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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group III, claims 7-17, drawn to a bacteriophage and pharmaceutical composition comprising the bacteriophage, in the reply filed on September 5, 2025, is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). In addition, newly added claim 18 is included for its dependency on claim 7.
Claims 1-5 and 7-18 are pending. Claims 1-5 are withdrawn as a result of the Restriction Requirement. The Restriction Requirement is hereby made Final.
Claim 7-18 are examined on their merit herein.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 7 is rejected as being indefinite for the recitation of “adipogenic group of bacteria” and a nucleic acid or polypeptide “at least 50 % of which is identical” to another.
Firstly, the claim is indefinite regarding the phrase or concept of “adipogenic group of bacteria” because it is not clear what it encompasses. The Specification has not clearly defined this concept. In places, the Specification states:
“The term “adipogenic bacteria species” is known to the person skilled in the art and pertains to at least one species of bacteria, preferably 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 or more bacteria species which directly or indirectly impact a human and/or animal organism in such a manner owing to their mode of living, e.g., via their molecular metabolism and/or their interaction with other bacteria species, yeasts and/or cells, that obesity, adiposity, overweight and/or weight gain is initiated, favored and/or increased by the structure, storing and/or decreased reduction of fat tissue, preferably of white adipose tissue. A person skilled in the art knows of a direct or indirect impact on the organism. Thus, they can, for example, directly affect the organism by destroying tissue of the organism, or they can indirectly affect the metabolic process or other processes in the organism, whereby, among other things, weight gain and/or a non-reduction of overweight can be initiated and/or favored. Furthermore, the person skilled in the art also understands that “adipogenic” in this context can also mean the corresponding bacteria species itself may not directly cause an adipogenic effect but that, however, it can be opposed to the growth, mode of life and/or survival of an anti-adipogenic bacteria species and in this manner has an adipogenic effect on the organism. Within the scope of the disclosure, it is conceivable that the adipogenic bacteria species can be present within the gastrointestinal tract of the human and/or animal organism, such as in the stomach and/or in the intestines.
The adipogenic bacteria species is chosen from but not limited to: Acinetobacter, Actinobacteria, Actinomyces, Bacilli, Bacteriodes, Bartonella, Bordetella, Borrelii, Brucella, Citrobacter, Campylobacter, Chlamydia, Clostridia, Corynebacteria, Desulfovibrio, Ehrlichia, Enterobacter, Enterobacteriaceae, Enterococcus, Erysipelotrichia, Escherichia, Faecalibacterium, Firmicutes, Francisella, Helicobacter, Hemophili, Klebsiella, Lactobacillus, Legionella, Leptospira, Listeria, Methanobrevibacter, Moraxella, Mycobacterium, Mycoplasmi, Neisserii, Nocardia, Oscillobacter, Paeruginosa, Prevotellaceae, Propionibacterium, Proteus, Pseudomonas, Rickettsia, Ruminococci, Salmonella, Shigella, Spirrillum, Spirochetes, Staphylococci, Stenotrophomonas, Streptobacilli, Streptococci, Treponema, Vibrio, Yersenia, Bifidobacterium, Blautia, Bulleidia, Coprococcus, Dialister, Eubacterium, Lachnospiraceae, Oribacterium, Roseburia, Christensenellaceae, Erwinia, Flavonifractor, Oscillospira, Phascolarctobacterium, Prevotella, Succinivibrio, Ruminococcus and/or Veillonella.
