DETAILED ACTION
Applicant’s response, filed May 23 2026, has been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous Office Actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 .
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 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 Status
Claims 1, 4-6, and 9-10 are pending.
Claims 2-3 and 7-8 are canceled.
Claim 4 is objected to.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 9-10 are rejected.
Priority
Applicant's claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application, PCT/KR2020/018343, filed Dec 15 2020, is acknowledged.
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to App. No. KR10-2020-0009519, filed Jan 23 2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Should the applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 USC 119(a)-(d), a certified English translation of the foreign priority application must be submitted. Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Accordingly, each of claims 1, 4-6, and 9-10 are afforded the effective filing date of Jan 23 2020.
Claim Interpretation
The limitations which previously invoked interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) in the previous Office Action have been amended. The limitations no longer invoke interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) because the claims recite the steps performed by the “postbiotic-based health index calculation unit” to perform the recited function, as argued by Applicant at p. 7-8 of Applicant’s remarks.
Claim Objections
Unless otherwise noted, the outstanding objections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted herein.
The claims are objected to because of the following informalities. The instant objection is maintained from the previous Office Action.
In claim 4, the comma at the end of limitation 2 should be changed to a semicolon.
Response to Applicant Arguments
At p. 6, Applicant submits that they have amended claim 4 to address the outstanding objections. Applicant has not amended claim 4 to address one of the objections, which is accordingly maintained.
Claim Rejections- 35 USC § 112
Unless otherwise indicated, the outstanding rejections to the claims are withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted herein.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention. The instant rejection is either newly stated and is necessitated by claim amendment, or is maintained and updated based on claim amendment.
Claim 1, limitation 5, recites “wherein the postbiotic-based health index is calculated based on a ratio of acetic acid to propionic acid and butyric acid constituting short chain fatty acids in the culture”. However, limitations 6-9 recite “wherein the calculating of the postbiotic-based health index includes: calculating a first difference value representing a difference in an acetic acid content between the at least one culture and a control group not treated with the intestinal environment-improving candidate material, and a second difference value representing a difference in a butyric acid content between the at least one culture and the control group; and selecting the at least one intestinal environment-improving candidate material based on an angle on a coordinate plane between an X-axis and a line connecting an origin to a coordinate point having the first difference value and the second difference value, and wherein the coordinate plane has the X-axis representing the difference in the acetic acid content and a Y-axis representing the difference in the butyric acid content”. Therefore, it is not clear whether the postbiotic-based health index is calculated based on a ratio of acetic acid to propionic acid and butyric acid because the limitations further limiting the calculating of the postbiotic-based health index do not include propionic acid. The latter limitations refer only to the differences between acetic acid and butyric acid. It is noted that Applicant appears to be claiming two separately disclosed embodiments for calculating the postbiotic-based health index (see the specification as published at [0060-0063] for a first example of calculating the ratio of acetic acid to butyric and propionic acid as a postbiotic-based health index, and [0068-0079] for a second, distinct example for using the angle of the graphed difference between each of acetic acid and butyric acid in control and treated conditions). For compact examination, it is assumed that at least “wherein the calculating of the postbiotic-based health index includes: calculating a first difference value representing a difference in an acetic acid content between the at least one culture and a control group not treated with the intestinal environment- improving candidate material, and a second difference value representing a difference in a butyric acid content between the at least one culture and the control group; and selecting the at least one intestinal environment-improving candidate material based on an angle on a coordinate plane between an X-axis and a line connecting an origin to a coordinate point having the first difference value and the second difference value, and wherein the coordinate plane has the X-axis representing the difference in the acetic acid content and a Y-axis representing the difference in the butyric acid content” is required, although the role of propionic acid in the calculation is not clear. The rejection may be overcome by clarifying what features are used to calculate the postbiotic-based health index. Claim 6 is similarly rejected. Claims 4-5 and 9-10 are rejected based on their dependency from claims 1 and 6.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the product for improving an intestinal environment includes at least one of… food, functional food…”. It is not clear how the term “functional” is intended to further limit the term “food” because there is no discussion provided in the claims or the specification. Food is defined as “material consisting essentially of protein, carbohydrate, and fat used in the body of an organism to sustain growth, repair, and vital processes and to furnish energy” (merriam-webster.com/dictionary/food), which indicates that food in general is functional as it provides energy to an organism for growth. Therefore, it is further not clear how the terms “food” and “functional food” in the claim are differentiated. For compact examination, any food will be considered to read on both “food” and “functional food”. The rejection may be overcome by clarifying the interpretation of the term. Claim 10 is similarly rejected.
Response to Applicant Arguments
At p. 8, Applicant submits that the claims have been amended to overcome the rejections. However, it is considered that the amendment of claims 5 and 10 do not resolve the issues presented in the previous Office Action. The rejection is therefore maintained, as described above.
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, 4-6, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more. Any newly recited portions are necessitated by claim amendment.
MPEP 2106 organizes judicial exception analysis into Steps 1, 2A (Prongs One and Two) and 2B as follows below. MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter;
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea;
Step 2A, Prong Two: If the claims recite a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and
Step 2B: If the claims do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims:
Step 1
With respect to Step 1: yes, the claims are directed to a method and a server, i.e., a process, machine, or manufacture within the above 101 categories [Step 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.03].
Step 2A, Prong One
With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas. The MPEP at 2106.04(a)(2) further explains that abstract ideas are defined as:
mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical relationships and mathematical calculations);
certain methods of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices or principles, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people); and/or
mental processes (procedures for observing, evaluating, analyzing/ judging and organizing information).
The claims also recite a law of nature or a natural phenomenon. The MPEP at 2106.04(b) further explains that laws of nature and natural phenomena include naturally occurring principles/relations and nature-based products that are naturally occurring or that do not have markedly different characteristics compared to what occurs in nature.
With respect to the instant claims, under the Step 2A, Prong One evaluation, the claims are found to recite abstract ideas that fall into the grouping of mental processes (in particular procedures for observing, analyzing and organizing information) and mathematical concepts (in particular mathematical relationships and formulas) as well as a law of nature or a natural phenomenon are as follows:
Independent claim 1: calculating a postbiotic-based health index of the at least one culture;
wherein the postbiotic-based health index is calculated based on a ratio of acetic acid to propionic acid and butyric acid constituting short chain fatty acids in the culture,
wherein the calculating of the postbiotic-based health index includes:
calculating a first difference value representing a difference in an acetic acid content between the at least one culture and a control group not treated with the intestinal environment- improving candidate material, and a second difference value representing a difference in a butyric acid content between the at least one culture and the control group; and
selecting the at least one intestinal environment-improving candidate material based on an angle on a coordinate plane between an X-axis and a line connecting an origin to a coordinate point having the first difference value and the second difference value, and
wherein the coordinate plane has the X-axis representing the difference in the acetic acid content and a Y-axis representing the difference in the butyric acid content.
Independent claim 6: … calculates a postbiotic-based health index of at least one culture obtained by treating the sample in vitro;
wherein the postbiotic-based health index is calculated based on a ratio of acetic acid to propionic acid and butyric acid of short fatty acids in the culture,
wherein the postbiotic-based health index calculation unit:
calculates a first difference value representing a difference in an acetic acid content between the at least one culture and a control group not treated with the intestinal environment- improving candidate material, and a second difference value representing a difference in a butyric acid content between the at least one culture and the control group; and
selects the at least one intestinal environment-improving candidate material based on an angle on a coordinate plane between an X-axis and a line connecting an origin to a coordinate point having the first difference value and the second difference value, and
wherein the coordinate plane has the X-axis representing the difference in the acetic acid content and a Y-axis representing the difference in the butyric acid content.
Dependent claims 4-5 and 9-10 recite further steps that limit the judicial exceptions in independent claims 1 and 6 and, as such, also are directed to those abstract ideas. For example, claims 4 and 9 further limit the calculating the postbiotic-based health index to selecting the one with the greatest difference between a control in which the sample is not treated with any intestinal environment-improving candidate material; and claims 5 and 10 further limit the product for improving an intestinal environment in the culture to at least one of probiotics, prebiotics, food, health functional food and drug, which further limits the conditions of the culture used to calculate the postbiotic-based health index.
