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 .
Priority
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2020/067712, filed June 24, 2020 and claims foreign priority to FR1906829, filed June 24, 2019.
It is noted that a translation of the foreign document has not been received.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 27, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status and Action Summary
Claims 4, 9, 11-12, 15, and 20 were canceled by applicant. Claims 21-22 were added in the amendment filed on August 22, 2025. Claims 23-24 were newly added in the amendment filed on February 27, 2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 13-14, 16-19, and 21-24 are currently pending and under examination.
This action is in response to the papers filed February 27, 2026.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 21 recites “the subject”. The specification defines “By “subject” is meant herein a human being.” (pg 17, line 11) Therefore, in light of the explicit definition provided by the specification, the claim term “subject” is being interpreted as limited to a “human being”.
The claims recite “the level of at least one marker chosen from…” [a group of bacteria species]. The specification does not provide any limiting definition of “a level [of bacteria]”. Therefore this term has been interpreted as encompassing any metric of an amount of bacteria (e.g. an absolute number, number of colony forming units (CFU), relative abundance, etc.).
The claims recite the terms “statistically higher” and “statistically lower”. The specification provides definitions for the terms “significantly higher” and “significantly lower” as “a statistically significant increase in the level of the marker compared to the control level” and “a statistically significant decrease in the level of the marker compared to the control level”, respectively. The claim terms “statistically higher” and “statistically lower” have been interpreted as equivalent to “statistically significantly higher” and “statistically significantly lower”.
The claims recite the term “a cosmetic composition”. The specification does not provide any special definition for this term. The examiner has applied a definition known in the art at the time of filing of the invention: “A cosmetic is a product, except soap, intended to be applied to the human body for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance. Sec. 201(i) FD&C Act” (Food and Drug Administration Cosmetic Labeling Guide, September 12, 2019 record, Wayback Machine Archived).
The claims recite the term “air quality index”. The specification does not provide any special definition for this term. The examiner has applied a definition known in the art at the time of filing of the invention:
PNG
media_image1.png
465
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
340
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
512
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(AQI definition: “Technical Assistance Document for the Reporting of Daily Air Quality-The Air Quality Index (AQI)” EPA 454/B-18-007 September 2018, Wayback Machine archived June 20, 2019)
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 2 be found allowable, claim 5 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In this case, claim 6 does not include all the limitations of claim 3, upon which it depends. Claim 3 requires “said at least one marker is chosen from the group consisting of [C.] propinquum and optionally [S.] epidermidis. (i.e. claim 3 requires C. propinquum (and optionally S. epidermidis)). Claim 6 requires “said at least one marker is chosen from the group consisting of [C.] propinquum and [S.] epidermidis” (i.e. claim 6 requires at least one of C. propinquum or S. epidermidis).
Therefore, as presently recited, claim 3 requires at least one marker comprising C. propinquum, while claim 6 does not share this limitation but rather encompasses embodiments where C. propinquum is not among the “at least one marker”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)- Written Description
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
MPEP 2163 states:
The claimed invention as a whole may not be adequately described if the claims require an essential or critical feature which is not adequately described in the specification and which is not conventional in the art or known to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Additionally, at 2163IIA3(a), the MPEP states:
“…describing a composition by its function alone typically will not suffice to sufficiently describe the composition. See Eli Lilly, 119 F.3 at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406 (Holding that description of a gene’s function will not enable claims to the gene “because it is only an indication of what the gene does, rather than what it is.”); see also Fiers, 984 F.2d at 1169-71, 25 USPQ2d at 1605-06 (discussing Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharm. Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 18 USPQ2d 1016 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). An adequate written description of a chemical invention also requires a precise definition, such as by structure, formula, chemical name, or physical properties, and not merely a wish or plan for obtaining the chemical invention claimed. See, e.g., Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 927, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1894-95 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The patent at issue claimed a method of selectively inhibiting PGHS-2 activity by administering a non-steroidal compound that selectively inhibits activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, however the patent did not disclose any compounds that can be used in the claimed methods. While there was a description of assays for screening compounds to identify those that inhibit the expression or activity of the PGHS-2 gene product, there was no disclosure of which peptides, polynucleotides, and small organic molecules selectively inhibit PGHS-2. The court held that “[w]ithout such disclosure, the claimed methods cannot be said to have been described.”).
In the instant case, the claims are broadly drawn to “treating the subject diagnosed… “with a cosmetic composition that enables the slowing down of early aging of skin and/or aesthetic degradations of the skin” (claim 21); “with a cosmetic composition that enables the slowing down of early aging of skin and/or aesthetic degradations of the skin, wherein the cosmetic composition comprises a probiotic and/or prebiotic” (claim 22); or, “with a cosmetic composition wherein the cosmetic composition comprises a probiotic and/or prebiotic for promoting the presence of commensal flora of the subject” (claim 23).
In the case of the instant claims, the functionality of “slowing down of early aging of skin and/or aesthetic degradations of the skin” (claim 21) is a critical feature of the claimed methods.
