DETAILED ACTION
Status of Application
Receipt of the response to the non-final office action, the amendments to the claims and applicant arguments/remarks, filed 03/02/2026, is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9, 11-17 are pending in this action. Claim 10 has been cancelled previously. Claims 2-6, 8, 12-14, 17 have been amended. Claims 1-9, 11-17 are currently under consideration.
Any rejection or objection not reiterated in this action is withdrawn. Applicant's amendments necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this office action. 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/IN2021/050483, filed May 19, 2021, which claims benefit of foreign priority to IN202011028987, filed July 8, 2020.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: It is suggested that the limitation “wherein the organic selenium comprises at least 99% (w/w) of the total amount of selenium” recited in claim 2 should be corrected to “wherein at least 99% (w/w) of the total amount of selenium is the organic selenium” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 2-3, 5-6, 13, 15-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Newly amended claim 2 is not reasonably clear, because the numerical limitations, i.e., concentrations/amounts of omega 3 fatty acid and/or monosaturated fatty acids are shown without units of measurement (e.g., wt%, mol%, etc.). Similar is applied to claim 3. Clarification is required.
Newly amended claim 5 (dependent on claim 4) recites the limitation “enriching for Nannochloropsis oceanica CASA CC201 that is capable of growing when exposed to 100 to 1000 µM of inorganic selenium” that is not reasonably clear, because the claimed method step is not clearly delineated. To this point, it is noted that claim 4 discloses a process for obtaining an organic selenium enriched edible marine microalga Nannochloropsis oceanica CASA CC201 by exposing a culture of Nannochloropsis oceanica CASA CC201 to 100 to 1000 µM of inorganic selenium”. Therefore, it is unclear what the step “enriching for Nannochloropsis oceanica CASA CC201 that is capable of growing” as recited in claim 5 does imply. Further, it is noted that “Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.” See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. MPEP § 2173.05(c). Similar is applied to claims 6, 13. Clarification is required.
Claims 15-17 are rejected as being dependent on rejected claims 5 and/or 6 and failing to cure the defect.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 11-12, 14 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art teaches a large variety of edible marine microalga Nannochloropsis oceanica that can be enriched with selenium, and may include fatty acids, e.g., 55-80 wt% of polyunsaturated fatty acids such as omega 3 class (e.g., US 2020/0263124-A1, US 2013/0205850-A1, WO 2010/089864 A1 and/or as cited in IDS).
The prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed invention as edible marine microalga Nannochloropsis oceanica CASA CC201 enriched with organic selenium (99%) as well as compositions comprising said microalga to be used for food and/or feed supplements, and a method of reparation thereof, wherein said microalga comprises: 9-12% of omega 3 fatty acids, and 33-35% of monosaturated fatty acids (that are known to reduce cholesterol level in blood, oxidative stress, insulin resistance, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed 03/02/2026, have been fully considered and they were found to be partially persuasive. Any rejection or objection not reiterated in this action is withdrawn. New arguments and rejections have been added to the record to address newly introduced amendments and/or to clarify the position of the examiner. Applicant is advised to clarify the claim language, the steps in the claimed method and clearly point out the patentable novelty, which the applicant thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art, to place the application in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Claims 1, 4, 7-9, 11-12, 14 are allowed.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 13, 15-17 are rejected.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLGA V. TCHERKASSKAYA whose telephone number is (571)270-3672. The examiner can normally be reached 9 am - 6 pm, Monday - Friday.
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, Robert A. Wax can be reached on (571) 272-0623. 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.
/OLGA V. TCHERKASSKAYA/
Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights