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 .
Applicants’ response and amendment of 9/18/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 1, 19, 337 and 355 have been amended.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 15, 19, 22, 28, 41, 49, 58-59, 62, 337, 340, 351, 355, 377 and 529-530 are pending. Claims 2-3, 5-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16-18, 20-21, 23-27, 29-40, 42-48, 50-57, 60-61, 63-336, 338-339, 341-344, 352, 354, 356-376, 378-528 have been canceled. Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 15, 19, 22, 28, 41, 49, 58-59, 62 are under consideration. Claims 337, 340, 351, 355, 377 and 529-530 are withdrawn from under further consideration.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant’s information disclosure statement of 10/25/2025 is acknowledged. Initialed copy is enclosed.
Rejection Withdrawn
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. Rejection of claims of 1, 4, 9, 12, 15, 28, 41, 49, 58-59, and 62 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Auzanneau et al. (WO 2015063282-A1 Published May, 07, 2015), is withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment of 9/18/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. Claims 19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auzanneau et al. (WO 2015063282-A1 Published May, 07, 2015) as applied to claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 15, 19, 22, 28, 41, 49, 58-59, and 62 above, and further in view of Bose et al. (WO 2019051381 A1 filed 9/10/2018), is withdrawn in view of applicants’ amendment of 9/18/2025.
New Rejection based on Applicants’ Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
.8. Claims 1, 4, 9, 12, 15, 19, 22, 28, 41, 49, 58-59, and 62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Auzanneau et al. (WO 2015063282-A1 Published May, 07, 2015), and further in view of Bose et al. (WO 2019051381 A1 filed 9/10/2018).
The invention is drawn to:
A method of culturing hemoglobin-dependent bacteria, the method comprising incubating the hemoglobin-dependent bacteria in a growth medium that comprises a hemoglobin substitute, wherein the hemoglobin substitute is a cyanobacteria, a cyanobacteria component, a cyanobacteria biomass, a green alga, a green algae component, or a green algae biomass, biomass, wherein the hemoglobin-dependent bacteria are bacteria of the genus Alistipes, Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Foumierella, Parabacteroides, or Prevotella.
Auzanneau et al. teach a method of culturing hemoglobin-dependent bacteria by the substitution of porcine hemin by a cyanobacteria (Spirulina) and a green alga (Chlorella) in aerobic and anaerobic conditions. See pages 4, 6, 17, 18, 31, 32, 35, 42 ,53, 54, 56, 71 and 72. Auzanneau et al. teach that “The tested bacteria are "dependent" on hemin (i.e. hemoglobin), since a lower growth rate and cell density is observed in its absence” (see abstract and claims). Claims 1,4, 9 and 12 define the source of the hemoglobin as cyanobacterial or from green algae, and, in the most defined claims, as a soluble spirulina ( cyanobacteria) component or as a green alga component. Auzanneau et al. uses algal powder from Spirulina or Chlorella, and the resulting medium comprises each flavor of the algae: a biomass, a component and a soluble component. Claim 28 teach the substitution of hemin by the algae is shown to be effective and the medium described on page 46 of Auzanneau et al. teach said limitations. Auzanneau et al. teach limitations of claim 41 (anaerobic atmosphere), 49, 58 (bioreactor), 59 (0.1% growth medium) and 62 (10-24hr) see pages 22, 25 and 47.
The instant claims define the source of the hemoglobin as cyanobacterial or from green algae, and, in the most defined claims, as a soluble cyanobacteria (spirulina) component or as a green alga component. Auzanneau et al. uses algal powder from Spirulina a species of cyanobacteria (limitation of claim 2) or Chlorella a species of green algae (limitations of claim 15), and the resulting medium comprises each flavor of the algae: a biomass, a component and a soluble component. Additionally, Auzanneau et al. teach another cyanobacterium from claim 2 (Arthrospira) see pages 17 and 18. Auzanneau et al. also teach limitations of claim 28: the substitution of hemin by the algae is shown to be effective and the medium described on page 46 of Auzanneau et al. Auzanneau et al. disclose both a rate and a density increase upon supplementation with algae. Auzanneau et al. teach limitations of claim 41 (anaerobic atmosphere), 49, 58 (bioreactor), 59 (0.1% growth medium) and 62 (10-24hr) see pages 22, 25 and 47. Auzanneau et al. do not teach Prevotella.
As to added limitation of claim 1, claims 19 and 22, Bose et al. teach Prevotella and in particular strain histicola see claims and page 1. Bose et al discloses methods for culturing such bacteria, including Prevotella strain B, in the presence of hemin (Hb equivalent/ derivative) (see page 102 ) Bose et al. page 102 recite: Prevotella spp., iron availability is varied by altering the concentration of hemin in media and/or
by varying the type of porphyrin or other iron carrier present in the media.