The specification supports these claim terms on page 17: “In a particular embodiment, the cosmetic composition used in the treatment method comprises probiotics and/or prebiotics”. However, the specification does not teach any particular probiotics, prebiotics, or any other component of said “cosmetic composition that enables the slowing down of early aging of skin and/or aesthetic degradations of the skin”.
While the skilled artisan may be capable of making a “cosmetic composition” with the claimed functionality of “slowing down early aging or aesthetic degradation of skin” (e.g. a cosmetic composition comprising sunscreen), possession may not be shown by merely describing how to obtain possession of members of the claimed genus or how to identify their common structural features. See University of Rochester, 358 F.3d at 927, 69 USPQ2d at 1895.
The claims encompass a step of administering any of a genus of structurally undefined cosmetic compositions that require the recited functionality of slowing down early aging or aesthetic degradations of skin or comprise some undefined probiotic or prebiotic or promote the presence of commensal flora. However, the specification fails to teach how to distinguish members of the required genus of compositions which possess the required functionality: cosmetic compositions that enable the slowing down of early aging of skin… (claim 21). Furthermore, the genus “wherein the cosmetic composition comprises a probiotic and/or prebiotic” (claim 22 and 23) is similarly insufficiently described, as the specification does not describe any particular pro/pre-biotic that would confer the required functionality upon the cosmetic composition recited by claims 1 or 21.
For claims drawn to a genus, the written description requirement for a claimed genus may be satisfied through sufficient description of a representative number of species. A “representative number of species” means that the species which are adequately described are representative of the entire genus. Thus, when there is substantial variation within the genus, one must describe a sufficient variety of species to reflect the variation within the genus. See AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co., KG v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759 F.3d 1285, 1300, 111 USPQ2d 1780, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims directed to a functionally defined genus of antibodies were not supported by a disclosure that “only describe[d] one type of structurally similar antibodies” that “are not representative of the full variety or scope of the genus.”). The disclosure of only one species encompassed within a genus adequately describes a claim directed to that genus only if the disclosure “indicates that the patentee has invented species sufficient to constitute the gen[us].” See Enzo Biochem, 323 F.3d at 966, 63 USPQ2d at 1615. Further, University of California v. Eli Lilly and Co., 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404, 1405 held that:
To fulfill the written description requirement, a patent specification must describe an invention and do so in sufficient detail that one skilled in the art can clearly conclude that “the inventor invented the claimed invention.” Lockwood v. American Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (1997); In re Gosteli, 872 F.2d 1008, 1012, 10 USPQ2d 1614, 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (“ [T]he description must clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.”). Thus, an applicant complies with the written description requirement “by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious,” and by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.
Thus considering the breadth of the compositions required by the claimed methods, their specific required functionalities, and the teachings of the instant specification, it is the conclusion that the specification does not provide an adequate written description of the broadly claimed subject matter.
Response to arguments
The response traverses the rejection on the following grounds:
“These claims concern a method of preventing the early ageing and/or aesthetic degradation of the skin induced by chronic exposure to pollution. The claimed method is an improvement on previous methods as it allows treatment to be selectively given only to subjects who need it and would benefit from it. Therefore, the present invention is not linked to a particular composition, but to an optimized prevention method. Furthermore, as the biomarker is a bacterial imbalance, the cosmetic composition preferably comprises probiotics and/or prebiotics (specified in claim 22), particularly to improve the level of the biomarker.
Thus, the present specification to reasonably conveys to persons of ordinary skill in the art that the present inventors at the time this application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The present specification provides disclosure sufficient to teach persons of ordinary skill in the art how to make and use the claimed invention.
Persons of ordinary skill in the art once aware of the present invention and disclosure in the specification could practice the present invention without undue experimentation and would appreciate the metes and bounds of the invention as recited in the claims without undue experimentation.”
and;
“Cosmetic compositions for preventing or treating early ageing and/or aesthetic degradation of the skin are known to persons of ordinary skill in the art”
This argument has been thoroughly reviewed and is not persuasive.
The claims as amended are directed to “a method of treating skin…[that has] undergone chronic exposure to pollution…” rather than “a method of preventing [conditions] induced by chronic exposure to pollution” “prevention” is neither recited by the claims nor supported by the specification as filed. The assertions that the claimed method is an improved preventative method not linked to any particular composition (i.e. any particular treatment), preferably comprising unspecified probiotics/prebiotics to improve the level of the biomarker is not persuasive at least because these arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claims as amended. As described above, neither the claims nor the specification provides any description of any compounds that achieve the critical required functionalities: “slowing down of early aging of skin and/or aesthetic degradations of the skin” or “promoting the presence of commensal flora of the subject”, much less “improving the level of a biomarker”. Furthermore, these arguments are not persuasive because, as described above, the mere presence of some cosmetic compounds in the art that are marketed as “slowing down… aging” (e.g. various cosmetics comprising sunscreens, collagen preparations, etc.) does not adequately support the claimed invention of “a method for treating skin of a human subject, wherein the human subject has undergone chronic exposure to pollution”, particularly as the recited functionality of said compounds “enables the slowing down of early ageing” or “promoting the presence of commensal flora” is critical to the claimed methods. As described above: “an applicant complies with the written description requirement “by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations, not that which makes it obvious,” and by using “such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed invention.” Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572, 41 USPQ2d at 1966.”.