Furthermore, the adipogenic bacteria species is chosen from but not limited to: Acinetobacter baumannii, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus subtilis, Bacteriodes thetaiotaomicron, Bacteriodes vulgatus, Bartonella henselae, Bordetella pertussis, Borrelia recurrentis, Borrelia hermsii, Borrelia turicatue, Borrelia burgdorferi, Campylobacter jejuni, Citrobacter fruendii, Chlamydia psittaci, Chlamydia trachomatis, Chlamydia pneumoniae, Clostridium botulinum, Clostridium difficle, Clostridium tetani, Clostridium perfringens, Clostridium ramosum, Clostridium novyi, Clostridium septicum, Clostridium leptum, Corynebacteria diptheriae, Desulfovibrio piger, Ehrlichia chaffeensis, Enterococcus faecalis, Escherichia coli (for example EHEC, EIEC, ETEC), Faecalibacterium prausnitzii, Francisella tularensis, Helicobacter pylori, Hemophilus influenzae, Hemophilus parainfluenzae, Hemophilus aegyptus, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Lactobacillus reuteri, Legionella pneumophila, Leptospirex hemoragia, Leptospira icterohemorrhagiae, Listeria monocytogenes, Methanobrevibacter smithii, Moraxella catarrhalis, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Mycobacterium leprae, Mycobacterium asiaticum, Mycobacterium intracellulare, Mycobacterium avium-intracellulars, Myobacterium johnei, Mycobacterium avium, Mycobacterium smegmatis, Mycoplasma pneumoniae, Mycoplasma hominis, Neisseria meningitidis, Neisseria gonorrhea, Rickettsia prowozekii, Rickettsia rickettsia, Rickettsia akari, Propionibacterium acnes, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Pseudomonas syringae, Salmonella typhimurium, Salmonella typhi, Salmonella paratyphi, Salmonella schottmulleri, Salmonella hirshieldii, Shigella dysenteriae, Spirrillum minus, Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus epidermidis, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, Streptobacillus moniliformis, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus oralis, Streptococcus parasanguis, Streptococcus pyogenes, Streptococcus viridans, Streptococcus coelicolor, Streptococcus agalactiae, Streptococcus bovis, Treponema pallidum, Treponema pertainue, Treponema carateum, Vibrio cholera, Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Yersenia pestis, Yersinia enterocolitica, Bacteroides fragilis, Blautia hydrogenotorophica, Coprococcus catus, Eubacterium ventriosum, Bacteroides faecichinchillae, Bifidobacterium animalis, Blautia wexlerae, Clostridium bolteae, Flavonifractor plautii, Lactobacillus gasseri, Ruminococcus bromii and/or Ruminococcus obeum. In this case, it is presumed that the respective bacteria species has a known and/or suspected adipogenic effect on a human and/or animal organism.” (Specification, para. [0016]-[0019]).
This attempt of a definition is defective in unambiguously limiting the scope of the claim. This is because, firstly, the listed microorganisms are exemplary and non-limiting; and secondly, the recitations of “indirect effect”; those “may not” cause adipogenic effect, and those are “suspected” to have any adipogenic effect render the attempted definition defective.
The state of art, contrary to Applicant’s assertion (“The term “adipogenic bacteria species” is known to the person skilled in the art”), the content and extent of the term or concept of “adipogenic bacteria species” is still at the frontier of scientific exploration, and it is far from certain whether any given species of bacteria, or even strains within any species, is adipogenic or anti-adipogenic. For example, the Specification asserts that the “adipogenic bacteria species is chosen from but not limited to……. Bifidobacterium,……” (see citation above). However, Wu (2005, Wu, Hao, et al. Frontiers in Microbiology 15 (2025): 1488656.) teaches that Bifidobacterium pseudocatenulatum has anti-obesity effects (Abstract). Thus, at least in this example, it is not instantly clear to the person skilled in the art whether any species or strains of Bifidobacterium is adipogenic or anti-adipogenic.
Furthermore, Magne (Nutrients 12.5 (2020): 1474.) teaches the contradictory results observed when comparing the microbiota between normal-weight and obese subjects. Magne teaches that the relative abundance of the Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes phyla is highly variable between subjects from a same population; which is probably due to many lifestyle-associated factors including diet, physical activity, food additives and contaminants, antibiotic consumption, physical activity, among others that influence the composition of the microbiota in the gastrointestinal tract. Magne teaches that it is difficult to associate the Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio with a determined health status. Though the gut microbiota could contribute to the development of obesity, the evidence suggesting an association between obesity and alterations of the Firmicutes/Bacteroidetes ratio is not convincing. Magne teaches that it requires in future studies, necessary to improve the characterization of the subjects and to clearly identify the co-variables, which may affect microbiota composition and interfere with the interpretation of the results. Furthermore, Magne teaches that the concept of a unique taxonomic signature associated with obesity appears compromised. (p. 12, onclusion; Emphasis added).
