore, the CNCM I-5404 strain is a natural yeast strain mutant, signifying that it is a naturally occurring product.
Claims 1 and 10 each recites that the claimed S. cerevisiae strain CNCM I-5404 (i.e. yeast from CNCM I-5404 strain) is “glutathione-rich.” The specification defines the term “glutathione-rich Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain” as referring to a Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain which has accumulated glutathione through biosynthesis as opposed to exogenous addition of glutathione to yeast (page 6, first paragraph). Biosynthesis is a naturally occurring process performed in organisms, including yeast. Therefore, the accumulation of glutathione through biosynthesis in the claimed yeast (CNCM I-5404 strain) is naturally occurring.
Additionally, claims 1 and 10 each recites that the claimed glutathione-rich strain (i.e. glutathione-rich yeast) is in inactivated form (i.e. inactivated yeast). The specification defines “glutathione-rich inactivated Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain” as referring to a glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae strain that has been killed by any physical, chemical or physicochemical process known to those skilled in the art who know how to prepare it by means of one of the techniques at their disposal (page 6, third and fourth paragraphs). Yeast naturally dies as part of its life cycle. Since dead yeast is a naturally occurring form of yeast, then the claimed glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae strain in inactivated form (i.e. glutathione-rich inactivated yeast) is naturally occurring. Accordingly, the claimed glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae strain in inactivated form (i.e. glutathione-rich inactivated yeast that is from a glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae CNCM I-5404 strain) is a naturally occurring product, signifying that claims 1 and 10 each recites a ‘product of nature’ exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 10 each only recites the judicial exception (glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae CNCM I-5404 strain in inactivated form; i.e., a glutathione-rich inactivated yeast from a glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae strain CNCM I-5404) which is a product of nature. Thus, claims 1 and 10 do not recite any ‘additional element’ other than the judicial exception that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO). As such, claims 1 and 10 are directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
Claims 1 and 10 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because claims 1 and 10 do not recite any ‘additional element’ other than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). Accordingly, claims 1 and 10 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 2: Claim 2 further limits claim 1 by reciting the amount of glutathione, in terms of percentage by weight relative to the weight of solids of the yeast (as in (a)) or percentage (as in (b)), contained by the glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae strain. As pointed out above in the analysis performed for claim 1, the accumulation of glutathione through biosynthesis in the claimed CNCM I-5404 strain is naturally occurring. The amount of glutathione contained by the glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae strain is an inherent, naturally occurring result of the accumulation of glutathione through biosynthesis in the claimed CNCM I-5404 strain. Thus, the CNCM I-5404 strain containing more than 0.5% of glutathione by weight relative to the weight of solids of the yeast or at least 1% of glutathione, is a naturally occurring product, signifying that claim 2 recites a ‘product of nature’ exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES). The rest of the analysis for claim 1 (Step 2A, Prong Two; Step 2B) is the same for claim 2. Therefore, claim 2 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 6 and 7: Claim 6 is being interpreted as depending from claim 1 (thus, claim 7 depends from claims 1 and 6). Claim 6 further limits claim 1 by reciting that the glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae strain is in inactivated dry form, and the first and second dipeptides comprised by the inactivated dry form. Claim 7 incorporates these additional limitations and further limits the first and second dipeptides. The first and second dipeptides are directed to substances naturally occurring in the claimed glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae in inactivated dry form. Thus, claims 6 and 7 each recites a nature-based composition.
Under Step 2A, Prong One of the analysis, the claimed nature-based composition is compared to its naturally occurring counterpart to identify markedly different characteristics based on structure, function, and/or other properties. The ‘additional element’ recited in claim 6 (thus incorporated in claim 7) other than the judicial exception is that the inactivated form is dry. Yeast that is dry (e.g. air dried) does not appear to confer markedly different characteristics on the yeast, absent a showing of evidence by Applicant to the contrary. As such, the claimed glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae strain in inactivated dry form does not have any markedly different characteristics from what occurs in nature (claimed glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae strain in inactivated yeast form) and is a ‘product of nature’ exception. Accordingly, claims 6 and 7 each recites a ‘product of nature’ exception (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of the inactivated form being dry does not set forth a practical application of the product of nature. Moreover, the claims are drawn to products and thus their use is not required. As such, there is no integration of the products of nature into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO), and thus the claims are directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: YES).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element is that the claimed glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae strain is in inactivated form that is dry. Prior to Applicant’s invention and at the time of the filing of the application, inactivated dry yeast were well-understood, routine and conventional. In particular, Pozo-Bayon (Food Research International. 2009. 42: 754-761. Listed on IDS filed 1/21/22) discloses that inactive dry yeast preparations have been widely used within the oenological industry to improve either technology processes or the sensory characteristics of wines (abstract). Therefore, the additional element of each of claims 6 and 7 does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B: NO). As such, claims 6 and 7 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 24: Claim 24 further limits claim 2 by reciting the amount of glutathione contained by the glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae strain as at least 1.5% by weight relative to the weight of solids of the yeast. Claim 24 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101 on the same basis as claim 2.