Therefore, these claims are/remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1-3, 5-8, 10, 13-14, 16-19, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
35 U.S.C. § 101 requires that to be patent-eligible, an invention (1) must be directed to one of the four statutory categories, and (2) must not be wholly directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception. M.P.E.P § 2106. Regarding judicial exceptions, “[p]henomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); see also M.P.E.P § 2106, part II.
Based upon consideration of the claims as a whole, as well as consideration of elements/steps recited in addition to the judicial exception, the present claims fail to meet the elements required for patent eligibility.
Question 1
The claimed invention is directed to a process that involves a natural principle, a mental process, and a judicial exception.
Question 2A Prong I
The claims are taken to be directed to a natural phenomenon, a mental process, and an abstract idea.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10, 13-14, and 16-19 and 23-24 are directed to “a method for treating skin of a human subject, wherein the human subject has undergone chronic exposure to pollution, comprising the steps: (a) of determining in a sample of the subject’s skin, the level of at least one marker selected from the group consisting of bacteria of the species Corynebacterium lipophiloflavum, Corynebacterium durum, and Corynebacterium propinquum.”; (b) comparing the level of the at least one marker… with a control, and (c) based on the comparison… diagnosing that the skin of the subject has undergone chronic exposure to pollution, wherein the pollution is pollution with a polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon selected from the group consisting of fluorene, phenanthrene, fluoranthene, benzo[a]anthracene, and benzo[a]pyrene and (d) treating the subject diagnosed in (c) with a cosmetic composition (claim 1) or “…claim 1, wherein the cosmetic composition comprises a probiotic and/or prebiotic for promoting the presence of commensal flora of the subject” (claim 23).
Claims 21-22 are directed to a method of preventing early aging of skin and/or aesthetic degradations of the skin… which comprises the following steps: (a) diagnosing and detecting… according to claim 1, and (b) treating the subject diagnosed… with a cosmetic composition that enables the slowing down of early aging of skin and/or aesthetic degradations of the skin (claim 21)… wherein the cosmetic composition comprises a probiotic and/or prebiotic (claim 22).
Claim 1 (and its dependents) are directed to a process that involves the judicial exception of a law of nature/natural phenomenon (i.e. the natural correlation between the level of a bacterium on human skin and chronic exposure to pollution), a mental process (i.e. diagnosing a chronic exposure of the skin of a subject to pollution), and abstract ideas (i.e. comparing the level of the bacterium on human skin in a sample from a subject with a control and based on the comparison, determining whether the skin…).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons that follow.
A correlation that preexists in the human is an unpatentable phenomenon. The association between the level of a bacterium and chronic exposure to pollution is a law of nature/natural phenomenon. The “determining whether the skin of the subject, has undergone chronic exposure to pollution” and “diagnosing a chronic exposure of the skin of a subject to pollution” steps recited by claims 1 and 21 amount to no more than an “instruction to apply the natural law”. These steps amount to no more than a mental step. Even if the step requires something more such as to verbalize the discovery of the natural law, this mere verbalization is not an application of the law of nature to a new and useful end. The “determining/diagnosing…” step does not require the end user to do anything in light of the correlation. This step fails to provide the “practical assurance” sought by the Prometheus Court that the “process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the law of nature itself.”
Claim 1 further recites the abstract idea of comparing a level of a bacterium on a subject’s skin to a control. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A); claims to “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations,” where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Question 2A Prong II
The exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception. The claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of the exception. While the claims recite “determining, in a sample of the subject’s skin, the level of at least one marker…”this limitation does not constitute an integration of the exception into a practical application. Instead this element is directed to mere data gathering required to perform the method. While claims 1, 21, 22, and 23 recite steps of “treating the subject diagnosed… with a cosmetic composition” (claim 1), “wherein the cosmetic composition comprises a probiotic and/or prebiotic for promoting the presence of commensal flora of the subject” (claim 24), or “treating the subject diagnosed in step (a)… with a cosmetic composition that enables the slowing down of early aging of skin and/or aesthetic degradations of the skin (claim 21), wherein the cosmetic composition comprises a probiotic and/or a prebiotic (claim 22), these steps do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because they do not recite any particular treatment and instead constitute instructions to apply the exceptions in a generic way. For instance, claim 1 recites treating the subject diagnosed with a “cosmetic composition” (i.e. any cosmetic composition, encompassing compositions that are unrelated to chronic pollution, early aging, or significantly altered abundance of a commensal microorganism, for example, any generic cosmetics such as lipstick, eyeliner, etc.). Furthermore, “cosmetic compositions that enable the slowing down of early aging of skin…” does not integrate an observation of a natural correlation of altered abundance of bacteria with pollution at least because it encompasses unrelated compositions that are not relevant to pollution or specifically regulating the skin microbiome such as any generic cosmetic comprising a sunscreen (i.e. preventing aging due to UV-exposure). Finally, the recited treatment with cosmetics comprising a “probiotic and/or prebiotic” “for promoting the presence of commensal flora” does not integrate the judicial exceptions because they are generic to the intended result “promoting the presence of commensal flora”, a genus to which the recited bacteria whose abundances are recited as being statistically increased (i.e., C. lipophiloflavum and C. durum) belong.