Therefore, neither the Specification nor the state of the art has provided a clear definition of the phrase or concept of “adipogenic group of bacteria” to enable that a person skilled in the art to ascertain the metes and bounds of the claims.
On the issue of nucleic acid or polypeptide molecules “at least 50 % of which is identical” to another recited molecule, it is unclear whether the molecules as a whole have at least 50% sequence identity as determined by conventional sequence comparison algorithms (for example, BLAST). Alternatively, it is unclear whether 50% of the molecule is supposed to be identical to the reference, while the other half share no identity. Therefore, it is unclear which nucleic acid or polypeptide molecules falls within the claimed range. The metes and bounds are not clear.
Dependent claims 8-18 are included in this rejection for their failure to correct the deficiency above.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claims 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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. Claims 11-13 are each dependent on claim 7. Claims 11-13 recite the bacteriophage of claim 7 for use in a vast array of processes. However, the claims do no further limit the bacteriophage of claim 7. Therefore, the claims are not proper dependent claims. 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
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Written Description
Claims 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The claims are broad in the following aspects:
The group of bacteria to be targeted by the engineered bacteriophage; As discussed above in the Indefiniteness Section, neither the Specification nor the prior art has provided a clear definition of “adipogenic group of bacteria”. Even the exemplary list of species in the Specification comprises a broad and diverse range of bacteria species. For example, the Specification as cited above lists “[T]he adipogenic bacteria species is chosen from but not limited to: Acinetobacter, Actinobacteria, Actinomyces, Bacilli,……”. However, it is commonly known that Actinobacteria is a phylum characterized by a high diversity, encompassing numerous species with diverse ecological roles in marine, soil, and host environments; Actinomyces is a genus within the phylum Actinobacteria, with 41 species identified, primarily inhabiting the mouth, colon, and urogenital tract of humans; and Bacilli is a diverse class of bacteria, many of which form spores and are found in various environments like soil, water, and plants.
The bacteriophage that capable of targeting the broad scope of “adipogenic group of bacteria”. It is known in the art that the interaction between a bacteriophage and its bacterial host is specific. This is primarily due to the unique molecular interactions at the initial attachment stage where the phage's receptor binding proteins (RBPs) bind to specific receptors on the bacterial surface. This high specificity means a single phage type typically infects only a narrow range of bacterial species or even specific strains within a species, a trait crucial for applications like phage therapy. For example, Hatfull teaches a huge number of isolated actinobacteriophages (17,323), of which 3,055 are fully sequenced and their bacterial host strains span 14 genera, 70 species, and 110 individual strains. Hatfull further teaches that in general, the host ranges of these phages are narrow and typically do not extend to other host genera and commonly do not extend to other species within a genus (Hatfull, Annual review of virology 7 (2020): 37-61; at p. 3, “Bacterial Hosts and Host Ranges”).
The antibacterial nucleic acid molecules or polypeptides against the diverse range of bacterial hosts are broad in scope and diverse in their structure and function. For example, antimicrobial peptides can originate from bacteria, animals, fungi, or plants, and have different host specificity and mode of action (Zou, et al. Food & Function 14.12 (2023): 5492-5515).
Moreover, the claims are broad in encompassing a broad range of variants that are 50% identical to, or a fragment of, the broad range of antibacterial nucleic acid molecules or polypeptides.
In comparison to the broad scope of the claimed subject matter, it should be noted that Applicant has not described any bacteriophage that is “specific to at least one adipogenic group of bacteria”. As discussed previously, Applicant has not described any actual bacteria is an “adipogenic group of bacteria” with evidence supporting the classification. Furthermore, Applicant has not described any antibacterial nucleic acid molecules or polypeptides.
Regarding the “adipogenic group of bacteria”, Applicant merely listed almost all conceivable bacterial species without describing that any species is actually related to obesity or metabolism.