Notice Re: Prior Art Available Under Both Pre-AIA and AIA
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
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, 6, 7, 10, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 104962485. Listed on IDS filed 1/21/22. Machine Translation cited below) and Kritzinger (Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2013. 61: 269-277. Listed on IDS filed 1/21/22).
Cai discloses Saccharomyces cerevisiae CICC1532 which is a high glutathione content S. cerevisiae (abstract). Since the CICC1532 strain has a high glutathione content, then it is directed to a glutathione-rich Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain, meeting a limitation of instant claim 1. Cai teaches a method of preparing high glutathione content of S. cerevisiae in which the dry content of glutathione in the yeast cells of the CICC1532 strain reaches 80-100 mg/g or 180-220 mg/g (page 4, fourth and fifth paragraphs). Those dry contents of glutathione convert to 8-10% of glutathione by weight relative to the weight of the solids of the yeast; or 18-22% of glutathione by weight relative to the weight of the solids of the yeast. See calculations below. These glutathione contents fall within the ranges of (a) ‘more than 0.5% of glutathione by weight relative to the weight of solids of the yeast’ and (b) ‘at least 1% of glutathione’ of instant claim 2, as well as falling within the range of ‘at least 1.5% of glutathione by weight relative to the weight of solids of the yeast’ of instant claim 24.
Calculations:
80
m
g
g
l
u
t
a
t
h
i
o
n
e
g
y
e
a
s
t
s
o
l
i
d
s
×
g
g
l
u
t
a
t
h
i
o
n
e
1000
m
g
g
l
u
t
a
t
h
i
o
n
e
×
100
=
8
w
t
%
100
m
g
g
l
u
t
a
t
h
i
o
n
e
g
y
e
a
s
t
s
o
l
i
d
s
×
g
g
l
u
t
a
t
h
i
o
n
e
1000
m
g
g
l
u
t
a
t
h
i
o
n
e
×
100
=
10
w
t
%
180
m
g
g
l
u
t
a
t
h
i
o
n
e
g
y
e
a
s
t
s
o
l
i
d
s
×
g
g
l
u
t
a
t
h
i
o
n
e
1000
m
g
g
l
u
t
a
t
h
i
o
n
e
×
100
=
18
w
t
%
220
m
g
g
l
u
t
a
t
h
i
o
n
e
g
y
e
a
s
t
s
o
l
i
d
s
×
g
g
l
u
t
a
t
h
i
o
n
e
1000
m
g
g
l
u
t
a
t
h
i
o
n
e
×
100
=
22
w
t
%
Cai differs from the claimed invention in that Cai does not expressly disclose a glutathione-rich Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain deposited under accession number CNCM I-5404; nor does Cai disclose that the glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae strain is in inactivated form (i.e. the inactivated yeast).
However, since the CICC1532 strain and the claimed CNCM I-5404 strain are both Saccharomyces cerevisiae strains and both are glutathione rich (with the content of the CICC1532 strain falling within the ranges of instant claim 2), then the CICC1532 strain appears to be the claimed CNCM I-5404 strain, absent showing by the Applicant that they are distinct.
Kritzinger is a review regarding glutathione in winemaking (abstract). Kritzinger discloses that the use of inactive dry yeast (IDY) preparations in winemaking was gaining interest due to its wide range of claimed applications (page 273, left column, last paragraph). IDY preparations were classified into four categories, including inactive yeast which is obtained by thermal inactivation prior to drying (page 273, left column last paragraph). Kritzinger discusses glutathione-enriched inactive dry yeast preparations (GSH-IDYs) that all claim to boost wine glutathione (GSH) content either by the liberation of GSH into the wine or by allowing the yeast to assimilate GSH precursors during alcoholic fermentation for increased GSH production (page 273, right column, first paragraph).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to the person of ordinary skill in the art to prepare the CICC1532 strain of Cai in inactive dry yeast form. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this because inactive dry yeast preparations in winemaking had gained interest due to its wide range of claimed applications. Since the CICC1532 strain of Cai is glutathione-enriched, then one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to prepare it as a glutathione-enriched inactive dry yeast preparation because glutathione-enriched inactive dry yeast preparations boost wine glutathione content, as indicated in Kritzinger. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in providing the CICC1532 strain as a glutathione-enriched inactive dry preparation (meeting the claimed limitation of a glutathione-rich Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain in ‘inactivated form’ of instant 1, ‘inactivated dry form’ of instant claims 6 and 7, and ‘inactivated yeast’ of instant claim 10) because Kritzinger teaches that S. cerevisiae yeast has been prepared as an inactive dry yeast form (page 273, left column, last paragraph). A glutathione-enriched inactive dry preparation meets the broader claimed scope of an ‘inactivated form’ of instant claim 1 and ‘glutathione-rich inactivated yeast’ of instant claim 10.