Accordingly, the claims are directed to judicial exceptions.
Question 2B
The second step of Alice involves determining whether the remaining elements, either in isolation or combination with the other non-patent eligible elements, are sufficient to “transform the nature of the claims into a patent eligible application” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297).
The claims are not sufficiently defined to provide a method which is significantly more than a statement of a natural principle for at least these reasons:
The claims do not add a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. The claims recite “the level of said at least one marker is determined by metagenomic sequencing.”
Determining the level of bacteria by metagenomic sequencing was well known in the art at the time the invention was made. The determining by metagenomic sequencing steps are recited at a high level of generality. The prior art, for example Mariani et al., Mahdavinia et al., and Caporaso et al. teach using commercially available Illumina kits and protocols such as the “Illumina 16S rRNA protocol” for determining a comprehensive microbiome (i.e. the level of at least one bacterial marker) in human subjects. The claims do not require the use of any particular non-conventional reagents. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation that distinguishes this step from well understood, routine, and conventional activities prior to applicant’s invention and at the time the application was filed.
Furthermore, claims reciting “treating… with a composition that enables the slowing down of early aging of skin…” and “wherein the cosmetic composition comprises a probiotic and/or a prebiotic” generally link the judicial exceptions to a particular field of use because the limitations do no more than simply refer to the relevant audience of consumers who used cosmetic compositions to slow down early skin aging caused by exposure to UV and/or common pollutants. These limitations are similar to those previously recognized by the courts as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception:
A step of administering a drug providing 6-thioguanine to patients with an immune-mediated gastrointestinal disorder, because limiting drug administration to this patient population did no more than simply refer to the relevant pre-existing audience of doctors who used thiopurine drugs to treat patients suffering from autoimmune disorders, Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968 (2012);
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under section 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Response to arguments
The response asserts that the claims as amended are not directed to an abstract idea and a law of nature because the recited treatment step are asserted to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application and because the specification of the group of PAHs is asserted to impose meaningful limitations on the judicial exceptions because the direction of variation in the natural correlation (the percentage of relative abundance of the species and the increase of various PAH) is asserted to be well described in the application.
These arguments have been thoroughly reviewed and are not persuasive. As addressed above, the amended claims reciting treatment steps do not integrate the recited natural correlation into a practical application but generically encompass unrelated compositions that are not relevant to pollution or specifically regulating the skin microbiome (much less dysregulated abundance of any particular bacteria species) such as any generic cosmetic comprising a sunscreen (i.e. preventing aging due to UV-exposure).
Regarding the correlation referenced in the arguments, the examiner has further considered and inspected the data presented to fully consider this argument. Much of the data in table 1 is: a) annotated as being below the limit of quantitation for the PAH indicated (i.e. the quantities presented have high error relative to the value presented) or b) estimated as baseline (lowest value, including below LOQ values)/(sqrt(2))) for PAH species not detected. Additionally, several of the reported data points for individual 14 appear to be statistical outliers relative to the full set of reported measured values for particular PAH (see tables below). The outlier analysis is not further depended upon here. Finally, it is noted that the reported change % of the species Relative Abundance, reported in table 2, is greatly extrapolated beyond the range of observed concentrations of the particular PAH species reported for the bacterial species recited in the amended claims (See tables below). In fact, when using the reported regression coefficients and the reported PAH exposures in table 1 to calculate the actual observed change in relative abundance % of the recited species for the actual observed increase in PAH (not a “hypothetical increase of 40 pg/mg”) between the two cities, the “direction of variation” in the correlation is greatly reduced relative to the extrapolated values reported.
For example: the reported association of the amount of Benzo[a]pyrene in hair from subjects in the two cities with the relative abundance of C. lipophiloflavum on skin described as having a regression coefficient of 2.3200 and a striking 92.8% change in abundance for a hypothetical increase in Benzo[a]pyrene of 40 pg/mg in hair collected from the subjects corresponds to an actual observed increase of 0.71 pg/mg of hair and an actual observed relative abundance change in C. lipophiloflavum of +1.6% (see sample calculation below and tables).