The combination of above references teaches the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious at the time of applicants’ invention combine the teachings of the above references in order to provide the claimed method. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success by teaching of Auzanneau et al. teach the substitution of porcine hemin by Spirulina for Chlorella in aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Moreover, Bose et al. teach Prevotella histicola, in the presence of hemoglobin- substitute. One of skilled in the art would be motivated by teachings Auzanneau et al., and Bose et al., to combine these references to obtain the instant invention. Because the teachings of both references are drawn to substitution of porcine hemin by Spirulina of Chlorella or algal hemoglobin for culturing hemoglobin- dependent bacteria in aerobic and anaerobic conditions.
Additionally, KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007), discloses combining prior art elements according to known compositions to yield predictable results, thus the combination is obvious unless its application is beyond that person's skill. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007) also discloses that "The combination of familiar element according to known compositions is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results". It is well known to combine methos to provide a better method which function in a predictable manner to yield a reasonable expectation of success along with predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art elements according to known methods that is ready for improvement to yield predictable results. The claimed invention is prima facie obvious in view of the teachings of the prior art, absent any convincing evidence to the contrary.
Applicants Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicants argue:
The Office Action acknowledged that "Auzanneau et al. do not teach Prevotella", but alleged that "Bose et al. teach Prevotella and in particular strain histicola, in the presence of an algal Hb substitute" (p. 5). The Office Action further alleged that "both references are drawn to substitution of porcine hemin by Spirulina of Chlorella or algal hemoglobin for culturing hemoglobin-dependent bacteria" (p. 6). Applicant respectfully disagrees. However, as set forth above, without conceding the Office's position, and solely to expedite prosecution, the present claims recite culturing hemoglobin-dependent bacteria of the genus Alistipes, Bacteroides, Faecalibacterium, Foumierella, Parabacteroides, or Prevotella in a growth medium that comprises a hemoglobin substitute (cyanobacteria, a cyanobacteria component, a cyanobacteria biomass, a green algae, a green algae component, or a green algae biomass). There is no teaching in the cited references, whether taken individually or together, that bacteria as recited in the present claims can be cultured in a growth medium that comprises a hemoglobin substitute as claimed, nor any teaching of the unexpected advantages achieved thereby. The Office has relied upon Bose as disclosing "Prevotella and in particular strain histicola, in the presence of an algal Hb substitute" in "page 1 and claims" of Bose. However, this is not the case, and appears to be based on a technical misunderstanding. Bose does not disclose (neither on page 1 nor in the claims) an "algla Hb substitute", and still less culturing of bacteria where an "algal Hb substitute" is used as a hemoglobin substitute. Nor is there support for the Office's stated position that "both references are drawn to substitution of porcine hemin by Spirulina of Chlorella or algal hemoglobin for culturing hemoglobin-dependent bacteria" (Office Action, p. 6). If, contrary to Applicant's understanding, the Office has identified a reference to an "algal Hb substitute" in Bose, the Office is asked to articulate its finding. Applicant therefore submits that the Office has relied upon Bose for teachings that are not found in Bose and/or for reasons that have not been articulated, and for at least these reasons Applicant submits that the rejection should be withdrawn.
Office Response
10. Applicant's arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As to applicants’ arguments in regard to Bose et al. It is the office position that Bose et al. teach Prevotella and in particular strain histicola see claims and page 1. Bose et al discloses methods for culturing such bacteria, including Prevotella strain B, in the presence of hemin (Hb equivalent/ derivative) (see page 102 ) Bose et al. page 102 recite: Prevotella spp., iron availability is varied by altering the concentration of hemin in media and/or by varying the type of porphyrin or other iron carrier present in the media.
The combination of above references teaches the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious at the time of applicants’ invention combine the teachings of the above references in order to provide the claimed method. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success by teaching of Auzanneau et al. teach the substitution of porcine hemin by Spirulina for Chlorella in aerobic and anaerobic conditions. Moreover, Bose et al. teach Prevotella histicola, in the presence of hemoglobin- substitute
Conclusion
11. No claims are allowed.
12. 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 KHATOL S SHAHNAN SHAH whose telephone number is (571)272-0863. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Tues , Thurs-Fri 12pm-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vanessa Ford can be reached on 571-272-0857. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Khatol S Shahnan-Shah/
Examiner, Art Unit 1645
January 5, 2026
/JANA A HINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1645