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) and determined to each cover performance either in the mind and/or by mathematical operation because the method only requires a user to manually calculate a postbiotic-based health index. Without further detail as to the methodology involved in “calculating” and “selecting”, under the BRI, one may simply, for example, use pen and paper to calculate such an index using the results of a sample cultured with at least one intestinal environment-improving candidate material and select a candidate material based on the calculated value. The step of “calculating” further requires mathematical techniques as the only supported embodiments, as calculating in the independent claims indicates a mathematical function of calculating a ratio, a difference, and angles on a coordinate plane in relation to the X-axis and Y-axis, which describe a mathematical concept in words. Further support for the mathematical techniques used in the claims is provided in the specification at [0055-0063], which describes equations for calculating the ratio of short chain fatty acids, and [0066-0069], which describes an equation for calculating the difference between treated and control cultures.
The claims also recite determining a natural relationship between the microbes already present in the sample and their interaction with the at least one intestinal environment-improving candidate material. Therefore, the claims recite a law of nature or a natural phenomenon.
Therefore, claims 1 and 6 and those claims dependent therefrom recite an abstract idea and a law of nature/natural phenomenon [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES; See MPEP § 2106.04].
Step 2A, Prong Two
Because the claims do recite judicial exceptions, direction under Step 2A, Prong Two, provides that the claims must be examined further to determine whether they integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim can be said to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application when it applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is performed by analyzing the additional elements of the claim to determine if the judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).I.; MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the judicial exceptions, the claim is said to fail to integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d).III).
Additional elements, Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to the instant recitations, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Independent claims 1 and 6: receiving registration of a kit for collecting a sample from a user device; and
recommending at least one product for improving the intestinal environment, the at least one product including the at least one intestinal environment-improving candidate material based on the postbiotic- based health index of the at least one culture.
Independent claim 1: obtaining at least one culture by treating the sample in vitro with at least one intestinal environment-improving candidate material.
Dependent claims 4 and 9 recite steps that further limit the recited additional elements in the claims by further limiting the recommending to the product with the greatest difference.
The claims also include non-abstract computing elements. For example, independent claim 1 includes that the method is performed by a solution providing server, and independent claim 6 includes a solution providing server comprising a kit registration unit, a postbiotic-based health index calculation unit, and a product recommendation unit.
Considerations under Step 2A, Prong Two
With respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements of the claims do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following reasons. Those steps directed to data gathering, such as “receiving” data and “obtaining” a culture by “treating” the sample, and to data outputting, such as “recommending” a product, perform functions of collecting and outputting the data needed to carry out the judicial exceptions. Data gathering and outputting do not impose any meaningful limitation on the judicial exceptions, or on how the judicial exceptions are performed. Data gathering and outputting steps are not sufficient to integrate judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Further steps directed to additional non-abstract computing elements of claim 6 do not describe any specific computational steps by which the “computer parts” perform or carry out the judicial exceptions, nor do they provide any details of how specific structures of the computer, such as the computer-readable recording media, are used to implement these functions. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, and therefore the claim does not integrate that judicial exceptions into a practical application. The courts have weighed in and consistently maintained that when, for example, a memory, display, processor, machine, etc.… are recited so generically (i.e., no details are provided) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer, and these limitations may be viewed as nothing more than generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the computer system contains the recited units (i.e., software) that are used for receiving registration of a kit and recommending at least one product (which are data gathering and outputting elements that do not integrate the judicial exceptions) and a calculating a postbiotic-based health index (which does not integrate the judicial exceptions but merely applies them to a computer). Thus, the limitations only generically link the use of the judicial exceptions to the technological environment of a computer.
The specification as published discloses that the method is a solution for improving an intestinal environment at [0031], but does not provide a clear explanation for how the additional elements provide these improvements. Therefore, the additional elements do not clearly improve the functioning of a computer, or comprise an improvement to any other technical field. Further, the additional elements do not clearly affect a particular treatment; they do not clearly require or set forth a particular machine; they do not clearly effect a transformation of matter; nor do they clearly provide a nonconventional or unconventional step (MPEP2106.04(d)).