Actual increase in Benzo[a]pyrene= (average Benzo[a]pyrene across Baoding samples)-(average Benzo[a]pyrene across Dailian samples)=0.71 pg/mg hair
Actual % RA change for a 0.71 pg/mg hair increase in Benzo[a]pyrene:
R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
=
(
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
a
b
u
n
d
a
n
c
e
d
i
f
=
40
)
/
(
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
a
b
u
n
d
a
n
c
e
d
i
f
=
0.71
)
40
p
g
m
g
-
0.71
p
g
m
g
Solving for Relative abundance change when PAH increase = 0.71:
(
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
a
b
u
n
d
a
n
c
e
d
i
f
=
0.71
)
=
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
a
b
u
n
d
a
n
c
e
d
i
f
=
40
-
[
R
e
g
r
e
s
s
i
o
n
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
(
40
p
g
m
g
-
0.71
p
g
m
g
)
]
i.e. actual % RA change for a 0.71 pg/mg hair increase in Benzo[a]pyrene:
92.8-(2.3*(40-0.71))=1.645%
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, these claims are/remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, and 13-14, 16-17, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying et al., 2015, “The Influence of Age and Gender on Skin-Associated Microbial Communities in Urban and Rural Human Populations” PLoS ONE 10(10): e0141842. in view of US 2005/0202476 A1 (Saettler), Mariani et al., “Short-term particulate matter exposure influences nasal microbiota in a population of healthy subjects” Environmental Research 162 (2018) 119-126 (previously cited as “non-patent document W” on the PTO-892 form dated February 24, 2025), and Pernodet et al., US 2017/0087071 A1, published March 30, 2017.
Regarding claims 1-3, 5-6, and 21-23, Ying teaches a method of determining a level of Corynebacteria in the skin of a subject comprising amplifying and sequencing bacterial 16S rRNA genes (i.e. metagenomic sequencing). (Ying, page 5, paragraph 3, lines 1-13) Ying teaches decreased relative abundance of bacteria in the genus Corynebacterium in subjects who live in cities relative to rural subjects. (Ying, page 6, paragraph 1, lines 8-11)
Ying does not teach analyzing metagenomic data at the species level, but instead reports relative abundances for bacteria aggregated to the genus level of taxonomy.
However, Saettler teaches a method of determining a level of multiple species within the genus Corynebacterium (including C. lipophiloflavum) comprising hybridizing species-specific nucleic acid probes to C. lipophiloflavum 16S rRNA. (Saettler, 0131)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of sequencing 16S rRNA genes in a sample of a subject’s skin and assigning the sequences to genera, taught by Ying, with the species-level determination taught by Saettler. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to assign the 16S rRNA sequences taught by Ying to species (i.e. comprising C. lipophiloflavum, durum, and/or propinquum, rather than to genera, by the teachings of Saettler that skin-resident microbes (“commensals”) prevent colonization by pathogenic microbes (Saettler, 003-007), and that the genus Corynebacterium comprises both pathogens (i.e. C. diphtheriae) and commensals (i.e. C. lipophiloflavum). (Saettler, 0127) The ordinary artisan would have been reasonably confident that the metagenomic method taught by Ying would have successfully determined a level of individual species within the genus Corynebacterium because of the teaching of Saettler that enough sequence diversity exists within 16S rRNA genes in the genus Corynebacterium to design species-specific hybridization probes (Saettler, 0127).
Ying teaches comparing the level of Corynebacteria between subjects that live in urban environments and those that live in rural environments (i.e. comparison to a control) (Ying, page 6, paragraph 1). Furthermore, Ying teaches that skin-associated bacterial community structure and composition (i.e. relative abundance of bacteria) predicted whether a sample came from an urban or rural resident ~5x better than random chance. (Ying, Abstract and page 12, paragraph 1)
Ying does not teach determining whether the skin of the subject has undergone chronic exposure to pollution with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.
However, Mariani et al. teach a statistically significant relationship between exposure to PM10 and PM2.5 air pollution (i.e. pollution with PAH) and the relative abundance of bacteria of the genus Corynebacteria (Mariani et al., table 5) in subjects whose pollution exposures were monitored by local monitoring stations and wearable personal monitoring devices (Mariani et al., page 122, column 2, paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the teachings of Saettler and Ying comprising methods of analyzing species-level differences between relative abundance of different bacterial taxa (including recited Corynebacteria species) in subjects that reside in urban and rural areas with the teachings of Mariani et al. that differences in relative abundance of Corynebacteria species are correlated with individual exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 air pollution (i.e. pollution comprising recited PAH species). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Saettler and Ying with those of Mariani et al. because they each establish methods for measuring the relative abundance of Corynebacteria on skin in response to various environmental variables.
Ying, Saettler, and Mariani do not teach treating the pollution-exposed subjects with “a cosmetic composition that enables the slowing down of early aging of skin” that “comprises a probiotic and/or prebiotic.
However, Pernodet et al. teach methods and compositions for treating skin that has been exposed to “environmental aggressors such as UV radiation, environmental pollution, environmental toxins…” (Pernodet et al., paragraph 0002). Pernodet et al. teach that “environmental pollution means contaminants typically found in the environment such as smog, cigarette smoke, dust, pollen, motor vehicle exhaust…” (i.e. sources of PM2.5 and PM10 comprising PAH) (Pernodet et al., paragraph 0014). Furthermore, Pernodet et al. teach “skin cells exposed to environmental aggressors… over a prolonged period of time… can accelerate the natural aging process” (i.e. early aging) (Pernodet et al., paragraph 0003). Pernodet et al. teach various cosmetic compositions for treating exposed skin cells to slow down said deleterious effects (Pernodet et al., paragraph 0006-0007) and that, among other components, the cosmetic composition can comprise probiotics (Pernodet et al., paragraph 0049).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the methods taught by Ying et al. Saettler et al. and Mariani et al. comprising identifying subjects with high pollution exposure based on the relative abundance of various bacteria (comprising Corynebacteria species) on the skin of the subjects with the methods and compositions taught by Pernodet et al. comprising treating skin subjected to accelerated aging due to long-term exposure to environmental pollution (i.e. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) with cosmetic compositions comprising probiotics that slow down the accelerated aging processes. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to combine the methods of Ying et al. Saettler et al. and Mariani et al. with the methods and compositions for treating skin exposed to environmental pollution, taught by Pernodet et al. by the teaching of Pernodet et al. that treatment of skin cells with the compositions of their invention comprising probiotics increase the efficacy of active ingredients that repair cellular damage (Pernodet et al., paragraph 0005).