Therefore, Cai in view of Kritzinger renders obvious instant claims 1, 2, 10, and 24.
Regarding instant claims 6 and 7, Cai in view of Kritzinger further differs from instant claim 6 in that they do not expressly disclose that the inactivated dry form comprises a first dipeptide having the formula C12H25N3O3 with a molecular weight of 259.348 g/mole; and a second dipeptide having the formula C12H25N5O3 with a molecular weight of 287.3593 g/mole. Cai in view of Kritzinger further differs from claim 7 in that they do not expressly disclose that the inactivated dry form comprises a first dipeptide that is lysine-leucine dipeptide and a second dipeptide that is arginine-leucine dipeptide, the lysine-leucine and arginine-leucine dipeptides are in an amount ranging from 0.0001-20 wt.%, based on a total weight of the glutathione-rich inactivated S. cerevisiae strain.
However, MPEP 2112(I) states, “‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’” Moreover, MPEP 2112(I) also states, “Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable.” Since Cai in view of Kritzinger renders obvious a glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae strain deposited under accession number CNCM I-5404 in inactivated dry form, then the product they render obvious necessarily possesses the unappreciated property of comprising the first and second dipeptides are recited in instant claims 6 and 7, in an amount falling within the range of instant claim 7. Thus, instant claims 6 and 7 are rendered obvious.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 24, 2025, with respect to objections to claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 10, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claims 2 and 7, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 2, and 4 as being unpatentable over Cai, have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, the claim objections have been overcome by the amendments to claims 1, 2, 6, and 10. The rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been overcome by the amendments to claims 2 and 7. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been overcome by page 8, last paragraph of the Remarks filed June 24, 2025. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claims 1, 2, and 4 as being unpatentable over Cai has been overcome by the amendment to claim 1 since Cai does not expressly disclose that the strain is in inactivated form. Therefore, these objections and rejections have been withdrawn.
The amendment filed June 24, 2025, necessitated new claim objections, a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and modifications to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Cai in view of Kritzinger. Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive with respect to these rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 35 U.S.C. 103.
With respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant cites Rigou 2021 (Food Chemistry. 2021. 358: 129760. 19 pages) and Marin-Sanchez 2024 (LWT. 2024. 207: 116614. 11 pages) as evidence that inactivation changes the physical characteristics of the yeast relative to the live form occurring in nature. Applicant cites section 2.2.1 of Rigou 2021 for describing that the cell integrity is not maintained in inactivated yeast because cell wall membranes have been disrupted, and cellular constituents are more soluble and of lower molecular weight if autolysis has taken place. Additionally, Applicant cites Marin-Sanchez 2024 for describing that the yeast cell membrane is disrupted by inactivation, citing Figures 1 and 2C of the reference. While these teachings in Rigou 2021 and Marin-Sanchez 2024 indicate a difference between active and inactivated yeast, they do not provide evidence that inactivated yeast is not a product of nature. Dead yeast is naturally occurring as death is a natural process. Dead yeast is directed to inactivated yeast, so inactivated yeast is naturally occurring. Therefore, the properties concerning inactivated yeast discussed in Rigou 2021 and Marin-Sanchez 2024 apply to naturally occurring inactivated yeast (i.e. dead yeast).
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant argues that the Saccharomyces cerevisiae CICC1532 strain of Cai is a baker’s yeast as evidenced by a product sheet of the strain. Applicant concludes from this that the CICC1532 strain is distinct from the claimed CNCM I-5405 strain. However, the Examiner notes that the translation of the product sheet refers to the CICC1532 strain as “brewer’s yeast” instead of baker’s yeast. It is unclear how the fact that the CICC1532 strain is brewer’s yeast demonstrates that the CICC1532 strain is distinct from the claimed strain since Applicant has not provided any evidence to support that the claimed strain is not brewer’s yeast such that the claimed strain possesses at least one property distinct from the CICC1532 strain. Moreover, the species Saccharomyces cerevisiae is commonly known as brewer’s yeast. This is evidenced by Duina (Genetics. 2014. 197: 33-48) on page 33, left column, first paragraph. Since the CICC1532 strain of Cai and the claimed strain are Saccharomyces cerevisiae, then they are brewer’s yeast.