Regarding bacteriophages “specific” to any of the “adipogenic group of bacteria”, Applicant merely listed the definition of bacteriophages, and an almost complete list of all known bacteriophage families.
Regarding the antibacterial nucleic acid molecule or peptide, Applicant merely provides a definition of the term, without describing the necessary structural and identifiable features enabling them to be effective to any of the “adipogenic group of bacteria”.
As such, Applicant merely described a concept of a bacteriophage without providing any necessary structural and identifiable features.
In summary, the specification does not contain a written description of the invention in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art could conclude that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing.
The field of biological methods using genetic recombination is unpredictable, and success often requires actual testing rather than just theoretical considerations. The application's description does not specifically detail the production of the bacteriophage or demonstrate its ability to reduce fat-producing bacteria. For example, Łobocka (2021) teaches that although it is generally believed that environmental phage population is so numerous and diversified that there exists a phage for each and every bacterial strain, however, to be considered for therapeutic applications, natural phage isolates must meet certain criteria. For obvious reasons the choice is limited to phages that are obligatorily lytic to kill every infected bacterium, do not transfer bacterial DNA, and do not encode any toxins, virulence factors, or antibiotic resistance determinants. Additionally, each phage for therapy should be well characterized at the genomic and proteomic level, as well as at the level of interaction with its host(s) and the host’s host. It should efficiently lyse the target bacteria, have the widest possible strain range within a pathogenic species, be sufficiently stable under storage conditions and at the sites of infection by the bacteria, be able to overcome at least some bacterial phage-resistance mechanisms, and cause no undesired immune reactions. Łobocka teaches that although hundreds of phages targeting bacterial pathogens have been isolated, none of them fulfills all these criteria, and in fact, none has been characterized with respect to all of them. This testifies the complexity and lack of description of a bacteriophage suitable for the claimed purpose. (Łobocka, BioDrugs 35.3 (2021): 255-280. P. 257)
At the time of filing, implementing this method was not considered common technical knowledge. Therefore, the description and existing common knowledge do not demonstrate that the claimed method was achievable. A person skilled in the art would not be able to implement the claimed invention based on the disclosure.
Therefore, based on the lack of specific examples, the unpredictable nature of the technology, and the failure to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention, the written description is insufficient under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 7-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collins (US9056899B2, 2015).
Claim 7 is drawn to a bacteriophage comprising a non-naturally occurring nucleic acid functionally bound to a promoter and/or a regulatory element, the bacteriophage being specific to at least one adipogenic group of bacteria and the nucleic acid comprises a non-naturally occurring nucleic acid sequence encoding an antibacterial nucleic acid molecule or polypeptide.
As discussed above, the Specification has not provided a clear definition of adipogenic group of bacteria. The state of art does not clearly define the adipogenic group of bacteria. As such, one reasonable interpretation is made based on the exemplary species listed in the Specification (see citation above).
Collins discloses an engineered bacteriophage comprising a nucleic acid operatively linked to a promoter, wherein the nucleic acid encodes a bacterial porin or porin-like protein of the OMP superfamily. (Claim 1); an engineered bacteriophage which comprises a nucleic acid encoding an agent which inhibits at least one gene involved in antibiotic resistance; e.g., an engineered bacteriophage can comprise at least 2, 3, 4,5 or even more, different nucleic acids which inhibit at least one gene involved in antibiotic resistance; e.g., dsRNA inhibiting essential genes required for bacterial cellular survival (Example 10). As such, Collins discloses the claimed bacteriophage comprising a non-naturally occurring nucleic acid sequence encoding an antibacterial nucleic acid molecule or polypeptide.