Regarding claims 7 and 13-14 and 16-17, Ying teaches a method of determining the relative abundance (i.e. a level) of Corynebacteria in a given bacterial community on the skin of a subject by metagenomic sequencing (Ying, page 3, paragraph 3- page 5, paragraph 2)
Regarding claim 10, Ying teaches sampling from subjects from several age groups including adults (25-35 years old) (i.e. between 25 and 45 years old). (Ying, page 2, paragraph 4, line 5 and Ying, Table 1)
Claims 8, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying et al., US 2005/0202476 A1 (Saettler), Mariani et al., and Pernodet et al., as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, and 13-14, 16-17, and 22-23, and further in view of Shibagaki et al., 2017, “Aging-related changes in the diversity of women’s skin microbiomes associated with oral bacteria” Scientific Reports 7: 10567
Regarding claims 8 and 18-19, Ying in view of Saettler, Mariani et al., and Pernodet et al. teaches determining the level of at least one Corynebacterium (i.e. C. lipophiloflavum) comprising sampling the forehead (glabella) of subjects, among other sites. (Ying, page 2, paragraph 4)
Ying in view of Saettler, Mariani et al., and Pernodet et al. does not teach that the skin sample is a cheek skin or scalp sample. However, Shibagaki teaches a method of determining the relative abundance (i.e. a level) of Corynebacteria in cheek, forehead, and scalp samples by metagenomic sequencing. (Shibagaki, Figure 3) Shibagaki teaches sequencing bacterial 16S rRNA genes to identify bacterial species (and genera) that significantly differ in relative abundance between populations. (Shibagaki, Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of measuring the relative abundance of the genus Corynebacterium in the forehead skin of subjects by metagenome sequencing taught by Ying in view of Saettler, Mariani et al., and Pernodet et al. by taking samples from the cheek skin, as taught by Shibagaki, and by quantifying the relative abundance of individual bacteria species within the genus Corynebacterium, as taught by Saettler and Shibagaki. The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to sample subjects’ cheek skin because of the teaching of Shibagaki that a high similarity in the species richness and bacterial composition was found between the cheek and forehead microbiomes (Shibagaki, page 6, paragraph 2, line 2-3) (i.e. the sampling sites are equivalent for sampling the facial microbiome). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to analyze metagenomic data at the species level, as taught by Shibagaki, to identify whether the abundance of pathogenic or opportunistic bacterial species is associated with a given group of subjects.
The ordinary artisan would have been reasonably confident that the methods of determining the level of species belonging to the genus Corynebacterium in a subject’s skin comprising metagenome analysis taught by Ying in view of Saettler, Mariani et al., and Pernodet et al. would have successfully measured the elected species within the genus Corynebacterium in a sample of cheek skin from a subject.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ying et al., US 2005/0202476 A1 (Saettler), Mariani et al., and Pernodet et al., as applied to claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, and 13-14, 16-17, and 22-23, and further in view of (EPA: AQI definition: “Technical Assistance Document for the Reporting of Daily Air Quality-The Air Quality Index (AQI)” EPA 454/B-18-007 September 2018, Wayback Machine archived June 20, 2019
Regarding claim 24, Ying et al. in view of Saettler, Mariani et al., and Pernodet et al. do not teach an “Air Quality Index” associated with a control group.
However, EPA provides a definition for this term and defines various Air Quality Index (AQI) breakpoints for particular categories (see table below, EPA, table 5)
PNG
media_image3.png
512
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
EPA teaches an AQI of greater than 100 constitutes an AQI that is “unhealthy for sensitive groups”, whereas an AQI less than 100 constitutes “good” or “moderate” air quality.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the methods comprising identifying subjects with high pollution exposure based on the relative abundance of various bacteria (comprising Corynebacteria species) on the skin of the subjects and treating skin subjected to accelerated aging due to long-term exposure to environmental pollution (i.e. polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) with cosmetic compositions comprising probiotics that slow down the accelerated aging processes, taught by Ying et al. in view of Saettler, Mariani et al., and Pernodet et al., by selecting an AQI breakpoint that was known to separate unhealthy air quality from air quality that is not unhealthy as a factor separating control individuals from pollution-exposed individuals.
Response to arguments
The response makes the following assertions against obviousness of the amended claims over the cited prior art references:
Ying et al. “does not describe the specific [bacteria species recited by the claims] and does not describe a direct effect of pollution. Ying concludes that difference in microbiota between urban and rural dwellers may be due to the overall environment, which is much broader and not specific to the claimed effect of PAHs.