Applicant asserts that the person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would immediately recognize that baker’s yeast (asserted as the CICC1532 strain) is not suitable for wine-making since baker’s yeast produces more carbon dioxide and less ethanol than strains used for wine-making, and do not tolerate high concentrations of sugar necessary for fermenting grape must. In contrast, Applicant asserts that S. cerevisiae strains suitable for wine-making tolerate higher ethanol concentrations that are necessary for use in alcoholic fermentation. However, Applicant has not provided evidence to support these assertions. In any case, the product sheet refers to the CICC1532 strain as “brewer’s yeast,” and Saccharomyces cerevisiae is known as brewer’s yeast (as evidenced by Duina). Therefore, these arguments are unpersuasive in demonstrating that the CICC1532 strain of Cai is distinct from the claimed strain.
Additionally, Applicant asserts that Cai is aimed at increasing the glutathione composition of yeast for the purpose of producing glutathione by precision fermentation, which is described as having a number of health benefits which could be useful in food, animal feed and pharmaceutical compositions, citing the ‘Technical background’ of Cai. In contrast, Applicant asserts that the present invention aims to improve the aging profile of wines. Therefore, Applicant argues there is nothing to motivate POSITA to attempt to transpose the teachings of Cai to an entirely different type of yeast strain, for an entirely separate purpose. However, the basis of the rejection is that the CICC1532 strain of Cai appears to be the claimed strain, absent showing of evidence demonstrating that they are distinct. Since the CICC1532 strain appears to be the claimed strain, then the CICC1532 strain of Cai necessarily possesses the ability to improve the aging profile of wines as argued by Applicant. Though Cai did not investigate the use of their strain for improving the aging profile of wines, this does not signify that the CICC1532 strain does not possess that function. As stated in MPEP 2112(I), “‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’”
Applicant further asserts that there is nothing in Cai to direct a POSITA towards increasing the glutathione content of a wine-making yeast. However, Cai discloses that their strain has a high glutathione content (abstract). As the CICC1532 strain of Cai appears to be the claimed strain, then it necessarily is a “wine-making yeast” and necessarily possesses the function of “wine-making.” Applicant also cites the last full paragraph on page 3 and part(4) on page 6 of the Machine Translation of Cai which disclose that the content of alcohol in the fermentation broth during the whole fermentation process is controlled to 0.1% to 0.3% (W/V). Based on that teaching in Cai, Applicant argues that Cai’s methods are not applicable to wine making strains and the skilled person is taught away from applying Cai in a wine-making context. However, the instant claims are product claims, not claims directed to a process for wine-making. The fact that Cai performed a fermentation process with alcohol controlled to 0.1 to 0.3% (w/v) does not signify that the CICC1532 strain is not suitable for wine-making (the function which Applicant appears to be arguing as being a difference between the claimed CICC1532 strain and the claimed strain).
Additionally, Applicant asserts that even if a POSITA were inclined to try, they would not reach the present invention from Cai because Cai discloses a method which increases the glutathione yield of an activated culture of S. cerevisiae strain CICC1532 (Summary of Invention of Cai is cited), whereas the present invention provides a strain with an intrinsically higher glutathione content. However, the instant specification defines “glutathione-rich Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain” as a Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain which has accumulated glutathione through biosynthesis as opposed to exogenous addition of glutathione to yeast (page 6, first and second paragraphs). Cai teaches that high glutathione content was achieved in the CICC1532 strain by a fermentation process without addition of glutamic acid, cysteine, glycine and ATP (page 4, third-fifth paragraph of Machine Translation; claim 1 of Cai). Since the high glutathione contents were achieved through a fermentation process, then the CICC1532 strain accumulated glutathione through biosynthesis (fermentation is directed to that) as opposed to exogenous addition of glutathione to the yeast, thereby being directed to glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae as claimed.
Regarding Kritzinger, Applicant asserts that nothing in the reference suggests (1) producing a glutathione-rich S. cerevisiae strain, let alone teach how to do so, (2) nor that such a strain would prevent the aging of wines. However, Kritzinger is cited only to render obvious preparing the CICC1532 strain of Cai in inactive dry yeast form. Regarding the function of the strain to prevent the aging of wines, the claims under examination do not recite that intended use. Moreover, as pointed out above, MPEP 2112(I) states, “‘[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.’” Though Cai does not expressly teach using their CICC1532 strain for winemaking, this does not mean that the CICCC1532 strain is not suitable for that intended use.
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 SUSAN EMILY FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3444. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30am - 7pm.
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 Weidner can be reached at 571-272-3045. 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.
Sef
/SUSAN E. FERNANDEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 1651
/DAVID W BERKE-SCHLESSEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1651