Thus, none of the claims recite additional elements which would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are directed to one or more judicial exceptions [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO; See MPEP § 2106.04(d)].
Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05.A i-vi)
According to analysis so far, the additional elements described above do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. A determination of whether additional elements provide significantly more also rests on whether the additional elements or a combination of elements represents other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Conventionality is a question of fact and may be evidenced as: a citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates a well-understood, routine or conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to one or more of the court decisions as discussed in MPEP 2106(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); a citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); and/or a statement that the examiner is taking official notice with respect to the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
With respect to the instant claims, the prior art review to Loius et al. (Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2014, Nature Reviews Microbiology, 12(10):661-672 (1-12 in the attached version); newly cited) disclose that treating gut microbiota or cultured isolates with different diets (p. 1, col. 1, par. 2; p. 4, col. 1, par. 2 through col. 2, par. 2), or “obtaining at least one culture by treating the sample in vitro with at least one intestinal environment-improving candidate material” as in claim 1, is a well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. Further, the courts have found that receiving and outputting data are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions of a computer when claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity (see Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information), buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network), Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015), and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). As such, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(d)). The data gathering steps as recited in the instant claims constitute a general link to a technological environment which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept which would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP2106.05(g)&(h)).
With respect to claims 1 and 6 and those claims dependent therefrom, the computer-related elements or the general purpose computer do not rise to the level of significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims state nothing more than a generic computer which performs the functions that constitute the judicial exceptions. Hence, these are mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions using a computer, which the courts have found to not provide significantly more when recited in a claim with a judicial exception (Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984; see MPEP 2106.05(A)). The specification also notes that computer processors and systems, as example, are commercially available or widely used at [0039]. The additional elements are set forth at such a high level of generality that they can be met by a general purpose computer. Therefore, the computer components constitute no more than a general link to a technological environment, which is insufficient to constitute an inventive concept that would render the claims significantly more than the judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(b)I-III).
Taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself [Step 2B: NO; See MPEP § 2106.05].
Therefore, the instant claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to one or more judicial exceptions without significantly more. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to the MPEP § 2106.
Response to Applicant Arguments
At p. 9, par. 2-3, Applicant submits that the amended claim 1 is not merely directed to an abstract idea or natural phenomenon because it involves a physical in vitro treatment step.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. At Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are examined limitation by limitation to identify whether the claimed concept (the specific claim limitation(s) that recite an exception) aligns with at least one judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.04(I)). That the claims recite limitations which are not considered to align with a judicial exception does not negate that the claim also recites other limitations which do align. Therefore, it is maintained that claim 1 recites a judicial exception. At Step 2A, Prong 2, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims as a whole are directed to a judicial exception or a practical application of the judicial exception. While the step of “obtaining at least one culture…” indicated by Applicant is considered to recite an additional element at Step 2A, Prong 2, this additional element merely serves a data gathering function for the judicial exceptions when the claims are considered as a whole. As described in the above rejection, data gathering does not provide a practical application of the judicial exception, because all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data gathering. Therefore, the claims are considered to be directed to a judicial exception at Step 2A, Prong 2.
At p. 9, par. 4, Applicant submits that claim 1 is not directed to a natural phenomenon because the claim involves creating an artificial environment for the sample to interact with the intestinal environment-improving candidate material.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. As set forth in the above rejection, the natural phenomenon in the claims is the natural relationship between the microbes already present in the sample and their interaction with the at least one intestinal environment-improving candidate material. It is considered that the natural phenomenon in the claims is the natural response of the microbes in the culture to the candidate material. The microbes themselves are not changed in any manner from those that are naturally occurring, and their response, which is being measured and used to calculate the postbiotic-based health index, is their natural response to any candidate material.
At p. 9, par. 5 through p. 10, par. 1, Applicant submits that the limitation directed to “recommending” the product is a practical application because the claim does not stop at calculating the index but requires a recommendation based on the index, which provides a practical application like a step of treating a patient.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. The limitation directed to “recommending” the product is an additional element which merely represents outputting a candidate material, which is a data outputting step. Data outputting does not provide a practical application at Step 2A, Prong 2, as discussed in the above rejection, because all uses of the recited judicial exception require such data output.