These assertions are not persuasive because, as described in the 103 rejections above, the teachings of Saettler et al. motivates the ordinary artisan to modify the genus-level detection of Ying et al. to differentiate between commensal bacteria and related pathogenic bacteria within the same genus (e.g. Corynebacterium diptheriae (a pathogen) and Corynebacterium lipophiloflavum (a commensal).
The teachings in Mariani “are not close to the subject matter of the present invention. Mariani established a correlation between nasal microbiota and total mass of particles (PM10/PM2.5), without ever analyzing the chemical composition thereof.” The response further asserts: “PM10 and PM2.5… are not correlated at all [with pollution by PAHs].”
These assertions are not persuasive at least because the present claims require a comparison to control that is defined not by the amount of PAH present in the environment of the subjects in the control, but by “AQI; Air Quality Index”. The specification does not provide any special definition for AQI, but it is reiterated here (see claim interpretation above):
The examiner has applied a definition known in the art at the time of filing of the invention:
PNG
media_image1.png
465
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
340
568
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
512
672
media_image3.png
Greyscale
(AQI definition: “Technical Assistance Document for the Reporting of Daily Air Quality-The Air Quality Index (AQI)” EPA 454/B-18-007 September 2018, Wayback Machine archived June 20, 2019)
Therefore the argument that PM10 and PM2.5 is in no way related to the presence of PAHs is not persuasive at least because the present claims require AQI to select a control, and AQI is determined based upon the amount of PM10 and PM2.5.
Additionally, as was previously discussed in the scope of enablement rejection of record in the nonfinal rejection dated 24 February 2025, particulate matter is defined by both its size and its chemical composition (IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Outdoor air pollution. Lyon (FR): International Agency for Research on Cancer, 2016. (IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, No. 109.). In particular, IARC figure 1.1 and table 1.1 demonstrate the presence of organic carbon pollutants including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in PM2.5 and PM10. Even more (and as previously discussed in the scope of enablement rejection referenced above), Liu et al. demonstrated the PAH, including species recited in the present claims, are present in PM10 and PM2.5 in a polluted city (see Liu et al., figure 1).
The response further asserts that the teachings of Ying demonstrate that skin microbiota is strongly influenced by local parameters such as sebum, pH, moisture and that the teachings of Mariani comprising composition of nasal microbiota would therefore not be understood as directly transferrable to the skin.
This assertion is not persuasive because Mariani is cited in the 103 rejection of record as teaching an association between the abundance of bacterial (e.g. Corynebacteria) and exposure to particulate matter pollution (PM2.5, PM10), combined with the findings of differences in the amount of Corynebacteria on skin from subjects in urban vs. rural environments taught by Ying et al.
The response further asserts that Saettler teaches away from species-level detection of the recited bacteria species because “the tool in Saettler is not specific enough… to measure the level of bacteria of C. lipophiloflavum” in reference to “a set of six oligonucleotides (SEQ ID NOs: 7-12) for the detection of microorganisms of the genus Corynebacterium.
This assertion is not persuasive for the following reasons: Saettler et al. teach each of the oligonucleotides of sequence ID no 7 to 12 detects at least one species of Corynebacterium (Saettler et al., paragraph 0127). Furthermore, Saettler et al., SEQ ID No: 10 does, in fact, appear to be specific to Corynebacterium lipophiloflavum (see BLAST results below).
PNG
media_image6.png
885
1265
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
444
1267
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Finally, the response asserts that the rejections are based on hindsight analysis.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The response traverses the rejections of record on the grounds that Saettler and Ying do not individually teach determining exposure of a subject to PAH pollution and that the methods for measuring Corynebacterium do not detect only the recited bacteria species to the exclusion of others. These arguments have been considered and are not persuasive. Regarding the argument that Saettler et al. do not individually teach determining exposure to the recited PAH species, broad claims reciting exposure to “pollution” and “PAH” were previously rejected under a 112(a) scope of enablement rejection. The updated 103 rejections address these newly incorporated and narrowed limitations. Regarding the argument that the methods taught by Saettler et al do not teach oligonucleotides that detect C. lipophiloflavum alone, this is not persuasive because the claims do not require the detection of any one bacteria to the exclusion of all others (see claim 1 “comprising… determining the level of at least one marker chosen from the group…” and claims 13, 14, 16, and 18 specifically reciting “metagenomic sequencing” (i.e. a method of sequencing 16S rRNA/ rDNA in a sample and computationally reconstructing/estimating the relative abundances of various bacteria in a given sample). As described above, Ying et al. (and Shibagaki et al.) teach measuring relative abundance of Corynebacterium species by metagenomic sequencing.