Collins discloses that the engineered bacteriophage as described above use to kill or reduce the viability of a bacterium, for example a bacterium such as, but not limited to: Bacillus cereus, Bacillus anbhracis, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus anthracia, Clostridium botulinum, Clostridium difficle, Clostridium tetani, Clostridium perfringens, Corynebacteria diptheriae, Enterococcus (Streptococcus D), Lieteria monocytogenes, Pneumoccoccal infections (Streptococcus pneumoniae), Staphylococcal infections and Streptococcal infections; Gram-negative bacteria including Bacteroides, Bordetella pertussis, Brucella, Campylobacter infections, enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli (EHEC/E. coli 0157:17), enteroinvasive Escherichia coli (EIEC), enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC), Haemophilus influenzae, Helicobacter pylori, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Legionella spp., Moraxella catarrhalis, Neisseria gonnorrhoeae, Neisseria meningitidis, Proteus spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Vibrio cholera and Yersinia; acid fast bacteria including Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Mycobacterium avium-intracellulars, Myobacterium johnei, Mycobacterium leprae, atypical bacteria, Chlamydia, Myoplasma, Rickettsia, Spirochetes, Treponema pallidum, Borrelia recurrentis, Borrelia burgdorfii and Leptospira icterohemorrhagiae, Actinomyces, Nocardia, P. aeruginosa, A. bumannii, Salmonella spp., Klebsiella pneumonia, Shigeila spp. and/or Stenotrophomonas maltophilia and other miscellaneous bacteria. (Col. 59)
Collins discloses the exemplary bacteriophages which can be engineered as described above, and which are specific for the bacterial species listed above.
Although Collins are silent regarding any of the bacteria as being directed linked to obesity, many if not all the species listed above are the same as those listed in the instant Specification (for example, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus subtilis; Escherichia coli EHEC, EIEC, and ETEC), as being “adipogenic group of bacteria”. Therefore, Collins discloses the claimed engineered bacteriophage comprising a heterologous regulatory element-controlled nucleic acid encoding an antimicrobial nucleic acid or polypeptide for killing or inhibiting bacterial species that are adipogenic according the interpretation based on the instant disclosure.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Collins discloses two or more (see above).
Regarding claim 10, Collins discloses Clostridium botulinum, Clostridium difficle, Clostridium tetani, Clostridium perfringens (see citation above) which are species of Firmicutes.
Regarding claims 11-18, Collins discloses treating a bacterial infection (Abstract, Col. 59; and throughout the disclosure); the bacteriophage, and the instruction for use.
Therefore, claims 7-18 are anticipated by the prior art.
Claims 7 and 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Bridgewater (WO2018170118A1, Published September 22, 2018).
Regarding claim 7, Bridgewater discloses method and compositions for treating obesity, inflammation, or metabolic disorders with bacteriophages; (Title), the composition for altering an intestinal microbiome of a subject to treat obesity, inflammation, or obesity-associated metabolic disorders comprising an amount of a bacteriophage strain (Claim 1); wherein the concentration of the pathogen induces obesity, inflammation, or an obesity-associated metabolic disorder and the bacteriophage strain has an infectivity specific to a species of the pathogen (Claim 1). The pathogen (bacteria) that induces obesity, inflammation, or an obesity-associated metabolic disorder reads on the instantly recited term “adipogenic group of bacteria”
Bridgewater discloses recombinant bacteriophages, that has been genetically modified by insertion of a heterologous nucleic acid sequence into the genome or the genome of a naturally-occurring phage is modified by recombinant DNA technology to introduce a heterologous ernucleic acid sequence into the genome at a defined site; [0025]; and wherein the recombinant bacteriophage capable of infecting and lysing the pathogen (Claim 57);
Furthermore, Bridgewater discloses that the recombinant bacteriophage strains of various embodiments is prepared by inserting a polynucleotide into the genome of the isolated bacteriophage strain, where the polynucleotide encodes for an antibacterial protein. Although Bridgewater is silent regarding the functionally attached promoter and/or a regulatory element, it is inherently within the scope of the art that such are included for expressing the inserted polynucleotide encoding the antibacterial protein.
Therefore, claim 7 is anticipated by Bridgewater.
Regarding claims 11-18, Collins Bridgewater discloses treating a bacterial infection; the composition comprising the bacteriophage, and the instruction for use.
Therefore, the claimed invention is anticipated by the prior art.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIHUA FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9-5.
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, Amjad A Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-7058. 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.
WEIHUA . FAN
Examiner
Art Unit 1663
/WEIHUA FAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1663