At p. 10, par. 2, Applicant submits that the claims, when considered as a whole, provide an improvement in the technical field of personalized intestinal-environment solutions.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. As set forth in the above rejection, the only additional elements in the claim as a whole function as either insignificant extra-solution activity or mere “apply it” steps to a computation environment. Therefore, there is no improvement realized in the claims that can provide a practical application. The analysis at Step 2A, Prong 2, considers the claims as a whole, i.e., the additional elements in combination with the judicial exceptions (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), although the integration or improvement provided in the claim must flow from the additional elements and not the judicial exceptions to be considered persuasive. Applicant has not demonstrated how the additional elements of the claim contribute to an improvement.
At p. 10, par. 3-4, Applicant submits that the limitations directed to selecting the candidate material based on an angle on a coordinate plane provides an inventive concept.
It is respectfully submitted that this is not persuasive. MPEP 2106.05(d) sets forth that, at Step 2B, it is the additional elements which are examined to determine whether they are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. While the claims are considered as a whole at Step 2A, Prong 2, Step 2B requires examining only the additional elements, either alone or in combination with one another, for conventionality. An “inventive concept” is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966)). The limitations pointed to be Applicant are considered to recite a judicial exception as described above and are therefore not considered at Step 2B.
At p. 10, par. 5 through p. 11, par. 2, Applicant submits that claim 6 should similarly be found patent eligible.
For the reasons discussed above in relation to claim 1, claim 6 is found to be patent ineligible
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 & 103
The outstanding rejections from the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted herein. As set forth in Applicant’s arguments at p. 11-13, neither Gurry (US 2022/0351803) nor Holzapfel et al. (WO 2019/168,391) teach the newly added limitations directed to “wherein the calculating of the postbiotic-based health index includes: calculating a first difference value representing a difference in an acetic acid content between the at least one culture and a control group not treated with the intestinal environment-improving candidate material, and a second difference value representing a difference in a butyric acid content between the at least one culture and the control group; and selecting the at least one intestinal environment-improving candidate material based on an angle on a coordinate plane between an X-axis and a line connecting an origin to a coordinate point having the first difference value and the second difference value, and wherein the coordinate plane has the X-axis representing the difference in the acetic acid content and a Y-axis representing the difference in the butyric acid content”.
Double Patenting
The outstanding rejections from the previous Office Action are withdrawn in view of the amendments submitted herein. As set forth in Applicant’s arguments at p. 13, neither U.S. Patent No. 11,237,172 nor U.S. Patent No. 12,282,026 disclose the newly added limitations directed to “wherein the calculating of the postbiotic-based health index includes: calculating a first difference value representing a difference in an acetic acid content between the at least one culture and a control group not treated with the intestinal environment-improving candidate material, and a second difference value representing a difference in a butyric acid content between the at least one culture and the control group; and selecting the at least one intestinal environment-improving candidate material based on an angle on a coordinate plane between an X-axis and a line connecting an origin to a coordinate point having the first difference value and the second difference value, and wherein the coordinate plane has the X-axis representing the difference in the acetic acid content and a Y-axis representing the difference in the butyric acid content”.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
The claims appear to be free of the prior art. Neither Gurry (US 2022/0351803), Holzapfel et al. (WO 2019/168,391), nor any art of record or art identified through the indicated searches teach the newly added limitations directed to “wherein the calculating of the postbiotic-based health index includes: calculating a first difference value representing a difference in an acetic acid content between the at least one culture and a control group not treated with the intestinal environment-improving candidate material, and a second difference value representing a difference in a butyric acid content between the at least one culture and the control group; and selecting the at least one intestinal environment-improving candidate material based on an angle on a coordinate plane between an X-axis and a line connecting an origin to a coordinate point having the first difference value and the second difference value, and wherein the coordinate plane has the X-axis representing the difference in the acetic acid content and a Y-axis representing the difference in the butyric acid content”.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANNA NICOLE SCHULTZHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-0812. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8-4.
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, Olivia Wise can be reached on (571)272-2249. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/JANNA NICOLE SCHULTZHAUS/Examiner, Art Unit 1685
Prosecution Insights