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 1-2, 4-5, and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 10 of copending Application No. 17/621,382 (herein referred to as ‘382) as evidenced by GenBank: LT698720.1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of ‘382 anticipate the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-5, and 11, the claims of ‘382 claim a method comprising determining the level of at least one marker chosen from the group of bacteria comprising a nucleic acid encoding a 16S rRNA of sequence at least 90% identical to [any one of SEQ ID NO:1-9]. (‘382, claims 1 and 10) The claims of ‘382 further claim that the method comprises comparing the level of the at least one marker to a control, and evaluating (i.e. determining) the cutaneous exposure of a subject to pollution. (‘382, claims 4, 8, and 10)
A BLAST search of SEQ ID NO: 8 of ‘382 reveals that SEQ ID NO: 8 is 99.77% identical to GenBank: LT698720.1 which is identified as Corynebacterium durum 16S rRNA. Claim 1 of the instant claims explicitly recites Corynebacterium durum. Thus, the method of measuring the relative abundance of bacteria comprising a nucleic acid sequence at least 90% identical to SEQ ID NO: 8 in claims 1, 8, and 10 of ‘382 anticipates the method of measuring the relative abundance of Corynebacterium durum, as claimed by the present invention. (See BLAST alignment of SEQ ID NO: 8 to LT698720.1 below)
PNG
media_image8.png
734
975
media_image8.png
Greyscale
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 13, 15-16, 18, and 20 and are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 10 of copending Application No. 17/621,382 (herein referred to as ‘382) and GenBank: LT698720.1, as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, and 11, and further in view of Shibagaki et al. ( 2017, “Aging-related changes in the diversity of women’s skin microbiomes associated with oral bacteria” Scientific Reports 7: 10567.)
Regarding claims 7, 13, and 15-16, the claims of ‘382 claim that the level of the marker is determined by measuring the level of the corresponding 16S rRNA gene. (‘382, claim 5) The claims of ‘382 do not claim a particular method of measuring the level of 16S rRNA gene(s). However, Shibagaki teaches a method of determining the relative abundance (i.e. a level) of Corynebacteria in cheek, forehead, and scalp samples by metagenomic sequencing comprising measuring the abundance of 16S rRNA genes. (Shibagaki, Figure 3) Shibagaki teaches sequencing bacterial 16S rRNA genes (i.e. metagenomic sequencing) to identify bacterial species (and genera) that significantly differ in relative abundance between populations. (Shibagaki, Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill to determine the level of Corynebacteria durum 16S rRNA (claimed by ‘382) by metagenomic sequencing as taught by Shibagaki. The ordinary artisan would have recognized that metagenomic sequencing is an obvious variant of the “measuring the level of at least one 16S rRNA gene” claimed by ‘382 because Shibagaki teaches measuring levels of multiple bacteria by measuring the relative abundance of 16S rRNA genes by metagenomic sequencing. (Shibagaki, Figure 3 and page 8)
Regarding claims 8, 18, and 20, Shibagaki teaches a method of determining the relative abundance (i.e. a level) of Corynebacteria in cheek, forehead, and scalp samples by metagenomic sequencing. (Shibagaki, Figure 3)
Regarding claim 10, Shibagaki teaches a method of determining the relative abundance (i.e. a level) of Corynebacteria in the skin of a group of 21-37 year old subjects (i.e. between 25 and 45 years old).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to arguments
The response argues that the claims of ‘382 do not anticipate the amended claims because “GenBank sequence LT698720.1 is much closer to the genus Fusobacterium than to Corynebacterium durum. Thus, it is the annotation in Genbank that appears to be incorrect”.
This argument is not persuasive because the claims of ‘382 require measuring the level of at least one marker… bacteria that comprise a nucleic acid encoding a 16S rRNA of sequence at least 90% identical to… the sequence SEQ ID NO: 8). The genus Corynebacterium comprises known species comprising other 16 S rRNA sequences in addition to the disputed LT698720.1 accession that are similar to sequence 8, albeit with lower percent identity (see below).
PNG
media_image9.png
957
1238
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Additionally, there are other annotated Corynebacterium 16S rRNA sequences that comprise sequences with more than 90% identity with LT698720.1 (see below).
PNG
media_image10.png
904
1248
media_image10.png
Greyscale
The assertion that the GenBank accession LT698720.1 is incorrectly annotated because the sequence of LT698720.1 is closer to Fusobacterium sequences than Corynebacterium sequences is not persuasive at least because LT698720.1 shares significant identity with other recognized Corynebacterium 16S rRNA sequences, and other recognized Corynebacterium 16S rRNA sequences approach the required 90% sequence identity requirement of the claims of ‘382. It is the position of the examiner that further evidence is necessary to support the assertion that the GenBank accession LT698720.1 is incorrectly annotated.
Therefore, the claims are/remain rejected on the grounds of provisional nonstatutory double patenting.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Palazzi et al., “Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon in Women Living in the Chinese Cities of Baoding and Dalian Regions Revealed by Hair Analysis”. ISES-ISEE 2018 Joint Annual Meeting pg. 1541, August 2018.
Palazzi et al. appear to teach the finding of different exposure to PAH pollution in Baoding and Dalian.
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY MARK TURPIN whose telephone number is (703)756-5917. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Winston Shen can be reached at 5712723157. 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.
/Z.M.T./Examiner, Art Unit 1682
/WU CHENG W SHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1682
Prosecution Insights