Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/797,968

COMPOSITION OF LACTIC ACID BACTERIUM FOR USE IN PREVENTING OR TREATING RETT SYNDROME

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Aug 05, 2022
Examiner
FAN, LYNN Y
Art Unit
1759
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
National Taiwan University
OA Round
2 (Final)
47%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 9m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 47% of resolved cases
47%
Career Allow Rate
221 granted / 472 resolved
-18.2% vs TC avg
Strong +49% interview lift
Without
With
+48.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 9m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
522
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§103
45.5%
+5.5% vs TC avg
§102
11.2%
-28.8% vs TC avg
§112
25.2%
-14.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 472 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Applicant’s amendment and response filed on 12/1/2025 have been received and entered into the case. Claim 14 has been canceled. Claims 1-13 and 15 are pending, Claims 4-9 have been withdrawn, and Claims 1-3, 10-13 and 15 have been considered on the merits, insofar as they read on the elected species of improvement in cognition. All arguments have been fully considered. Withdrawn Objections Objections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. Withdrawn Rejections Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. Rejections of Claims 1-2 and 10-13 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu et al (Nutrients. 2019;11(4):820.) as evidenced by Neul (Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2012;14(3):253-262.) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. Rejections of Claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (Nutrients. 2019;11(4):820.) as evidenced by Neul (Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2012;14(3):253-262.) and in view of Clarkson et al (Intellect Dev Disabil. 2017;55(6):419-431.) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. Rejections of Claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (Nutrients. 2019;11(4):820.) as evidenced by Neul (Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2012;14(3):253-262.) and in view of Bendheim et al (https://www.mountsinai.org/care/neurology/services/movement-disorders. 2018;1.) are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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 of this title, 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 1-2, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (Nutrients. 2019;11(4):820.) in view of Mayo (Rett syndrome – Augusta Health. 2018;1-5.). The instant claims recite a method for treating Rett syndrome in a subject in need thereof, comprising administering a composition comprising an effective amount of Lactobacillus plantarum subsp. plantarum PS128 and a carrier thereof to the subject. Liu teaches a method for studying the effects of Lactobacillus plantarum PS128 on boys with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) aged 7-15 (Title, Abstract), comprising administering probiotic capsules comprising an effective amount of Lactobacillus plantarum PS128 and a carrier thereof to the boys, wherein said probiotic capsules are orally administrated, both probiotic capsules and the carrier are pharmaceutically acceptable, said probiotic capsules contains at least 1 x 109 CFU of the Lactobacillus plantarum PS128, probiotic capsules are administered for at least one week (Abstract, p.3 para 3), and Lactobacillus plantarum PS128 may improve behavioral or social communicative traits of children with ASD, and the scores associated with anxiety and rule-breaking behaviors are nominally reduced in the PS128 group after four-week consumption of PS128 (p.10 para 2). Liu does not teach treating Rett syndrome in a subject in need thereof (claim 1), and the method further comprises administering physical therapy and occupational therapies (claim 15). However, Liu does teach the method comprising administering a composition comprising an effective amount of Lactobacillus plantarum PS128 and a carrier thereof to a subject, wherein PS128 reduces anxiety and may improve behavioral or social communicative traits. Mayo teaches that Rett syndrome signs and symptoms include fears and anxiety (p.1 Symptoms), and anxiety and problem behavior may hinder social functioning (p.3 para 1). Mayo teaches treatments that can help patients with Rett syndrome include physical therapy and occupational therapy (p.4 para 1). Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to administer Lactobacillus plantarum PS128 to a subject having Rett syndrome, since Mayo discloses that Rett syndrome signs and symptoms include fears and anxiety, and anxiety and problem behavior may hinder social functioning, and Liu discloses that Lactobacillus plantarum PS128 reduces anxiety and may improve behavioral or social communicative traits. In addition, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to administer physical / occupational therapy to a subject having Rett syndrome, since Mayo discloses treatments that can help patients with Rett syndrome include physical therapy and occupational therapy. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited references to administer Lactobacillus plantarum PS128 and physical / occupational therapy to a subject having Rett syndrome with a reasonable expectation of success. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al (Nutrients. 2019;11(4):820.) in view of Mayo (Rett syndrome – Augusta Health. 2018;1-5.) as applied to claims 1-2, 10-13 and 15 above, further in view of Clarkson et al (Intellect Dev Disabil. 2017;55(6):419-431.). References cited above do not teach the method wherein the improvement in cognition is assessed by Mullen Scales of Early Learning (claim 3). Clarkson teaches Mullen Scales of Early Learning is a viable measure for accurately assessing developmental domains in children with Rett syndrome (Abstract). Thus, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Mullen Scales of Early Learning, since Clarkson discloses that Mullen Scales of Early Learning accurately assesses developmental domains in children with Rett syndrome, Mayo discloses that Rett syndrome signs and symptoms include fears and anxiety, anxiety and problem behavior may hinder social functioning, and Liu discloses that Lactobacillus plantarum PS128 reduces anxiety and may improve behavioral or social communication. Moreover, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the cited reference to incorporate Mullen Scales of Early Learning with a reasonable expectation of success. Response to Arguments Applicant argues that the disclosure of PS128 on autism spectrum disorder by Liu fails to anticipate the method for treating Rett syndrome claimed in the present application. However, these arguments are moot since those rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. Applicant argues that cited references fail to disclose Rett syndrome, much less teach or suggest the effectiveness of PS128 on treating Rett syndrome. However, these arguments are moot since those rejections are withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments. Conclusion No claims are allowed. 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 extension fee 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. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNN Y FAN whose telephone number is (571)270-3541. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7am-4pm. 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, Curtis Mayes can be reached on (571)272-1234. 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. /Lynn Y Fan/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1759
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 05, 2022
Application Filed
May 27, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Dec 01, 2025
Response Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12578336
ATP DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12570924
CONTACT LENS CLEANING AGENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564202
COMPOSITION FOR ALLEVIATING, PREVENTING OR TREATING SARCOPENIA, CONTAINING WHEY PROTEIN HYDROLYSATE AS ACTIVE INGREDIENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12558386
METHODS AND COMPOSITIONS TO MODULATE ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCE AND GASTROINTESTINAL MICROBIOTA
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12550887
PERFUSION SOLUTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
47%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+48.7%)
3y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 472 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month